A multi-site randomized controlled trial of a cognitive skills programme for male mentally disordered offenders: social–cognitive outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive skills programmes have been associated with improvements on psychometric measures and reductions in antisocial behaviour in mentally disordered offenders (MDOs). However, to date there have been no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of such programmes with this population. In the first RCT of a cognitive skills programme with MDOs we aimed to determine if participation in the Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R) programme was associated with improvements in social-cognitive skills and thinking styles. METHOD: A total of 84 men with a primary diagnosis of psychotic disorder and a history of violence were recruited from medium-secure forensic units and allocated to receive R&R (n=44) or treatment as usual (TAU; n=40). At baseline and post-treatment interviews, participants completed questionnaires to assess social problem-solving, criminal attitudes, anger experience, blame externalizing and perspective-taking. Researchers were not blind to group status. RESULTS: The R&R group demonstrated significant improvements on measures of social problem-solving relative to the TAU group, some of which were maintained at 12 months post-treatment. Only half of those allocated to receive R&R completed the full programme. In post-hoc analyses programme completers showed improvements in social problem-solving at the end of treatment and changes in criminal attitudes at 12 months post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among male MDOs, R&R participation was associated with improvements in social-cognitive skills, some of which were maintained for up to 12 months post-treatment. Our finding that programme completers do better may reflect pre-treatment patient characteristics. This study establishes that multi-site RCTs can be conducted in medium-secure forensic units.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".