The Effectiveness of a Strength-Based Sexual Offending Treatment Program for Men With Serious Mental Illness: Evaluation of Therapeutic Change and Recidivism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an evaluation of a strength-based, cognitive-behavioral therapy program provided to individuals with a serious mental illness who had committed a sexual offense. Utilizing an intent-to-treat design, individuals who participated in treatment were compared with a group of untreated men on treatment-relevant measures and recidivism. Individuals who completed treatment demonstrated greater change in perceptions of working alliance and dynamically assessed risk to re-offend compared to noncompleters. During the 18-month fixed follow-up period, 3.7% re-offended sexually, 20.4% re-offended violently, and 39.8% re-offended generally. After controlling for baseline risk, participation in treatment was significantly associated with an approximate two-thirds decrease in the hazard of future violent (including sexual) recidivism. High-risk, untreated men in our sample showed significantly higher rates of violent recidivism than the treated groups. Results support the utility of a strength-based approach among men residing in an institutional setting and presenting with a serious mental illness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".