The impact of motivation of sexual offenders' progress in treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation is often presented as a major contributor to treatment outcome; however, empirical study demonstrating its specific influence on treatment is uncommon, even more rare is the examination of it among offender populations. The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of offender motivation on progress in community-based, sex offender programming in order to validate it as a significant responsivity variable in correctional treatment. One hundred and three adult male offenders undergoing treatment in the community completed the Attitudes Toward Correctional Treatment Scale (Baxter, Marion & Goguen, 1995), University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (McConnaughy, DiClemente, Prochaska & Velicer, 1989), Relapse Prevention Knowledge Questionnaire (Beckett, Fisher, Mann & Thornton, 1996), Goal Attainment Scale (Hogue, 1993), and the Sex Offence Information Questionnaire (Hogue, 1993) on two occasions. The definition of motivation was based on client engagement factors and framed within the transtheoretical model of change. The results supported that stage of change generally functioned as predicted in the theoretical model and was related to variance in attitudes toward correctional treatment. Motivation also influenced the offenders' self-evaluation; the concordance with treatment providers' appraisals was greater with higher motivation. Level of motivation was associated with suspensions but not with revocations and technical violations. In sum, motivation was substantiated as a significant client variable that influenced treatment. It is therefore recommended that motivation, as a facet of the therapeutic alliance, be considered a responsivity variable and that future research focus on the clarification of its role in the treatment process with the objective of enhancing the efficacy of correctional interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".