Evaluation of a cognitive skills programme for male prisoners – exploring treatment effectiveness
| Pages | 244-249 |
| Date | 05 December 2016 |
| Published date | 05 December 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-06-2016-0011 |
| Author | Jane L. Ireland,Jackie Bates-Gaston,Kevin Markey,Leah Greenwood,Carol A. Ireland |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
Brief research paper
Evaluation of a cognitive skills programme
for male prisoners –exploring treatment
effectiveness
Jane L. Ireland, Jackie Bates-Gaston, Kevin Markey, Leah Greenwood and Carol A. Ireland
Jane L. Ireland is a Professor of
Forensic Psychology at the
School of Psychology,
University of Central
Lancashire, Preston, UK and
Ashworth Hospital, Mersey
Care NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Jackie Bates-Gaston is a
Former Chief Psychologist and
Kevin Markey is a Psychology
Assistant, both at the
Northern Ireland Prison
Service, Belfast, UK.
Leah Greenwood is a Research
Assistant and Doctoral Student
at The University of Central
Lancashire, Preston, UK and
Mersey Care NHS Trust,
Lancashire, UK.
Carol A. Ireland is a Consultant
Forensic Psychologist at the
School of Psychology,
Universityof Central Lancashire,
Preston, UK and at CCATS
Coastal Child and Adult
Treatment Service, Poulton
Le-Flyde, UK.
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to provide an evaluation of a cognitive skills programme (Enhanced
Thinking Skills) with adult prisoners.
Design/methodology/approach –A pre- and post-treatment design with 171 male prisoners, using
self-report psychometric measures.
Findings –Significant differences were found in the direction expected. Clinical recovery using stringent
methods was not indicated, although improvement/partial response was across a number of domains.
Practical implications –Expectations for treatment outcome for short-term interventions should be more
realistic; cognitive skills programmes may be best considered as precursors to longer term therapies;
treatment outcome should focus on improvement and not recovery.
Originality/value –This study represents the first prison study to distinguish between levels of positive
change. It questions previous interpretations of treatment outcome.
Keywords Prisoners, Reliable change, Treatment, Clinical change, Cognitive skills, Positive change
Paper type Research paper
Cognitive skills group-based programmes, such as Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS),
Reasoning and Reh abilitation, and the Thinking Skill s programme have be en widely
implemented in prisons as a means of reducing re-offending and risk. All share the
principles of cognitive behavioural therapy and focus on developing skills in perspective taking,
self-control, an d problem solving .
Two sets of outcome measures have generally been employed; re-conviction and
psychometric evaluation. Mixed results have been found. For example, a large scale
evaluation for mal e prisoners demons trated a 14 per cent r eduction in offend ing for
medium-low-ris k offenders and 11 pe r cent for medium-h igh-risk offende rs at a two-year
follow up (Friends hip et al., 2003). However, no differences were found between the treatment
and control group in a follow up study (Falshaw et al., 2004). Re-conviction data does tend to
be highly skewed and represent a measure of re-conviction but not offending (Serin et al.,
2013). Its applica tion as a measure of tr eatment impact has b een questioned. P sychometric
evaluation is an alt ernative to this and a standard element of treatme nt evaluation that captures
changes in specific areas targeted by treatment (Gobbett and Sellen, 2014). Positive
changes have been reported; McDougall et al. (2009) demonstrated treatment effects
with a large matched con trol group using ad ult male prisoners w here impulsivity r educed,
offence-focussed attitudes decreased, and more personal responsibility was indicated.
Received 9 June 2016
Revised 5 July 2016
Accepted 6 July 2016
The views expressed in this report
are those of the authors and not
the NI Prison Service.
PAGE244
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE
j
VOL. 2 NO. 4 2016, pp.244-249, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841 DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-06-2016-0011
To continue reading
Request your trial