The aim of the current study was to revise an existing measure of distorted cognitions, creating the How I Think Questionnaire -Intellectual Disabilities (HIT-IDs), and to investigate the reliability and validity of the revised questionnaire. To achieve our aims, we recruited 97 men with intellectual disabilities (IDs), with or without a history of engaging in criminal behaviour, and interviewed them on two occasions, inviting them to complete the HIT-IDs, along with measures of moral development and empathy. The results indicated that the internal consistency of the HIT-IDs was acceptable, and the test-retest reliability was good. The HIT-IDs discriminated well between offenders and non-offenders, and as expected, correlated positively with a measure of moral development and negatively with a measure of empathy. The HIT-IDs is a reliable and valid measure for use with men who have IDs.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to record and analyse clinicians' views of the proposed FACE Child and Adolescent Risk Assessment Suite (CARAS). This is a novel risk assessment system comprising a set of screening questions and domain specific sub-schedules intended to be implemented in electronic format within a youth mental health setting. Design/methodology/approach -A qualitative approach was adopted with a series of focus groups conducted with three Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) teams drawn from general and specialised services in a large NHS Trust in North-East England. A thematic analysis was used to explore the perceived clinical relevance, clarity and utility of the items that are contained within the FACE Child and Adolescent Risk Assessment Suite. Findings -Emerging themes highlighted that items such as criminality and fire-setting be added to the violence risk assessment schedule; a structured approach for risk of sexual harm be utilised; and an eating disorder risk assessment be included. Practical implications -Clinicians viewed the FACE Child and Adolescent Risk Assessment Suite as a structured and comprehensive risk management tool that also demonstrated potential clinical utility. CAMHS clinicians' views of the potential benefits of risk assessment schedules appear to be influenced by the perceived balance between comprehensiveness and ease and rapidity of administration. Further studies relating to validity and reliability are currently ongoing. Originality/value -This is the first qualitative exploration of a comprehensive and flexible approach to risk assessment in a youth mental health setting.

The aims of this study were to examine: (a) whether men with intellectual disabilities who have a history of criminal offending attend to affective pictorial stimuli in a biased manner, and (b) whether there is a relationship between an affective attentional bias and offense‐supportive cognitions, empathy, and moral reasoning. Forty‐six men with intellectual disabilities who had a documented history of criminal offending, and 51 men who also had intellectual disabilities, but no such history, were recruited and asked to complete a computer‐based dot‐probe task using affective pictorial stimuli with randomization, along with measures of distorted cognitions, empathy, and moral reasoning. Those with a history of criminal offending endorsed significantly more offense‐supportive cognitions, had significantly lower general empathy, and more “mature” moral reasoning, as well as a significant attentional bias toward affective pictorial stimuli. Attentional bias significantly predicted offense‐supportive cognitions, and vice versa, having controlled for offense history, and Full‐Scale IQ, but this was not the case for empathy or moral reasoning. While the findings require replication, interventions that aim to modify attention bias with this population should be tested.

No abstract

No abstract