A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Thinking for a Change

Abstract

Due to the popularity of cognitive behavioral interventions, programs that follow this model are often assumed to be effective. Yet evaluations of specific programs have been slow in coming. The current investigation seeks to bridge this gap by evaluating the effectiveness of Thinking for a Change (TFAC), a widely used cognitive behavioral curriculum for offenders. Furthermore, this evaluation provides a “real-world” test of TFAC, because it was implemented by line staff in a community corrections agency as opposed to being a pilot project implemented by program developers. The results of the analyses indicate that offenders participating in the TFAC program had a significantly lower recidivism rate than similar offenders that were not exposed to the program.

Which Criminogenic Need Changes Are Most Important in Promoting Desistance From Crime and Substance Use?

“…Interventions designed to restructure cognitions (such as problem-solving skills and cognitive patterns) typically focus on examining and then changing thought patterns. A quasi-experimental study of the Thinking for a Change curriculum, a well-known intervention to facilitate such cognitive changes, found that offenders exposed to this curriculum were less likely to be rearrested than others (Lowenkamp, Hubbard, Makarios, & Latessa, 2009). The study did not directly measure criminal thinking, antisocial cognitions, character patterns of offending behaviors, or motivation to change.…”

Evaluation of a cognitive‐behavioral intervention for high‐ and medium‐risk probationers

“…Probationers who missed more than three sessions were terminated from the program. As noted earlier, prior studies provided preliminary evidence that the T4C program may be effective for reducing recidivism among high‐risk probationers (Golden et al, ; Lowenkamp et al, ).…”

“…This study extends prior studies by making several methodological improvements over the previous studies. First, we included larger samples of probationers in the treatment and comparison groups than did the Golden et al () study [and a slightly larger sample than in the Lowenkamp et al () study]. Second, the current study employed survival analytic methods, which have several advantages over the chi‐squared ( χ 2 ) and regression techniques used in prior studies; among the most important of these are that survival analyses provide a more sensitive measure of differential change over time and permit the study of change across diverse follow‐up intervals.…”

Evaluation of CHANGE, an Involuntary Cognitive Program for High-Risk Inmates

“…There has been little, if any, research on programs where the incarcerated offender was required to participate. Further, there has been a concern in the literature about quasiexperimental evaluations where selection bias may be an issue (Lowencamp et al, 2009;Wilson et al, 2005). This study expands the literature by including a randomly assigned experimental and control group, both of which were based on institutional misbehavior where inmates were involuntarily placed in the program.…”

“…For example, many states have initiated the use of reintegration and work release as an alternative to long sentences (Lowencamp, Hubbard, Markarios, & Latessa, 2009). Successful low-cost interventions that target inmate violence and misconduct within the prison and encourage prosocial behavior once released need to be reestablished into prison programming.…”