An Evaluation of the HM Prison Service “Thinking Skills Programme” Using Psychometric Assessments

Abstract

The most widely implemented offending behaviour programme in the United Kingdom was Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS), a cognitive-behavioural group intervention that aimed to develop participant's general cognitive skills. A new offending behaviour programme has been developed to replace ETS: the Thinking Skills Programme (TSP). This study reports an evaluation of the effectiveness of TSP using psychometric assessments. Phasing of the two programmes created an opportunity to compare the two programmes consecutively. Forty participants, 20 from each programme, completed a range of psychometric measures to examine cognition, attitudes, and thinking styles. Analysis of pre- and post-programme psychometric results indicated that participants of TSP demonstrated improvements on 14 of the 15 scales, 9 of which were statistically significant. Effect sizes between pre-post results were generally greater for TSP than ETS, demonstrating that TSP had a more positive impact on the thinking styles and attitudes of participants than the ETS programme.

Evaluation of a cognitive skills programme for male prisoners – exploring treatment effectiveness

“…These results are similar to previous research (e.g. Gobbett & Sellen, 2014;McDougall et al, 2009). There was also unexpected significant group differences, the most notable being that of victim hurt denial increasing.…”

“…Its application as a measure of treatment impact has been questioned. Psychometric evaluation is an alternative to this and a standard element of treatment evaluation that captures changes in specific areas targeted by treatment (Gobbett & Sellen, 2014). Positive changes have been reported; McDougall et al (2009) demonstrated treatment effects with a large matched control group using adult male prisoners where impulsivity reduced, offence-focused attitudes decreased, and more personal responsibility was indicated.…”

“…Positive changes have been reported; McDougall et al (2009) demonstrated treatment effects with a large matched control group using adult male prisoners where impulsivity reduced, offence-focused attitudes decreased, and more personal responsibility was indicated. Small scale studies not employing a control sample have also demonstrated positive change following treatment on similar areas (Gobbett & Sellen, 2014). Some evaluations have, however, employed incorrect methods of analysis (as noted by Serin et al, 2013), failing to report the significance of clinical change (e.g.…”

“…Some evaluations have, however, employed incorrect methods of analysis (as noted by Serin et al, 2013), failing to report the significance of clinical change (e.g. Reliability Criterion) between pre and post time periods (Gobbett & Sellen, 2014), or have adopted overly-stringent approaches to calculating clinical change that fail to account for the specifics of the sample. Indeed, there has been a focus on determining recovery on outcome measures as opposed to improvement (Wise, 2004), with the latter potentially a more realistic outcome for a short term intervention dealing with entrenched attitudes and behaviour.…”

“…Measures: The following measures were employed (seeMcDougall et al, 2009 andGobbett &Sellen, 2014 for additional detail on each measure). Crime PICS II: 20 items considering attitudes towards offending, with an additional 15 items that capture problems prisoners expect to be presented with. Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS): 80 items relating to eight unhelpful thinking styles, i.e. mollification (justification); cut off (elimination of criminal deterrents); entitlement; power orientation (using aggression to control); sentimentality (self-centred approach to offence atonement); super optimism (failing to account for reality of negative consequences of offending); cognitive indolence (impulsive problem-solving); and discontinuity (inadequate self-discipline), with two validity scales (confusion and defensiveness).…”