UK Home Office: PC44

RE-LAUNCH OF ACCREDITED
PROGRAMME EVALUATION Probation

MEASURES (PSYCHOMETRICS) Circular
PURPOSE REFERENCE NO:
To provide information about the re-launch of the Evaluation Measures 44/2004
(Psychometrics) for the General Offending Behaviour Programmes.
ACTION ISSUE DATE:
Chief Officers should ensure that:
28 July 2004
1. Areas make arrangements to adopt the revised measures.
2. Areas implement the changes to quality assurance and administration.
IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
3. The Evaluation Measures are input into either IAPS or the Excel spreadsheet
Immediate
and returned to NPD as required.
4. Programmes Managers nominate a contact responsible for the Evaluation
Measures. EXPIRY DATE:
5. Appropriate staff attend the regional re-launch events and research meeting. June 2008
SUMMARY
The circular announces the re-launch of the Accredited Programme Evaluation TO:
Measures. Steps to be taken to improve the quality of the Evaluation Measures are Chairs of Probation Boards
described. Information about how areas might make best use of the measures are Chief Officers of Probation
provided. Details of the new Evaluation Manual and test materials are included as Secretaries of Probation Boards
appendices. The arrangements for training events and meetings related to the re-
launch are provided. CC:
Board Treasurers
RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS Regional Managers
PC123/2001 Psychometric Testing for GOBPs
PC152/2001 What Works Implementation III AUTHORISED BY:
PC52/2002 Psychometric Testing Strategy and Training
Meg Blumsom, Head of Offender
PC64/2002 Psychometric Test Review Behaviour Programme
PC74/2002 PC23/2003 review of Psychometric tests
PC 36 /2004 IAPS software ATTACHED:
Appendix A
CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES
Appendix B
Evaluation Measures: Danny Clark, Head of Psychology, tel. 0207 217 0675
Relaunch: Diane Anderson, PIM, tel. 0207 217 8895 Appendix C
IAPS: Liz Calvert, tel. 0207 217 8046 Appendix D
Returning data to NPD: Wendy Smith-Yau, tel. 0207 217 8148 Appendix E
Test Booklets: Razak Moghal, tel. 0207 217 0679
Contact nominees: Ruth Taylor, tel. 0207 217 0677
National Probation Directorate

Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London, SW1P 2AW General Enquiries: 020 7217 0659 Fax: 020 7217 0660
Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection

Why is there a need for a re-launch?
The re-launch of the General Offending Behaviour / Cognitive Skills Programmes Evaluation Measures is being
undertaken for a number of reasons:
• To reduce the number of measures being undertaken. This process commenced with the previous withdrawal of
three measures detailed in PC 64/2002. The battery is now reduced to three questionnaires for General Offending
Behaviour Programmes. The questionnaire booklets have been re-designed.
• To establish a clear and consistent understanding of the new measures and their use, and improve overall
performance underpinning evidence based practice.
• To improve the consistency and quality of data collation. Recent trawls of information demonstrated that many test
booklets are incomplete with a high level of missing data, and inconsistency in the data collated.
• To align measures with HMPS. The Correctional Service Accreditation Panel has approved the amended measures
for both Services.
• To introduce a measure of attitudes towards racial diversity.
The re-launch will be regional and the key issues and messages will be consistent; however, the means of addressing
them will vary. For some regions this circular might be all that is required to make the appropriate alterations to practice,
others may wish to organise events to adopt changes. NPD staff are available as a resource for regional launch events,
but rather than adopt a ‘one-size-fits-all’, the aim is for the events to be tailored to local needs. The responsibility for co-
ordinating the relaunch within regions rests with the Regional What Works Manager.
The purpose of intermediate (psychometric) Evaluation Measures

The purpose of intermediate (psychometric) evaluation is to assess the impact of specific interventions upon groups of
individuals who take part in accredited programmes. The 'what works' literature highlights the importance of having
evaluation procedures built into programmes to ensure that they are meeting their stated aims and objectives, as part of a
continuous process of review. The ultimate effectiveness of programmes for offenders is determined by whether
participants change their behaviour, measured via a reduction in the severity, type and number of re-convictions.
Reconviction studies take a minimum of 2-3 years to complete and give little immediate feedback to staff and evaluators
on changes in behaviour. Psychometric assessments are standardised self-report measures which provide an
intermediate measure of the impact of programmes, reporting on changes in attitude and behaviour post programme
delivery. The main purposes of these assessments are: to quality control programme delivery; to measure the
effectiveness of the programme in specific target areas; to evaluate the programme in accordance with accreditation
criteria; and to inform the design and development of the programme. Appendix A includes the Evaluation Manual which
details the assessment measures to be used for the GOBPs (General Offending Behaviour Programmes).
Using the measures

The Evaluation Measures used for the GOBPs are not specifically designed for individual feedback. (This is not
necessarily the case for tests used in some other accredited programmes, e.g. sex offender assessments and tests which
are completed as part of a programme session). If feedback is demanded for an individual on a GOBP, it should be
undertaken by someone who is competent to interpret the measures, as advised by the British Psychological Society.
The reason for this is that a detailed knowledge is needed not just of the measures and the meaning of the results, but
also of the principles of psychometric testing. Psychometric tests should not be interpreted in isolation; knowledge is
needed of the offender’s performance during the programme and an interview needs to be held in which personal factors,
which may have influenced the results, can be identified.
The use of the scores from the measures at group level can provide good local management information about the
effective operation of programmes. Group results can be compared by site or area over time. The analyses of attrition
rates and the selection of offenders can be improved by the addition of Evaluation Measure information.
NPD will provide reports on the use of the measures and will evaluate programmes on a national basis. An example of
recent analysis using the existing measures can be found in Appendix B. The analysis demonstrates that the Think First
programme produces significant changes in the attitudes and thinking of offenders who complete the programme, but
there is variability across areas as to the level of change achieved.
Probation areas and regions are encouraged to use their own data locally to evaluate programmes. A newsletter is now
planned to promote and share existing ideas and practice of how accredited programme research and information is
PC44/2004 - Re-launch of Accredited Programme Evaluation Measures (Psychometrics) 2

constructively being utilised. We would welcome any studies that have been undertaken by areas to include them in the
newsletter. Please send them to: Ruth Taylor, Room 223, 2nd Floor, Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London. Email
– ruth.taylor@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
NPD has organised two research seminars aimed at raising awareness about using the aggregated data for management
information and programme evaluation. The meetings will be of particular interest to Research and Information Officers
or psychologists. The events will be held on 8/9/04 at NPD, London and 1/10/04 at the Yorkshire and Humberside
Consortium, Leeds. Probation areas are asked to nominate 1 or 2 members of staff to attend one of these events. The
Nomination Form is found at Appendix C.
Quality Assurance
There have been a number of shortcomings in the administration, entry and collation of the test measures in the past.
This has resulted in much of the data collected by areas not reaching NPD and a large percentage of the data received
being of insufficient quality because of missing data or identifiers. Some of these problems have arisen due to system
failures and others may be due to lack of clarity about how the process should be managed and quality assured.
Programme Manager
The Programme Managers’ Strategy states the need to identify a responsible manager for overseeing performance
management regarding the completion of data and input into IAPS. It is the responsibility of the Programme Manager to
ensure that resources are in place for the administration of the Evaluation Measures. The Programme Manager should
also ensure that that the data is forwarded to NPD for evaluation, along with other information required for monitoring and
evaluation purposes. Monitoring and evaluation procedures will be audited by NPD on behalf of the accreditation panel.
Periodic checks (ideally every three months) should be made on the quality of data being returned to NPD by the
Programme Manager. The Programme Manager has a responsibility to promote the importance of the tests throughout
the organisation.
IAPS
The new GOBP Evaluation Measures will be available in IAPS by the week commencing 9 August 2004. PC 36/2004
explains how the data should be entered into IAPS and sent to NPD. IAPS will contain the old and the new measures for
a limited time until all areas have completed the change. IAPS also provides reporting options for areas including output
of the data in a spreadsheet format which will allow local interrogation of the measures. For areas not yet using IAPS (i.e.
the non-NPSISS areas, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Bedfordshire and Norfolk) an Excel spreadsheet is available from NPD,
which allows the data to be entered and scored. The scores can then be transferred to a spreadsheet. Those areas who
cannot yet use IAPs must return a copy of the spreadsheet to Wendy Smith-Yau, Room 223, 2nd Floor, Horseferry House,
Dean Ryle Street, London SW1P 2AW quarterly. A copy of the spreadsheet can be obtained from the same address.
Quality of Administration
The quality of the administration procedure is the ultimate responsibility of the Programme Manager. Assessment and
evaluation are integral to the quality of delivery of the programme and should be managed as such. It is the duty of
Programme Managers to ensure that enough staff involved in the programme are appropriately trained to administer the
measures. Quality assurance procedures should be carried out every three months to ensure that measures are being
administered correctly, that offenders are being encouraged to complete all questions and that the quality of completion
achieved is acceptable. This may involve managers occasionally observing testing sessions, but it is not a requirement
that sessions should be video taped. Quality assurance should include checking a random selection of completed
booklets, discussion of administration problems in team meetings, and supervision with the administrators to resolve
quality control problems.
Area Contacts
As part of the re-launch strategy, the need to establish clear communication between areas and NPD psychologists was
identified as a means of improving the quality of implementation. Programme Managers are, therefore, tasked with
identifying one individual in their area to be responsible for the psychometric testing of programmes. The contact name
and details should be sent to Ruth Taylor by the end of August 2004 and any change in the named person is updated as
and when necessary. Programme Managers may consider it appropriate to undertake this role themselves.

The New Evaluation Measures
The Questionnaires
NPD has worked collaboratively with the Prison Service to establish a degree of commonality across programme
Evaluation Measures. In deciding which measures should be part of the new battery for GOBPs, a number of factors
were taken into consideration. Measures that had proved to be over burdensome and those which have been shown to
be unreliable or not measure change were removed. Where more than one measure existed for a specific treatment
target, the shortest or least complex measure was chosen. All the new Evaluation Measures are multiple choice, which
means they are easier for staff to administer and for offenders to complete. The scoring is entirely automated which
saves time. The total number of separate items in the Evaluation Measures has been reduced so that they can be
completed in less time than the original measures. The new format of the evaluation booklets presents the measures as
three rather than five questionnaires. The questionnaire booklets have been re-designed with a new layout, larger fonts
and simplified instructions, which should assist offenders in completing the measures. Details of the Measures are found
in Appendix A and the evaluation booklets are attached at Appendix E. Copies of the new booklets will be available from
NPD from the end of July - contact Razak Moghal – email: razak.moghal@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
A new scale, the QDI (Quick Discrimination Index) which deals with discriminatory attitudes, has been introduced as part
of Questionnaire 2. NPD has a commitment to the provision of intervention for racially motivated offenders. The
Accreditation Panel has advised that RMOs should attend GOBPs with some additional structured work, because there is
little evidence that they have different criminogenic needs to other offenders. There is a need to evaluate the
effectiveness of GOBPs in addressing discriminatory and racist attitudes. The QDI is broader than most racial attitude
scales: it was designed to apply across racial and ethnic groups and provide a general measure of receptivity to
multiculturalism. The scale consists of 20 items divided into two: attitudes to racial diversity, and affective attitudes
towards more personal contact with racial diversity. The QDI provides the opportunity to create an evidence base in this
important area. Some of the vocabulary used in the QDI might prove difficult for offenders so the Offending Behaviour
Programmes Team is actively seeking ways of simplifying the items, while maintaining the reliability and validity of the
measure. Definitions of two of the most difficult terms are given in the Evaluation Manual. Administrators are encouraged
to explain these in the session.
Administration and Interpretation
Administrators
Anyone trained to administer the original test battery can administer the new measures. Administrators will need to
familiarise themselves with the new measures so that they can answer questions about specific items and paraphrase if
necessary, although no additional formal training is required. New administrators will continue to be trained on a regional
or area basis, but from now trainers should use the new questionnaires. Competencies for administrators are given in
Appendix D.
Conditions of Administration
NPD recognises that areas often have difficulty getting offenders to complete the questionnaires, especially the post
programme evaluations. This has not been helped by some of the restrictions placed around the administration of
measures. To assist completion, some changes have been agreed to allow more flexibility:-
• Programme tutors may administer both the pre and post programme psychometrics, provided they have attended the
administration training.
• Post programme Evaluation Measures may be incorporated into the final session of a programme or completed
immediately before or after the final session, if administrators find this helpful. (This avoids the need for attendance
at a separate testing session).
• Areas are reminded that the pre programme evaluation measures are valid for 3 to 6 months and offenders do not
have to retake the assessments before they re-start a programme in this time frame.
Interpretation
The new Evaluation Manual contains norms (average scores and standard deviations for comparison groups) which will
assist in the interpretation of the measures. The Evaluation Measures are intended primarily for use in aggregated form
to assess the effectiveness of programme delivery, at course delivery site or area level. Reporting from IAPS will allow

areas to score and use the measures in this way. The research meetings will provide information for staff to assist in the
interpretation of the measures on a group basis.
NPD will provide revised interpretation training for staff who have already been trained to interpret the original measures.
This half-day training will be provided regionally/nationally on the basis of need following negotiation with RWWMs. For
new staff wishing to attend interpretation training the criteria established in PC 52/2002 still apply. NPD will continue to
provide interpretation training nationally for new staff meeting these criteria.
Implementing the new measures

Areas will be keen to move quickly to the new measures, given the time saving. NPD is leaving the option of when to
make the move to areas. All areas must have commenced using the new measures by January 1st 2005. Areas should
inform Ruth Taylor – email: ruth.taylor@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, and their RWWM when they intend to make the change
over.
When changing to the new measures there will be a period of overlap. Programme participants who commenced their
group with the original measures should complete the original set again at the end of the programme. For ETS and TF
this change over phase should not be more than a few months. However, for the Priestly One–to–One programme this
could last longer given the average time taken to complete the programme.
Future Work
The changes explained in this circular are only concerned with the GOBP measures. NPD have plans over the coming
months to review the Evaluation Measures attached to the other types of accredited programme. Further information will
be available later.

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004
General
Offending
Behaviour /
Cognitive Skills
Programmes
EVALUATION MANUAL
and Scoring Supplement
NPD OBP 2004 1

CONTENTS
Section 1 - Introduction
• Introduction and purpose
Section 2 - Issues in assessment
• Assessment issues
• Social and ethical implications of testing
• Administrator qualifications
• Scoring and interpretation
• Confidentiality of results
• Recording and storing of assessments
Section 3 - Uses of assessments
• Measuring programme effectiveness

• Reporting of assessments to staff and other professionals
• Reporting of assessments to offenders
• Identifying further treatment targets
Section 4 - Assessment measures
• Treatment targets
• Assessment measures
• Brief description of questionnaires
• Questionnaire One
Impulsivity - Eysenck
Socialisation - Gough
• Questionnaire Two
Locus of Control – Craig, et al.
Quick Discrimination Index
Crime PICS
PICTS- Current Scale
Questionnaire Three
Social Problem Solving- Freedman
Appendices
Appendix I: References
Appendix II: Principles of Administration
Scoring Supplement -
Questionnaires, Scoring and Norms
NPD OBP 2004 2

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
Introduction and purpose

The General Offending Behaviour / Cognitive Skills Programmes are intended
for offenders who have committed a criminal offence and have been assessed
through the programme selection matrix or OASys as showing specific
cognitive deficits. This manual outlines the procedures required for the
psychometric assessment of offenders assigned to the General Offending
Behaviour / Cognitive Skills programmes in the community, which include the
following:
Reasoning and Rehabilitation

Enhanced Thinking skills
Think First
One to One
The manual is divided into sections covering:

• Assessment issues
• Guidance about who can administer and score the assessments
• Use of the assessments
• The self-report assessment tools to be used along with supporting
documentation in the appendices
• References
• Guidance about test administration
The purpose of psychometric evaluation is to assess the impact of specific

interventions upon groups of individuals who take part in the programme. The
'what works' literature highlights the importance of having evaluation
procedures built into programmes to ensure that they are meeting their stated
aims and objectives as part of a continuous process of review. Many
programmes are very successful, showing positive changes in offenders'
NPD OBP 2004 3

behaviour and attitudes. However, poor programmes can lead to higher rates
of recidivism among groups of offenders.
The ultimate effectiveness of programmes for offenders is determined by

whether they change their behaviour, measured via a reduction in the
severity, type and number of re-convictions. Reconviction studies take a
minimum of around 2-3 years to complete and give little immediate feedback
to staff, offenders and evaluators on changes in behaviour.
Psychometric assessments are standardised self-report measures that

provide an intermediate measure of the impact of programmes, reporting on
changes in attitude and behaviour during and immediately after programme
delivery. This manual outlines assessment measures that should be used to
assess change in the prime treatment targets targeted by the programmes.
The main purposes of these assessments are:
• to establish quality control of programme delivery

• to measure effectiveness of the programme in specific target areas
• to evaluate the programme in accordance with accreditation criteria
• to drive the development of the programme
This manual will outline how assessment is made. Any questions about the
use of the evaluation manual or measures should be directed to the Offending
Behaviour Programmes Team.
NPD OBP 2004 4

SECTION 2 - ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT
This section deals first with general issues around the use of psychometric
assessments and then outlines some issues relating to reporting of results
and storing of information.
Assessment Issues
The quality of the assessment procedure is ultimately the responsibility of the
Programme Manager. Assessment and evaluation are integral to the proper
delivery of the programme and should be managed as such. It is the duty of
Programme Manager to ensure that enough staff involved in the programme
are appropriately trained to administer the questionnaires. It is the
responsibility of the Programme Manager to ensure that resources are in
place for the administration of the psychometrics. The Programme Manager
should also ensure that that the questionnaire data is forwarded to NPD for
evaluation, along with other information required for monitoring and evaluation
purposes. Monitoring and evaluation procedures will be audited by NPD on
behalf of the accreditation panel.
Social and ethical implication of testing

In both research and practical applications of testing procedures a number of
ethical issues are raised for those administering and scoring assessments.
These include the qualifications of the testers, and access to and the use of
the results in treating offenders. Putting in place stringent controls over the
use of such assessments ensures that the offender's rights are maintained.
Administrator qualifications
Psychometric assessments should only be administered by staff who have
been trained in test administration. To administer the measures to offenders,
the administrator must have attended a relevant training course deemed
NPD OBP 2004 5

appropriate by the Offending Behaviour Programmes Team. Relevant

training in line with these recommendations, to enable services to administer
the range of tests required for the community programmes, should be
provided on a regional or area basis. There is a number of staff in each
region who are trained to provide administrator training. Once trained, staff
may administer psychometric tests for any of the accredited programmes,
except the sex offender programmes. It is the duty of the administrators to
familiarise themselves with the test before administration.
For all programmes in the community the Programme Manager should ensure
that the relevant member of staff administers the tests. Ideally the
administrators should not be involved in administering tests to offenders
attending a group which they will also tutor. It is recognised that in many
cases this will be impractical and, if necessary, tutors who are trained
administrators can administer the tests to their own participants.
The role of the psychologist will vary according to the availability of this
specialist resource but where possible they should be involved in maintaining
the quality and consistency of test administration.
A Probation Circular (PC 59/2003) has been issued regarding the

establishment of a Joint Prison/Probation Psychology Service and it is
anticipated that all areas will have access to appropriately supervised
psychologists.
Scoring and Interpretation

The GOBPs psychometric test scoring is automated by either inputting the
test data into IAPS or the Excel spreadsheet that can be obtained from NPD
Offending Behaviour Programmes Team.
Ethically any professional should only work within the bounds of their own
competence. This involves the user demonstrating knowledge and
understanding of the psychometric principles underlying test construction,
NPD OBP 2004 6

knowledge of the tests, when to use them, scoring and interpretation and
meaningful feedback to others (Psychological testing: A Users Guide (British
Psychological Society (BPS), 1995).
The interpretation of clinical impact results for individual offenders is not

recommended but where demanded should only be carried out by qualified
personnel, who have been trained to interpret the test results. This includes
individuals who have attained BPS Level A testing or have attended other
recognised courses, such as those provided by the Offending Behaviour
Programmes Team for particular assessment measures. This ensures that
Services are in a defensible legal position. It may also be advisable, if this
person is a Chartered Psychologist, for them to have legal insurance in cases
where offenders may dispute decisions about treatment. Some measures are
copyright. Those interpreting the results should also read the references for
each measure as given in the references section of this manual.
Interpretation of group data is less problematic, but requires a reasonable

degree of numeracy and familiarity with tests. Group results should be shared
with managers and tutors, as described in Section Three.
Confidentiality of results
Scores from assessments should be kept confidential. Only staff qualified to
interpret the results should have access to the raw data. Before they complete
the assessments, the offenders should be told who will have access to the
results.
Recording and storing of assessments

It is the responsibility of the Programme Manager to ensure that the data is
entered into IAPS or the spreadsheet supplied by NPD. The integrity of the
data should be routinely checked to ensure that mistakes have not been
made in data entry. Assessment material should be securely stored for a
minimum of six months after completion of the order or licence, or longer if the
NPD OBP 2004 7

data has not been entered. This will ensure that the questionnaires will be
available to be viewed if needed and that evaluators can check questionnaires
if necessary.
NPD OBP 2004 8

SECTION 3 – THE USE OF ASSESSMENTS
Measuring Programme Effectiveness
It is a requirement of accreditation that programmes are evaluated. This is a

safeguard for offenders to ensure that they are participating in a process,
which has proven benefits. The programmes have been designed and
selected on the basis of their ability to demonstrate change in offenders.
Psychometrics are integral to the measurement of effectiveness. The use of
psychometric assessment enables the Probation Service to demonstrate
effective practice in the reduction of offending.
It has been said that reconviction is the ultimate measure of effectiveness but
measurement of progress during the programme is important. Reconviction
studies take some years to complete and are subject to variation in policing
and sentencing practice. More immediate feedback is needed both by
management at local level and NPD.
There is an increasing concern in the implementation of large-scale

programme delivery that the offenders selected are the most appropriate to
benefit from the programmes. This is being achieved through standardised
interview assessment and risk calculation based on previous history. The self-
report measures of the battery can be used to make an important contribution
to the development of this process:
• to ensure the quality of programme integrity and delivery
• to ensure that the programme is reaching the specified target behaviours
and attitudes
• to allow controlled programme development
• to measure progress at local and national level
• to examine area and regional differences
• to examine effectiveness of the programme for types of offender
• to examine targeting of offenders for programmes
NPD OBP 2004 9

At a local level one use of the measures, along with other measures, is to
assess the extent to which a group of offenders have changed during the
programme. In most cases, the measures consist of a mixture of offenders’
self-reports of attitudes or behaviour and some performance measures. In
some situations other measures, such as checklists, will have been used to
directly assess offenders’ behaviour.
Progress can be measured by a movement towards the attainment of the

required skill in a number of ways:
a) Programme group change should not be assessed on movement of just
one treatment target, but should be assessed by a number of measures
covering a range of targets. Change on just one measure should be
viewed carefully as they may indicate other factors having an effect. In
interpreting the scores caution should be exercised as some measures
have better psychometric properties than others. Follow-up data is a
useful indicator of continued change. There may be some indication that
offenders' scores at follow-up are reverting back to the original level, but if
the scores remain in the right direction this may indicate progress.
b) A test of significance should be applied to pre and post programme results

to assess whether progress has been statistically significant. Pre-
programme variation should be accounted for in the analyses.
c) It is also considered important that any change found should represent

movement towards appropriate non-offending norms.
Further advice on the results can be obtained from the Offending Behaviour
Programmes Team.
Reporting of assessments
For research and evaluation purposes the interpreted results by group without
individual identification may be distributed more widely, provided they are
NPD OBP 2004 10

presented in a clear, meaningful and useable format to prevent misuse or

misunderstanding.
Reporting to staff and other professionals

The use of psychometric scores at group level can provide local management
with useful insight into the effective operation of programmes. Group results
can be compared by site or area over time. The analysis of attrition rates and
the selection of offenders can be enriched by the addition of psychometric
information.
There are some caveats in communicating test results to staff and other
professionals: thought should be given to what is meaningful and useful.
Results should be accompanied by an interpretation meaningful to the person
receiving it. Results should be presented as descriptive performance levels
rather than isolated numerical scores. For more detailed interpretation of
results the appropriate scoring manuals or references should be referred to.
Safeguards should be built into the reporting of assessments and warnings
given about how far any test score can be applied to situations beyond the
programme scope. Examples of safeguards include explaining if norms are
based on offender samples or students and giving descriptions of what is
meant, for example by percentages and percentile ranks.
Reporting of assessments to offenders

The battery of measures for the GOBPs is not designed for individual
feedback. Copyright agreements define their use for research purposes only.
In the exceptional case of feedback being required for an individual, e.g.
human rights issues, only a psychologist or suitably qualified person trained in
interpreting the specific psychometrics should undertake feedback. The
reason for this is that detailed knowledge is needed not only on these
assessments and the importance and meaning of the results, but also on the
principles of psychometric testing. Psychometrics should not be interpreted in
NPD OBP 2004 11

isolation; knowledge is needed of the offender’s performance during the

programme and an interview needs to be held in which personal factors,
which may have influenced the results, can be identified.
The resulting scores of the psychometrics would have to be conveyed in a

meaningful manner which did not detract from any positive clinical impact of
the programme. This is a lengthy process which would require several hours’
time for each feedback session. For more detailed interpretation of results the
appropriate scoring manuals or references should be referred to. It should be
noted that at this stage of programme implementation the norms on some of
these psychometrics for the offender population in the community are in the
process of being established.
Identifying further treatment targets

The psychometric assessments for the General Offending Behaviour
Programmes will not normally be used to inform individual treatment targets.
Offenders are given feedback at the end of the programme about their
performance: this should cover their behaviour and participation on the
programme, as well as progress on treatment targets. A detailed report for
case managers is drawn up in a standardised form. Post programme reports
are used to identify progress towards addressing relevant criminogenic
factors.
The psychometric assessments will be used at an aggregate level to report on

treatment targets for groups of offenders. They will identify unmet needs in
offender populations and in this way contribute to future intervention design,
development and knowledge about the integration and sequencing of
interventions.
NPD OBP 2004 12

SECTION 4 - ASSESSMENT MEASURES
The following treatment targets are those recognised for General Offending
Behaviour/ Cognitive Skills. Further information about treatment targets is
available in the programme and theory manuals. This section assumes that a
risk and needs analysis has been carried out via OASys or the selection
matrix and concentrates on an assessment of change.
Treatment targets
Specific inadequacies lead to specific tendencies. For example, lack of self
control, tends towards being action orientated, responding without stopping
to think and not fully analysing a situation. Lack of critical reasoning causes
externalisation of blame, a failure to consider attitudes that contribute to
problems and thinking which is shallow, narrow, rigid and irrational. Lack of
social perspective taking means offenders are non-empathic, misread social
situations, lack awareness of other people’s feelings and fail to distinguish
their needs from others. Inadequacies in social problem solving leads to
limited ability to recognise the possibility that problems will develop, the
inability to generate solutions, and being unable to visualise step by step
means to achieving goals. Cognitive deficits are seen as a central
mechanism through which environmental and innate factors combine to
produce anti-social behaviour. These deficits form the targets of the general
offending or cognitive skills programmes.
Evidence of Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioural Programmes

The authors of Reasoning and Rehabilitation, Ross and Fabiano (1985),
distinguish between impersonal and interpersonal cognitions, the former
referring to the manipulation of the physical world and the latter being
concerned with a knowledge and understanding of people. They believe that
it is in the area of interpersonal cognitions that offenders and non-offenders
differ. The major premise of their cognitive model is that what and how an
offender thinks, how he views the world and how well he understands people,
what he values, how he reasons and how he attempts to solve problems in
NPD OBP 2004 13

relation to others, plays an important role in his criminal conduct. Fabiano, et

al. (1990) state there is a substantial body of research which indicates that
due to a number of developmental factors including poverty, lack of
opportunity, limited intellectual stimulation, and insufficient and inadequate
education, offenders have failed to acquire a number of cognitive skills which
are necessary for effective and non-criminal social adaptation. Fabiano, et al.
(1990) suggest that these skills are distinct and identifiable and that they
include self-control/impulsively; social perspective taking; egocentricity; inter-
personal problem-solving and critical reasoning. It is one’s ability in these
areas that determines how successfully one copes with life.
Based on this approach a programme of cognitive skills training was

developed for use with high risk probation clients in Canada (Ross, Fabiano
and Ewles, 1988). The programme suggests that the offender be viewed as
an active participant in his criminal behaviour, as a decision maker who is
poorly equipped cognitively to cope successfully and as a person who should
be taught rather than treated. It was implemented by probation officers
trained by the researchers. The programme, presented on an individual
basis, focused on modifying impulsive, egocentric, illogical and rigid thinking.
Follow-up research showed that offenders receiving the cognitive skills
training had lower recidivism rates than comparison groups given an
alternative life-skills programme or traditional probation supervision.
Further programmes have been derived from this model for prison and
probation populations in England and Wales. Evaluation results have been
varied. The prison programmes in UK showed early promise (Friendship, et
al., 2002), but later reconviction studies have indicated more ambiguous
reconviction results. Similarly the Probation Studies Unit, Oxford University
showed some favourable reconviction results for early ThinkFirst programme
completers in the community. The psychometric evaluations have consistently
indicated change in the desired direction (Blud, et al., 2003), but the links
between psychometric change and reconviction are yet to be established.
Similarly, further information on those offenders who do not complete
programmes will be valuable.
NPD OBP 2004 14

Programme Targets linked to OASys definitions of dynamic

risk factors
Impulsivity and Emotional Control

Developing cognitive and behavioural strategies to counteract tendency to
seek immediate gratification and respond without thinking. Learning to make
the most of prior experience when making decisions.
Social Skills and Understanding Other People's Views - Perspective

Taking
Understanding other people’s actions. Reads social situations correctly and
distinguishes own feelings from those of others. Social interaction -
communicating with other people.
Recognising Problems
Recognises their problems consistently. Recognises their own contribution
and that of others or circumstance. Can identify which areas are most closely
linked to offending.
Problem-Solving - Rigid Thinking

Problem solving. Offering alternatives before deciding on a course of action.
Recognising obstacles and not becoming overwhelmed. Breaking down long
or complex problems into manageable steps. Accepting new ideas. Willing to
amend their views. Able to infer from general principles and adapt to
circumstances.
Pro-Criminal Attitudes and Beliefs

Modify views favouring or excusing criminal behaviour or aligning themselves
with criminal subcultures.
References for published measures are given in the reference section.
NPD OBP 2004 15

Assessment measures
Treatment Target Measure Questionnaire
Impulsivity and Emotional Control Impulsivity (Eysenck) One
Locus of Control (18 item Two
version)
Social Skills and Perspective Taking Socialisation (Gough) One
Recognising Problems PICTS (current scale + Two
cognitive indolence)
Problem Solving and Rigid Thinking Social Problem Solving Three
Quick Discrimination Index Two
(two scales)
Pro- Criminal Attitudes and Beliefs Crime-PICS (three scales) Two
All measures are also part

of Prison Service Battery
NPD OBP 2004 16

Description of Measures
QUESTIONNAIRE ONE
Eysenck Impulsivity Scale
Eysenck 1994
Impulsiveness is a major factor of personality. A strong relationship between
impulsivity and criminality has been well established. The scale was formed
from earlier extraversion and sensation seeking scales. The scale
discriminates between Venturesomeness (sensation and thrill seeking, risk
taking and the liveliness aspects of impulsivity) and Impulsiveness (the
inability to evaluate risk, narrow impulsivity and susceptibility to boredom).
Eysenck and McGurk (1980) found evidence to suggest that levels of narrow
or 'tough-minded impulsivity' were higher in a detention centre population
compared to normal subjects but there was little difference in
Venturesomeness. Others have also made this distinction; Dickman (1990)
suggested that two types of impulsivity exist, functional and dysfunctional with
dysfunctional being a type of cognitive deficit described as the inability to use
a slower more methodical approach to problem solving which becomes most
apparent in stressful situations.
The Eysenck Impulsivity Scale has also been used in normal populations.
Horvath and Zuckerman (1993) found that impulsivity scores were linked to
self-reported minor crimes in non-offenders. Robinson, et al. (1998) suggest
that theses findings and others further validate the Eysenck scales.
The 24 item Impulsiveness scale created by Eysenck and Eysenck (1978) has
been adapted for use in the prison and community context. The items have
been changed from questions to statements. Two items have not been
included - 'do you prefer quiet parties with good conversations to wild
uninhibited ones?’ and 'are you rather cautious in unusual situations?'
NPD OBP 2004 17

Gough Socialisation Scale

Lack of pro-social attitudes or the inability to perspective take or understand
the consequences of action from another's point of view has been established
as one of the characteristics of delinquent/ criminal thinking. Gough theorised
that socialisation/asocialisation is a continuum of behaviour; it is defined as
the ability or failure to elaborate on an adequate and realistic set of social
expectancies and critiques. The Gough Socialisation Scale was derived from
California Psychological Inventory items. Gough (1960) found in his research
that asocial groups had lower means than social groups. The scale has been
used with delinquent populations in Britain (Gudjonsson and Roberts, 1981).
QUESTIONNAIRE TWO
Locus of Control
Craig, Franklin and Andrews 1984
Locus of Control measures the extent to which a person perceives events as
being a consequence of his own behaviour and therefore potentially under
personal control. A change in this perception by the offender towards a
greater acknowledgement of their own responsibility is integral to general
offending programme aims. A link has also been made between Locus of
Control and Critical Reasoning, one of the major cognitive deficits. Offenders’
most common thinking error is externalising the blame for their own actions
(Yochelson and Samenow, 1972; Walters and White, 1989).
The Locus of Control is an 18-item scale. The last item is a UK addition which
has been shown in a factor analysis based on 40,000 offenders in custody to
load higher (be more strongly identified with the factor) than some of the
original 17 items. It is therefore included as this version also provides parity
with Prison Service results.
CRIME-PICS II
Developed by Neil Frude, Terry Honess and Mike Maguire 1994
Crime-PICS II is a measure of attitudes, which has been frequently used by
Probation Services. The manual states that ‘CRIME-PICS II scores can be
aggregated across groups of offenders to evaluate general patterns of
NPD OBP 2004 18

change. This is particularly useful to those who wish to evaluate and/or

demonstrate the impact of special intervention programmes’.
The measure provides a general score and 4 sub-scales, a total of 20 items.

The original CRIME-PICS had a fifth scale, which has not been included.
• General attitude to offending
• Anticipation of re-offending
• Victim hurt denial
• Evaluation of crime as worthwhile
‘Anticipation of Re-offending’ is one of the few self-report measures of this
important aspect of pro-criminal attitudes. The scale 'Evaluation of Crime as
Worthwhile' was found to be less reliable in a recent review but all items are
included in the General scale. The last subscale of 15 items refers to current
self-report problems in addition to the criminogenic needs’ targets. This
subscale is not used in the evaluation battery as many of the items are not
programme targets and there is a priority concern that the battery should be
as concise as possible.
Quick Discrimination Index (QDI)

Ponterotto, Burkard, Rieger, Grieger, D’Onofrio, Dubuisson, Heenehan,
Millstein, Parisi, Rath, and Sax, 1995
This measure is unique in its conceptualisation of discriminatory responses as
a general (not a group-specific) tendency, but offers the option of focusing
separately on the race and gender components. The QDI is broader than
most racial attitude scales: it was designed to apply across racial and ethnic
groups and provide a general measure of receptivity to multiculturalism. The
scale consists of 30 items divided into three subscales - two are included in
the community questionnaire, general (cognitive) attitudes to racial diversity
and affective attitudes towards more personal contact with racial diversity.
This measure is relevant to the aims of the General Offender / Cognitive Skills
Programmes in increasing offenders’ ability to perspective take accurately and
in the reduction of rigid thinking.
NPD OBP 2004 19

NPD has a commitment to the provision of intervention with racially motivated

offenders. A review of the research literature commissioned by NPD through
University of Leicester emphasised that there was little or no evidence that
racially motivated offenders could be discriminated from other offenders in
identifiable criminogenic deficits. Theoretical work in this area has raised
questions about the links between prejudicial attitudes and behaviour and has
led to a movement away from regarding racism as one-dimensional and
towards theorising it as a complex construct of multi-dimensional interactions.
The attitudes found to be associated with racism share communality in the
programme target areas of rigid thinking and negative attribution to other
groups, as well as the location of blame in external events.
The QDI is a measure of general receptivity to diversity and multiculturalism. It

provides three sub-scale scores (Multiculturalism, Racial Intimacy, and
Women's Equality), but for the purposes of GOBP, two scales Multiculturalism
and Racial Intimacy have been included. Some of the vocabulary used in the
QDI might prove difficult for offenders. The Offending Behaviour Programmes
Team is actively seeking ways of simplifying the items while maintaining the
reliability and validity of the measure. In the mean time, administrators are
asked to support offenders who have difficulties with these items by
explaining what the questions mean. Definitions of two of the most difficult
terms are given below.
Affirmative action – taking positive steps to make sure that people from a
certain group are given a fair chance, because it is known that they have often
been treated unfairly in similar situations in the past.
Multiculturalism - being comfortable with or blending themes and ideas from

many different cultures rather than just one, for example, in fashion, music or
foods.
NPD OBP 2004 20

PICTS- Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles

Glenn D. Walters 2002
Evidence that criminals have a particular style of thinking comes from
Yochelson and Samenow (1976) interview based investigation. They defined
52 errors of thinking which characterise the criminal mind. Using an inventory
based on these findings Garvin and Goldstein (1990) were able to
discriminate between groups of delinquent and non-delinquent youths.
Walters and White (1989) dismissed the idea of a criminal mind in favour of a
'criminal lifestyle' which encompasses three elemental conditions, family and
environmental factors, choices (directing behaviour towards a particular
option) and cognitions (modification of thinking to justify/ support behaviour
and eliminate guilt), which form a complex multidirectional system. Walters
and White focused on the cognitive element of this model and derived eight
overlapping thinking patterns utilising Yochelson and Samenow's 52 thinking
errors, constructing additional styles and modifying others. This resulted in
the 80-item PICTS, which has been incorporated in programme evaluation
batteries in both the Prison and Probation Services. Recent work on U.K.
offender populations has indicated that not all the eight scales have shown
sufficient reliability or value as measures of change; the Cognitive Indolence
Scale was found to be the most promising (Blud, et al., 2003).
Four studies have examined the predictive ability of the various PICT scales.
Glenn Walters (2001) examined the prison disciplinary adjustment of 536
male medium security federal prison inmates in a two year follow-up. He has
also recently revised the PICTS sorting the eight scales into two general
content scales composed of a reduced number of items believed to reflect
current criminal attitudes and beliefs and a scale that references past criminal
attitudes and beliefs. Work validating the two scales on U.S. offender
populations indicated greater stability for the 12 item Historical scale, but a
greater predictive ability for the 13 item Current scale on future disciplinary
and release outcomes.
This Current scale is incorporated in Questionnaire Two of the General

Offending/ Cognitive Skills battery. A further four items from the original 80
NPD OBP 2004 21

item PICTS are also included to allow the generation of the Cognitive
Indolence Scale. Elevated scores on the Current scale denote identification
with a criminal belief system. The Current scale is perhaps the best single
predictor of future criminal involvement and recidivism available on the
PICTS.
The Cognitive Indolence scale is typically elevated by individuals who take

shortcuts and the easy way around problems. Such individuals are continually
in trouble because their short cuts catch them up sooner or later. Persons
scoring high on this scale are frequently characterised as lazy, unmotivated
and irresponsible. Cognitive Indolence can be assailed by instructing clients in
the use of critical reasoning skills
QUESTIONNAIRE THREE
Social Problem Solving Questionnaire
(adapted Freedman, et al., 1978)
In order to deal competently with problematic social situations, one needs
specific problem solving abilities, problem recognition, generation of solutions
involving perspective taking and a strategy for the selection of the most
appropriate solutions and a proper understanding of likely outcomes
The Social Problem Solving Questionnaire was developed from a five-stage

model suggested by Freedman, et al. when creating the Adolescent Problems
Inventory (API).
1. Situational Analysis: identification of problem situations which might be
related to offending.
2. Item Development: obtaining a sample of responses from a wide range of
respondents to these problems.
3. Response Enumeration: judges (working independently) rate responses as
assertive, aggressive or passive.
4. Response Evaluation: judges working independently were asked to rate
the competence of these responses.
NPD OBP 2004 22

5. Construction of the inventory and rater's manual, choice of situations and

responses to construct the inventory based on the judge’s classification.
Ten scenarios were generated by this method and from these scenarios four
measures were defined.
Assertive problem solving
Aggressive problem solving
Passive problem solving
Generation of solutions
In the Social Problem Solving Questionnaire offenders are presented with a
problem scenario and a range of possible solutions. They are asked to rank
the solutions they would use in order of preference, first through to third. This
model was developed for adult use in forensic settings by Clark (1988). A
fourth measure is the number of alternative solutions generated by the
offenders.
In Questionnaire Three only the ranking responses are included, as in

practice it has been difficult to make use of the free text responses to
generating solutions. There are intrinsic difficulties in the interpretation of
what can be included as a solution, which has resulted in the measure being a
simple count of all solutions. This gives equality of response between anti-
social and pro-social solutions, which seems at variance with the aims of the
scale. Therefore, for the purposes of this evaluation the psychometric does
not include free text responses.
NPD OBP 2004 23

APPENDIX I
REFERENCES
General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evidence
Blud, L., Travers, R., Nugent, F., Thornton, D., (2003). Accreditation of
Offending Behaviour Programmes in H.M. Prison Service: 'What Works'
in practice. Legal and Criminal Psychology 8, 69-81. British
Psychological Society.
Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent, F., Friendship, C. (2003). Understanding 'What
Works': accredited cognitive skills programmes for adult men and young
offenders. Home Office Research Findings No. 226. Home Office,
London.
Clark, D. A., (1988). Impulsiveness and Psychomotor abilities in adult
offenders in relation to early onset of delinquency. DPS Report Series II,
No. 140, December 1985. Home Office, Prison Dept.
Clark, D. (2000). Enhanced Thinking Skills Theory Manual prepared for joint
Prison Probation Services Accreditation Panel.
Eysenck, S. and McGurk, B.J. (1980). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness in
a detention center population. Psychological Reports, 47, 1299-1366.
Hollin, C., Palmer E. (2000). Reducing Offending by Racially Motivated
Offenders. Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Leicester.
Freedman, B. J., Rosenthal L., Donahoe, C. P., Schlundt, D. G., and McFall,
R. M. (1978). A social behavioural analysis of skill deficits in delinquent
and non-delinquent adolescent boys. Journal of consulting and clinical
psychology, vol 44(6), 1448-62.
Friendship, C., Blud, L., Eriksen, M., Travers, R. (2002). An evaluation of
cognitive behavioural treatment for prisoners. Home Office Research
Findings, No. 161. Home Office, London.
Falshaw L., Friendship,C., Travers, R., Nugent, F. (2003). Searching for
'What Works'; an evaluation of cognitive skills programmes. Home
Office Research Findings No. 206 Home Office, London.
Ong, G., Roberts, C., Al-Attar, Z., Hassant, L. (2003). Think First, an
accredited community based cognitive behavioural programme in
NPD OBP 2004 24

England and Wales, Findings from the prospective evaluation in three

Probation areas. Probation Studies Unit, Centre for Criminological
Research, University of Oxford.
Porporino F., Fabiano E., and Robinson D. (1991). Focusing on successful
reintegrates: cognitive skills training for offenders. Report No. R-19.
Correctional service of Canada, Ottawa.
Ross, R. R., and Fabiano E. (1985). Time to think. A cognitive model of
delinquency prevention and rehabilitation. Johson City, Tenn: Institute of
Social Sciences and Arts.
Ross, R., Fabiano, E., and Ewles, D. (1988). Reasoning and Rehabilitation.
International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology,
32, 29-35.
Sherman, L.W., et al., (eds) (2002). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention.
London: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Walters, G. D. and White, T. W. (1989). The thinking criminal: a cognitive
model of lifestyle criminality. Criminal Justice Research Bulletin, 18, 406-
18.
Yochelson S., and Samenow, S. E. (1972). The criminal personality: A profile
for change. Vol I. Aronson: New York.
General Offending Behaviour Programmes psychometrics

Nugent, F., Geohagan, K., Travers, R. (2002). Cognitive Skills Assessment
Test Battery Guide. HM Prison Service.
Nooney, K. (2003). General Offending Behaviour Programmes Psychometric
Review: Paper ii. October 2003. prepared for Correctional Services
Accreditation Panel
Robinson, D., Porporino, F., Beal, C., (1998). A review of the literature on
Personal and Emotional Need Factors. Report No R-76 Ottowa
Correctional Service Of Canada.
QUESTIONNAIRE ONE
Impulsivity
Dickman S.J., (1990). Functional and dysfunctional. Impulsive personality
and cognitive correlates. Journal of personality and social psychology.
Vol. 58, 95-102.
NPD OBP 2004 25

Eysenck, S. B., and Eysenck, H.J., (1978). Impulsiveness and

Venturesomeness, their position in a dimensional system of personality
description. Psychological Reports Vol.43 (3, Pt 2)
Horvath, P., and Zuckerman, M. (1993). Sensation seeking, Risk Appraisal
and risky behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 14 (1) 41-52.
Socialisation
Gough, H. G., and Petersen, D. R. (1952). The identification and
measurement of predisposition factors in crime and delinquency. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, (16), 207-212
Gough, H. (1960). Theory and measurement of socialisation. Journal of
Consulting Psychology 24 (1) 23-30
Gudjonnson, G. H. and Roberts, D. R. (1981). The aggressive behaviour of
personality disordered patients in relation to personality and perceptual
motor performance. Current Psychological Research, vol 1 (2), 101-109.
QUESTIONNAIRE TWO
Locus of Control
Craig, A. R., Franklin, J. A. and Andrews, G. (1984). A Scale to Measure
Locus of Control of Behaviour. British Medical Journal of Medical
Psychology, 57,173-180.
Mirels, H. L. (1970). Dimensions of Internal versus External Control. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34 226-8.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalised expectancies for Internal versus External
Control of Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs 80.
Yochelson, S. and Samenow S. E. (1976). The Criminal Personality Vol. 1 A
profile for change. New York: Jason Aronsen.
Crime PICS
Frude, N., Honess, T. M. and Maguire, M. (1994). Crime-PICS II: A
psychometric tool for measuring attitude change in probation clients.
Rex, S. (2002). An Evaluation of Community Service Pathfinder Project.
Home Office Study in press.
Maguire, M. (2002). The Resettlement of Short Term Prisoners: An
Evaluation of Seven Pathfinders. Home Office study
NPD OBP 2004 26

McGuire, M. et al., (2002) Short Term Effects of Probation Programs: An

Evaluative Study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 39 (1).

Ponterotto, Burkard, Rieger, Grieger, D’Onofrio, Dubuisson, Heenehan,
Millstein, Parisi, Rath, and Sax, (1995). Development and initial
validation of the Quick Discrimination Scale (QDI). Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 55, 1016-31.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., Wrightsman, L. S. (1999). Measures of
Political Attitudes. Academic Press, San Diego.
Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles
Garvin, L. M. and Goldstein, A. P. (1990). Criminal Thinking Patterns: The

relationship between errors in thinking and anti-social behaviour.
American Psychology Law Society, Williamsburg, VA.
Walters, G. D. (1995a). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking
Styles. Part I: Reliability and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice and
Behaviour, Vol. 22(3) 307-225.
Walters, G. D. (1995b). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking
Styles. Part II: Identifying simulated response set. Criminal Justice and
Behaviour, Vol. 22(4) December, 437-45.
Walters, G. D. (1996). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking
Styles. Part III: Predictive Validity. Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 40 (2) 105-112.
Walters, G. D. (2001). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking
Styles version 4 manual.
Walters, G. D. (2002). Current and Historical content scales for The
Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, Vol. 7 (1). 73-86. British Psychological
Society
Yochelson, S. and Samenow, S. E. (1976). The Criminal Personality: Vol. 1 A
profile for change. New York: Jason Aronson.
NPD OBP 2004 27

Implementation
Performance Standards Manual for the Delivery of Accredited Individual
Programmes. Joint Prison/ Probation Services Accreditation Panel 2002
and HMI Probation.
Programme Manager Strategy NPD 2003
Administration Manual NPD
British Psychological Society: Psychological Testing Centre, A User's Guide.
NPD OBP 2004 28

APPENDIX II
PRINCIPLES of ADMINISTRATION (taken from Administrators Manual
NPD)
All staff administering the psychometrics should attend the NPD training, as
this outlines both some general information about administration of
psychometrics as well providing detail on the specific measures being used
and giving scripts for use with offenders. This training is one day.
Administering assessments
In administering the assessments it the responsibility of the administrator to
ensure that the test could not have been completed by anyone other than the
offender. This precludes the offender taking the material home to complete.
For most assessments it is advisable that they are completed in a group
testing session, other than for assessments which require individual
interviews or for offenders who may be disruptive or have problems such as
poor literacy skills.
Administrator’s Responsibilities
The following tasks are the responsibility of the administrator:
• to ensure that the purpose of the testing has been clearly communicated
to the offender.
• to ensure that the offender understands the procedures that will be used
for testing.
• to ensure the offender understands how the test information will be used
and to whom it will be communicated.
To ensure that the above is achieved, the following should be outlined to the
offenders either by the case manager or other qualified person administering
the assessments:
1. The purpose of the testing
Explain the purpose of the testing, the outcomes that will be achieved
from the testing and why will this benefit the offender, and the reason
why these specific tests are being used.
NPD OBP 2004 29

2. The procedure for testing

Provide details of who will administer the tests, and when and where
will they be administered.
3. How the test information will be used
Explain who will score and interpret the tests, and how the test scores
will be communicated. Explain the level of confidentiality of the test
scores and who will be given access to them.
4. Who to contact if they have any queries/concerns about the
testing?
Provide the administrator’s name and that of the programme manager.
Testing instructions
At the beginning of a testing session, explicit instructions should be given
regarding the assessment. These should be written down and should be read
so that every offender is given the same instructions. Alternative
arrangements may need to be made for offenders with literacy or other
problems with reading and writing, for example a disability, which may mean
that they need individual sessions.
Answering offenders' questions should be limited to clarification of test

questions and not examples of the answers. Care should also be taken that
the answers are all the offender’s own work and not copied from others in the
room. It is advisable to give out the instructions for each assessment
separately. Allow offenders enough time to complete the assessment and
then move on to the next assessment. Scripted administering instructions are
available for staff attending training in administering psychometrics.
Administrators should ensure that offenders complete all the items; this can
be achieved through vigilance during the assessment session and
checking/scanning the booklets before the offenders have left the room.
Problems in administration of tests

The suite of psychometric tests used in the evaluation of General Offending
Behaviour programmes is designed to be undertaken within a one hour
NPD OBP 2004 30

session. Completing a test battery of this type can seem an arduous task to
offenders and those administering them, and should be approached by the
administrators in a positive manner and presented as the start of the process
of learning to think in ways that they may have not done so before. Other
offenders may struggle with completing the tests because they have short
attention spans. If possible an administrator may need to sit with them for
short periods of time to encourage them and redirect their attention back to
the tests. This may take time but should give positive results. Offenders with
literacy problems require the measures to be read out to them and if possible
action taken in advance of the session to facilitate this.
Finally, there will be offenders who approach the testing session in the same
manner as they approach other sessions. They may be disruptive, talking
during the session or complaining about the tests or the content of the
session. Staff administering the measures will have to decide how to deal with
offenders in this category. One alternative may be to administer the measures
individually so that the rest of the group can complete them quietly. This is
time consuming and may not always be possible. A range of approaches that
can be taken with these and other difficult offenders will be discussed at the
psychometric training organised by the Offending Behaviour Programmes
Team.
It is envisaged that some of the QDI items that measure attitudes towards
acceptance of ethnic diversity and multiculturalism may be questioned by
offenders. These items form a cluster in Questionnaire 2 and are easily
identifiable. Administrators may wish to give some explanation of the items at
the beginning of the test. Although this is not compulsory a suggested form of
words is… ‘The questions in the test are about your beliefs, attitudes and
behaviour. They cover a whole range of subjects including, attitudes and
behaviours concerned with crime, beliefs about yourself and attitude towards
other people, including those from different backgrounds’.
NPD OBP 2004 31

Frequency of testing
Testing should be carried out before the offender starts the programme as
part of the pre-programme work and after completion of the programme. It is
essential that testing is carried out prior to, and after completion of the
programme to assess treatment change and for evaluation purposes. If
testing cannot be completed prior to commencement of the programme, for
example because the offender was ill on the test date or had some other
acceptable reason for not attending and an alternative appointment cannot be
made, testing should be arranged as soon as possible after the first
programme session. This could be immediately after the session or at a
separate appointment. It is acceptable for tutors who are trained to administer
the tests.
Post programme testing can be combined with the final programme or

immediately precede it if time allows. Post Programme testing should not be
delayed more than 1 month after the completion of the programme.
Restarts
Offenders who restart the programme after a period of around six months
from first completing the psychometrics should complete the whole battery
again. There will be exceptions to this guideline for which local professional
judgement will be needed. The number of sessions the offender attended and
the amount of time lapsed since they restarted the programme should also be
recorded for evaluation purposes.
Non-completors
Assessment data on non-completors should be collected in the same manner
as completors. If possible, post assessments should be completed at the
same time as for other members of the group who completed the
programmes. Reasons for non-completion or the number of sessions
attended should be recorded so that a comprehensive evaluation can be
undertaken.
NPD OBP 2004 32

General Offending/
Cognitive Skills
Programmes
Scoring Supplement
NPD 2004
NPD OBP 2004 33

Contents
1. Measures, Reliability Validity Norms and Scoring

Questionnaire One - 68 items
Impulsivity- Eysenck
Socialisation - Gough
Questionnaire Two - 71 items
Locus of Control
Crime- PICS
PICTS
Questionnaire Three - 24 items
Social Problem Solving
2. Questionnaires
NPD OBP 2004 34

QUESTIONNAIRE ONE
IMPULSIVITY
Eysenck
The impulsivity scale consists of 22 items derived from the 24 item
impulsiveness scale items created by Eysenck and Eysenck (1978). The
scale has a well-established research pedigree and use with offending
populations. It has been included in the Prison Service battery for the
evaluation of cognitive skills programmes and from this source there is a
considerable analytical information on a UK offender population.
Reliability
Cronbach Alpha = 0.89 N= 4,571 male offenders completing in
2002/3
Test Retest Reliability
In a Prison Service Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit study 200
Offenders from a waiting list control group selected for general offending
programmes were tested and re-tested after an interval of one month without
the intervention of a programme in 2001. The results indicate a high level of
stability in this measure.
Pearson correlation = 0.86
Norms- from Cognitive Skills Test Battery Guide 2002 for offenders
selected and completing general offending/cognitive skills programmes
General Norms
Impulsivity Number Mean Standard Effect
dev. size*
Pre- 16429 11.67 5.52 0.67
programme
Post 14602 8.46 5.52
programme
Follow-up 11538 7.59 5.50
*N = 4,571 male offenders completing in 2002/3 pre-post programme results
NPD OBP 2004 35

Sub-Group Norms PRE POST FOLLOW-UP

mean SD n mea SD n mea SD n
n n
Reasoning and 10.94 5.6 3063 7.44 5.3 2716 6.93 5.3 2321
Rehabilitation
Enhanced Thinking 11.90 5.5 1074 8.72 5.5 9859 7.80 5.5 8015
Skills 1
Male Inmates 11.61 5.5 1311 8.45 5.5 11943 7.62 5.5 9779
7
Female Inmates 13.05 5.1 687 8.39 5.2 632 7.36 5.5 557
White inmates 11.95 5.5 1108 8.65 5.6 10062 7.80 5.6 8362
8
Black inmates 10.46 5.3 2284 7.64 5.2 2103 6.81 5.1 1630
Other/ not known 11.33 5.7 432 7.61 5.4 410 6.76 5.1 344
Under 18 15.10 4.0 277 12.7 5.2 241 11.8 5.4 176
1 1
18-20 years 13.99 4.7 2244 10.9 5.4 1983 9.85 5.6 1505
5
Adults 11.14 5.5 1125 7.86 5.4 10322 7.13 5.3 8631
1
Non-lifers 12.13 5.4 1092 8.87 5.5 9937 7.99 5.5 7996
0
Lifers 8.77 5.5 2044 6.03 4.8 1871 5.52 4.7 1678
Impulsivity Scoring
TRUE False
T F
Positive 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, Score 1 if coded 'true'

items 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39,
48, 49, 58, 59, 60
reverse 3, 22, Score 1 if coded 'false'
items
Higher scores indicate higher levels of impulsivity
NPD OBP 2004 36

Socialisation
Reliability
Cronbach Alpha = 0.68 N = 4,571 male offenders completing in 2002/3
In an Prison Service Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit study 200
the intervention of a programme in 2001. The results indicate a high level of
stability in this measure.
General Norms
Socialisation Number Mean Standard *Effect size
dev.
Pre- 16429 20.60 5.32 0.40
programme
Post 14602 22.65 5.18
programme
Follow-up 11538 22.96 5.11
NPD OBP 2004 37


mean SD n mea SD n mea SD n
n n
Reasoning and 20.76 5.30 3119 22.8 5.1 2745 23.0 5.0 2345
Rehabilitation 3 0 5 9
Enhanced Thinking 20.57 5.26 1083 22.5 5.1 9951 22.8 5.0 8072
Skills 3 5 2 8 7
Male Inmates 20.62 5.28 1326 22.5 5.1 12059 22.8 5.0 9854
0 7 1 8 7
Female Inmates 20.49 5.18 692 23.3 5.2 637 23.5 5.1 563
5 1 9 2
White inmates 20.33 5.23 1117 22.3 5.0 10173 22.6 5.0 8451
5 7 7 9 3
Black inmates 21.93 5.21 2334 23.7 5.1 2115 23.9 5.1 1621
1 7 7 4
Other/ not known 20.93 5.61 443 23.0 5.2 408 23.6 5.2 345
1 7 1 1
Under 18 19.55 4.03 281 21.0 4.4 246 21.0 4.4 175
8 3 8 8
18-20 years 20.04 4.73 2277 21.7 4.7 2016 21.9 4.6 1518
5 3 9 6
Adults 20.76 5.39 1136 22.8 5.1 10405 23.1 5.1 8701
1 2 8 2 4
Non-lifers 20.64 5.26 1104 22.7 5.1 10045 23.0 5.0 8068
7 0 3 2 8
Lifers 20.69 5.41 2055 22.2 5.0 1872 22.5 5.0 1673
7 5 5 4
Socialisation Scoring
TRUE False
T F
NPD OBP 2004 38

Positive 10, 11, 16,19, 21, 28, 29, Score 1 if coded 'true'
items 30, 32, 33, 35, 41, 42, 44,
51, 53, 56, 61, 62, 66.
reverse 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, 27, Score 1 if coded 'false'
items 31, 34, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47,
50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 63, 64,
65, 67, 68.
Higher scores indicate higher levels of socialisation/ role taking skills.
NPD OBP 2004 39

QUESTIONNAIRE TWO consists of
Items 1 - 18 Locus of Control

Items 19 - 38 Crime PICS
Items 39 - 54 Quick discrimination Scale UK adapted
Items 55 - 71 PICTS
Locus of Control
Craig, Franklin and Andrews 1984
This data is taken from an analysis in 2001 of 40,000 completed Locus of

Control questionnaires. They were completed by offenders in custody
selected for general offending programmes.
Reliability and Validity

Factor analysis gave a Factor 1 which accounted for 25% of the variance.
This result is similar to that found by Craig, et al., (1984).
Scale reliability
Cronbach alpha = 0.66

189 Offenders selected for general offending programmes were tested and re-
tested after an interval of one month without the intervention of a programme.
The results indicate sufficient stability over time.
Norms for Internal Locus of Control, measuring an individual's belief about

control over personal behaviour.
Number Mean Standard

dev.
Prisoners pre- 16,938 43.94 7.22
programme
Prisoners post 15,052 47.57 7.04
programme
Prisoners follow-up 11,805 48.09 7.17
Prison staff (tutors) 269 51.54 4.94
Non-offenders UK 200 55.60 6.20
NPD OBP 2004 40

Scoring
Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly

disagree sure Agree
0 1 2 3 4
Positive 1, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16

items
reverse 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10,11, 12, 14,
items 17, 18
CRIME PICS
Items 19 - 38 Crime PICS
Scale items Abbreviated description

General Attitudes to 17 Extent to which offending is an
Offending acceptable way of life
Anticipation of re- 6 Acceptance of likelihood of re-offending
offending
Victim Hurt denial 3 As title
Evaluation of crime as 4 Extent of acceptance that crime is a
Worthwhile useful way of obtaining
goods or excitement
Factor
The factor analysis of Crime PICS for a community offenders’ sample gave a
3 factor solution accounting for 53% of the variance. The components of the
factors related strongly to the victim hurt denial scale, and to a lesser extent to
the anticipation of re-offending. The dominant factor (23%) was composed of
general, anticipation of re-offending and evaluation of crime as worthwhile
items.
Scale
The reliability of Crime PICS was analysed by using item analysis of all the
questions. The results support the factor analysis finding of the fragility of a
four scale psychometric. The subscale Evaluation Of Crime As Worthwhile is
not sufficiently robust as a separate scale; the information it contained is not
lost as the general offending scale contains all items. Comparison with
previous studies can be sustained.
NPD OBP 2004 41

Alpha N
General Attitudes to 0.8753 2388
Offending
Anticipation of re- 0.8170 2545
offending
Victim Hurt denial 0.7766 2468
Evaluation of crime as 0.4650 2452
Worthwhile
Test/Retest Reliability
Matched pairs without an intervening programme. In this condition the
psychometric is administered before and after a time interval and the results
for each individual are compared.
Pearson N
General Attitudes to 0.778 156
Offending
Anticipation of re- 0.759 161
offending
Victim Hurt denial 0.601 162
Norms
Offenders in the community selected for general offending programmes.
CPICS Number Mean S D min max

General Attitudes to 2388 45.6 12.7 17 85
Offending
Anticipation of re-offending 2454 15.5 5.71 6 30
Victim Hurt denial 2468 8.2 3.38 2 15
Scoring
disagree sure Agree
0 1 2 3 4
Add 1 to all item scores to compare with established norms.
NPD OBP 2004 42

CPICS Items Reverse

items
General Attitudes to 1,3,4, 5,6, 8, 9, 15, 19
Offending 7,10,11
12, 14, 16, 17,
20
Anticipation of re-offending 3, 4, 14, 8, 9, 19
Victim Hurt denial 2,3,18
General Attitude to Offending

A person with a relatively low score to the UK offender norms believes that
offending is not an acceptable way of life.
Anticipation of Reoffending.
This measure provides a direct assessment of an individual’s acceptance of
the likelihood of re-offending. A low score indicates a self-reported decision
not to re-offend.
Victim Hurt Denial

This measures the degree to which the offender rejects or accepts that their
crime had adverse effects on their victim.
Quick Discrimination Index UK version

Items 39 - 54 Quick discrimination Scale UK adapted
The QDI is broader than most racial attitude scales. It was designed to apply
across racial and ethnic groups and provide a general measure of receptivity
to multiculturalism. The scale consists of 30 items divided into three
subscales - two are included in Questionnaire Two, general (cognitive)
attitudes to racial diversity and affective attitudes towards more personal
contact with racial diversity.
Validity and Reliability

The scale was validated on 220 individuals from the New York City
metropolitan area. They were recruited from college classrooms, high
schools, businesses and human service organisations. The sample ranged in
age from 16-58 years (m=22.5) and was 59% female and 60% Caucasian.
Factor Analysis gave a multi-cultural factor 25% of the variance and racial
intimacy 9%. In a sample of 333 New Yorkers, the social desirability scale
(Crowne and Marlowe, 1960) was unrelated to scores on the three subscales
of the QDI (rs = -.16, -.04, -.19).
Cronbach's alpha total scale = 0.88

multicultural scale = 0.80
racial intimacy scale = 0.83
NPD OBP 2004 43

Test-retest
37 college under graduates after a fifteen week test /retest.
Pearson Correlation multicultural scale = 0.90
racial intimacy scale = 0.82
Norms
Higher scores represent more positive attitudes to diversity, multiculturalism
and racial intimacy.
mean Standard minimum maximum

deviation
Multiculturali 30.9 6.3 9 45
sm
Racial 24.2 5.7 7 35
Intimacy
Scoring
disagree sure Agree
0 1 2 3 4
Add 1 to all item scores to compare with US established norms
Questionnaire Two items

Multi-Culturalism 49, 52, 53
Reverse score 39, 42, 44, 47, 48, 50
items
Racial Intimacy 40, 41, 43, 46, 51,
Reverse score 45, 54
items
PICTS- Psychological Inventory of Thinking Styles

Items 55 - 71 PICTS
The 80 item, eight scale PICTS has been in use within the battery for General
Offending /Cognitive Skills programmes. Questionnaire Two contains one part
of the reduced version of PICTS proposed by Walters (2001). The reduced
version contains two scales Historical and Current; Questionnaire Two
versions contains only the Current scale and four additional original items
needed to generate one of the original eight scales- the Cognitive Indolence
Scale. The Cognitive Indolence Scale is retained to enable comparison with
previous results and studies.
NPD OBP 2004 44

Validity and Reliability

Factor Analysis
The generation of the current scale is reported to be from a factor analysis
which accounted for 32% of the variance.
Item Analysis
Current Scale Population = 450 Federal male inmates
Cronbachs Alpha = 0.88
Cognitive Indolence population 4571 UK adult male offenders completing
programmes in 2002/03
Alpha = 0.79
Cognitive Indolence population 2265 UK adult male offenders in community
selected for general offending programmes
Alpha = 0.77
Test/ Retest Reliability
Current Scale
population Pearson number
Federal male 0.73 30 10 week
Cognitive Indolence
population Pearson number
UK prisoner 0.86 200 1 month
NORMS
Current Scale
Population mean SD number
UK probation selected for 29.8 9.27 2175
programmes
UK probation completers 28.43 9.02 659
U S Federal Prison 23.56 8.34 85

Medium security completers
US State prison 26.94 7.17 18
Close security completers
US Probation 25.37 8.73 26
completers
Canadian Prison 23.22 7.97 19
Medium security
The current scale is perhaps the best single predictor of future criminal
involvement and recidivism available on the PICTS. A score of 26 or more on
the Current scale is considered elevated in males.
NPD OBP 2004 45

Cognitive Indolence Norms

Persons scoring highly on this scale are frequently characterised as being
lazy, unmotivated and irresponsible.
population mean SD number

US prisoner medium security 14.35 4.96
US prisoner maximum security 16.69 4.69
UK prisoner pre-programme 18.05 4.7 14665
UK prisoner post-programme 15.40 4.7 13258
UK prisoner follow-up 14.68 4.7 10815
UK Community offender pre- 19.20 5.3 2265
programme
SCORING
Strongly Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
0 1 2 3 4
Questionnaire Two items

Current Scale 55,56,57,58,60,61,62,63,65,64,68
,69,71
Cognitive 56,57,59,62,63,64,66,70,
Indolence
NPD OBP 2004 46

QUESTIONNAIRE THREE
In the Social Problem Solving Inventory subjects are presented with a
problem scenario and a range of possible solutions. They are asked to rank
the solutions they would use in order of preference, first through to third. The
five solutions offered include, one assertive, two passive and two aggressive.
Subjects score one point for their first solution, two for their second, three for
their third and four for those not chosen. Scores for the placing of assertive,
passive and aggressive solutions are then tallied across the eight situations. A
good score where a candidate always chooses the assertive response first
would be 8, a poor score where the assertive solution is never chosen would
be 32.
Reliability N= 4,571 male offenders completing in 2002/3
Cronbach Alpha = 0.89
Cronbach's
Alpha
Assertive 0.86
Aggressive 0.87
Passive 0.78

In an Prison Service Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit study 200
the intervention of a programme in 2001. The results indicate an acceptable
level of stability in this measure.
Problem Solving Solution Pearson
style correlation
% Assertive 0.54
% Aggressive 0.64
% Passive 0.63
NPD OBP 2004 47

General Norms
Socialisation Number Mean Standard *Effect size
dev.
Pre-
programme
% Assertive 17853 54.48 19.28
% Aggressive 17853 9.96 11.71
% Passive 17853 26.96 11.73
Post
programme
% Assertive 16041 62.67 16.94 0.37
% Aggressive 16041 5.63 8.75 0.40
% Passive 16041 26.68 11.72
Follow-up
% Assertive 12599 62.44 16.55
% Aggressive 12599 5.52 8.59
% Passive 12599 27.27 11.72
NPD OBP 2004 48


% Assertive Solutions
mean SD n mean SD n mean SD n
Reasoning and 54.63 19.7 3119 63.15 17.5 2775 62.54 17.62 2330
Rehabilitation 1 0
Enhanced Thinking Skills 54.50 19.0 11004 62.63 16.6 10222 62.52 16.12 8133
6 4
Male Inmates 54.54 19.1 13455 62.64 16.8 12357 62.37 16.56 9927
8 2
Female Inmates 54.26 19.8 668 64.68 16.8 640 65.37 14.28 536
5 5
White inmates 54.36 19.3 11297 62.65 16.8 10418 62.72 16.33 8471
8 3
Black inmates 55.08 18.6 2380 62.18 16.8 2165 61.27 17.28 1652
7 1
Other/ not known 55.94 17.6 446 62.82 16.8 414 63.69 15.32 340
4 6
Under18 47.46 18.6 277 56.64 18.9 239 54.57 19.35 180
8 3
18-20 years 50.25 18.9 2260 59.23 17.8 2041 58.99 17.27 1516
9 4
Non-lifers 53.72 19.2 11133 62.46 16.8 10235 62.05 16.62 8078
9 1
Lifers 58.89 18.4 2105 64.28 16.7 1937 64.35 16.15 1696
2 2
Prison Staff tutor 70.78 5.95 280
applicants
Non-offenders- army 52.19 17.3 308
sample 8
NPD OBP 2004 49


% Aggressive Solutions
Reasoning and 9.66 11.9 3119 5.08 8.64 2775 5.12 8.68 2330
Rehabilitation 2
4
Male Inmates 9.99 11.7 13455 5.76 8.92 12357 5.63 8.72 9927
0
Female Inmates 9.45 11.6 668 3.99 7.08 640 3.74 6.44 536
5
White inmates 10.08 11.7 11297 5.65 8.81 10418 5.42 8.38 8471
7
Black inmates 9.35 11.2 2380 5.86 9.19 2165 6.16 9.68 1652
0
Other/ not known 10.23 12.4 446 5.17 7.93 414 5.37 9.17 340
0
Under18 26.63 9.85 277 27.33 10.6 239 28.35 10.65 180
6
18-20 years 26.29 10.9 2260 28.33 10.9 2041 29.41 10.42 1516
9 9
Non-lifers 10.74 11.8 11133 6.03 9.09 10235 5.97 8.99 8078
4
Lifers 5.58 12.0 2105 3.75 6.91 1937 3.52 6.42 1696
7
applicants
sample 8
NPD OBP 2004 50


% Passive Solutions
Reasoning and 26.48 11.9 3119 26.18 12.2 2775 26.31 12.14 2330
Rehabilitation 8 6
8 3
Male Inmates 26.96 11.6 13455 26.85 11.6 12357 27.44 11.70 9927
6 8
Female Inmates 27.97 11.8 668 24.89 11.8 640 25.82 11.78 536
0 5
White inmates 27.03 11.7 11297 26.67 11.6 10418 27.25 11.67 8471
0 5
Black inmates 26.88 11.6 2380 27.30 11.7 2165 27.92 11.90 1652
9 8
Other/ not known 27.17 10.9 446 25.86 12.2 414 27.27 11.80 340
9 2
Under18 26.63 9.85 277 27.33 10.6 239 28.35 10.65 180
6
18-20 years 26.39 11.0 2260 27.92 11.0 2041 29.07 10.68 1516
9 6
Non-lifers 26.93 11.5 11133 26.83 11.5 10235 27.51 11.65 8078
7 9
Lifers 27.52 12.3 2105 26.30 12.2 1937 26.46 12.33 1696
0 4
applicants 2
sample 4
NPD OBP 2004 51

Social Problem Solving Scoring

Three scores are generated
- Assertive Problem Solving
- Aggressive Problem Solving
- Passive Problem Solving
All Scenarios Score

First solution choice 1
Second solution choice 2
Third solution choice 3
Fourth solution choice 4
Scenario and Solution designation

Assertive Aggressive Passive
A 4 1, 5 2, 3
B 2 1, 3 4, 5
C 3 1, 4 2, 5
D 3 2, 4 1, 5
E 1 3, 4 2, 5
F 4 3, 5 1, 2
G 4 1, 5 2, 3
H 5 1, 2 3, 4
For example, for situation A to calculate the assertive solution score selecting
solution 4 as first choice will score 1 for Assertiveness,
selecting solution 4 as second choice will score 2 for Assertiveness
selecting solution 3 as third choice will score 3 for Assertiveness.
Not selecting solution 4 will score 4 for Assertiveness
To calculate the aggressive solution score
Selecting solution 1 or 5, as first choice will score 1 for Aggression
Selecting solution 1 or 5, as second choice will score 2 for Aggression
selecting solution 1 or 5, as third choice will score 3 for Aggression
Not selecting solution 1 or 5, will score 4 for Aggression.
Similarly to calculate the passive solution score selecting one of the passive
solutions 2 or 3 to situation A will be scored as 1 for first choice, 2 for second,
etc.
Scores are then tallied across the situations for different types of solutions.
This gives three scores
- Assertive solutions ranging from 8- 32
- Aggressive Solutions ranging from 16-64
- Passive Solutions ranging from 16-64.
A low total indicates that the offender has chosen solution type frequently
But, the scores are usually presented as transformed percentages where

Assertive percentage solution score = (32- raw score)/ 32 * 100
Aggressive percentage solution Score = (64- raw score)/ 64 * 100
Passive percentage score solution = (64- raw score)/ 64 * 100
NPD OBP 2004 52

Thus an increase in the number of selected assertive solutions, for example,

would be reflected in an increased assertive solution percentage score.
NPD OBP 2004 53

General Offending/ Cognitive Skills Programme effectiveness
Assessment Change - Desired

direction
Impulsivity Down
Socialisation Up
Locus of Control Up
Crime-PICS
- General attitudes Down
- Anticipation of Down
Offending
- Victim Hurt Denial Down
- Multicultural scale Up
- Racial Intimacy Up
PICTS
- Current scale Down
- Cognitive Indolence Down
- Assertive solutions Up
- Aggressive solutions Down
- Passive Solutions Down
NPD OBP 2004 54

FORM ONE
Below are a number of statements that people use to describe themselves.
Read each statement.

• If the statement is true for you, circle T.
• If it is false for you, circle F.
There are no right or wrong answers.
Do not spend too much time on any one statement.
Give the answer that seems best to describe you.
1.
I often long for excitement. T F
2.
I feel at my best after taking a couple of drinks. T F
3.
I save regularly. T F
4.
I often buy things on impulse. T F
5.
I often feel I’ve made the wrong choice in my T F
occupation.
6.
When I was going to school I truanted quite T F
often.
7.
I would do almost anything for a dare. T F
8.
I have always had a lot of bad luck. T F
NPD OBP 2004 55

9.
It is hard to amount to anything at present. T F
10.
I am stricter about right and wrong than most T F
people.
11.
Things are all mixed up in my life. T F
12.
I often do and say things without stopping to T F
think of the consequences.
13.
I have often got into a jam because I do things T F
without thinking.
14.
I often like to get high (on booze or drugs). T F
15.
I am a very impulsive person. T F
16.
I am afraid of the dark. T F
17.
I hardly ever get thrilled or excited. T F
18.
My parents disapproved of my friends. T F
19.
My home life was always happy. T F
NPD OBP 2004 56

20.
I often act on the spur of the moment. T F
21.
My parents let me make my own decisions. T F
22.
I usually think carefully before doing anything. T F
23.
I often enjoy breaking rules I consider to be T F
unreasonable.
24.
I mostly speak before thinking things out. T F
25.
I often get involved in things I wish I could get T F
out of.
26.
I would rather go without something than ask for T F
a favour.
27.
I have had more than my share of things to T F
worry about.
28.
When I meet a stranger I often think that s/he is T F
better than I am.
29.
Before I do something I try to consider how my T F
friends will react to it.
NPD OBP 2004 57

30.
I have never been in trouble with the law. T F
31.
In school I was sometimes sent to the Head for T F
misbehaving.
32.
I keep out of trouble at all costs. T F
33.
Most of the time I feel happy. T F
34.
I often feel as though I have done something T F
wrong or wicked.
35.
It is hard for me to act natural when I am with T F
new people.
36.
I get carried away with new and exciting ideas. T F
37.
I get bored very easily doing the same old T F
things.
38.
Planning things takes the fun out of life. T F
39.
I need to use a lot of control to stay out of T F
trouble.
40.
I have often gone against my parents’ wishes. T F
NPD OBP 2004 58

41.
I often think about how I look and what T F
impression I am making upon others.
42.
I have never done any heavy drinking. T F
43.
I find it easy to ‘drop’ or ‘break with’ a friend. T F
44.
I get nervous when I have to ask someone for a T F
job.
45.
Sometimes I used to feel that I would like to T F
leave home.
46.
I never worry about my looks. T F
47.
I have been in trouble one or more times T F
because of my behaviour towards the opposite
sex.
48.
Almost everything enjoyable is either illegal or T F
immoral.
49.
I am often surprised at people’s reaction to what T F
I say.
50.
I go out of my way to meet trouble rather than try T F
to escape it.
NPD OBP 2004 59

51.
My home life was always very pleasant. T F
52.
I seem to do things that I regret more often than T F
other people do.
53.
My table manners are not quite as good at home T F
as when I am out in company.
54.
It is pretty easy for people to win arguments with T F
me.
55.
I know who is responsible for most of my T F
troubles.
56.
I get pretty discouraged with the law when a T F
smart lawyer gets a criminal free.
57.
I have used alcohol excessively. T F
58.
I get extremely impatient if kept waiting by T F
someone who is late.
59.
An evening out is more exciting if planned at the T F
last moment.
60.
I get restless staying around the same place for T F
too long.
NPD OBP 2004 60

61.
Even when I have got into trouble I was usually T F
trying to do the right thing.
62.
It is very important to me to have enough friends T F
and social life.
63.
I sometimes wanted to run away from home. T F
64.
Life usually hands me a pretty raw deal. T F
65.
People often talk about me behind my back. T F
66.
I would never play cards (poker) with a stranger. T F
67.
I don’t think I’m quite as happy as others seem T F
to be.
68.
I used to sometimes steal when I was a T F
youngster.
NPD OBP 2004 61

Form Two
Below are a number of statements about how topics can affect your personal beliefs.
There are a large number of people who agree with these statements. There are also a large number of people who disagree with them.
On the scale mark how you feel about each of the statements.
• strongly agree 4
• agree 3
• not sure 2
• disagree 1

Disagree sure Agree
1.
I can anticipate difficulties and take action to avoid them. 0 1 2 3 4
2.
A great deal of what happens to me is just a matter of chance. 0 1 2 3 4
3.
Everyone knows that luck or chance determines the future. 0 1 2 3 4
4.
I can control my problems only if I have outside support. 0 1 2 3 4
5.
When I make plans I am almost certain I can make them work. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 62


Disagree sure Agree
6.
My problems will dominate all my life. 0 1 2 3 4
7.
My mistakes and problems are my responsibility to deal with. 0 1 2 3 4
8.
Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. 0 1 2 3 4
9.
My life is controlled by outside actions and events. 0 1 2 3 4
10.
I believe people are victims of circumstances beyond their control. 0 1 2 3 4
11.
To continually manage my problems I need professional help. 0 1 2 3 4
12.
When I am under stress the tightness in my muscles is due to things outside my 0 1 2 3 4
control.
13.
I believe a person really can be master of his own fate. 0 1 2 3 4
14.
It is impossible to control irregular fast breathing when I am having difficulties. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 63

Disagree sure Agree
15.
I understand why my problems vary so much from one occasion to another. 0 1 2 3 4
16.
I am confident of being able to deal successfully with future problems. 0 1 2 3 4
17.
In my case maintaining control over my problems is mainly due to luck. 0 1 2 3 4
18.
I have often been blamed for events beyond my control. 0 1 2 3 4
19.
In the end, crime does pay. 0 1 2 3 4
20.
I have never hurt anyone by what I’ve done. 0 1 2 3 4
21.
I will always get into trouble. 0 1 2 3 4
22.
Crime has now become a way of life for me. 0 1 2 3 4
23.
Crime can be a useful way of getting what you want. 0 1 2 3 4
24.
I believe in living for now, the future will take care of itself. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 64


Disagree sure Agree
25.
Most people would commit offences if they knew that they could get away with it. 0 1 2 3 4
26.
I definitely won’t get into trouble with the police in the next six months (6 months 0 1 2 3 4
after release if you are in prison).
27.
I don’t see myself as a real “criminal”. 0 1 2 3 4
28.
Committing crime is quite exciting. 0 1 2 3 4
29.
I find it hard to resist an opportunity to commit a crime. 0 1 2 3 4
30.
Many so-called crimes are not really wrong. 0 1 2 3 4
31.
My crimes have never harmed anyone. 0 1 2 3 4
32.
If things go wrong for me, I might offend again. 0 1 2 3 4
33.
I am not really a criminal. 0 1 2 3 4
34.
I always seem to give in to temptation. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 65


Disagree sure Agree
35.
When people have no money, they can’t be blamed for stealing. 0 1 2 3 4
36.
There was no victim of my offence(s). 0 1 2 3 4
37.
I wouldn’t commit the offence(s) again. 0 1 2 3 4
38.
Once a criminal, always a criminal. 0 1 2 3 4
39.
I really think affirmative action programmes for ethnic minorities on college sites 0 1 2 3 4
constitute reverse discrimination.
40.
I feel I could develop an intimate relationship with someone from a different race. 0 1 2 3 4
41.
My friendship network is very racially mixed. 0 1 2 3 4
42.
I am against affirmative action programmes for ethnic minorities in business. 0 1 2 3 4
43.
I would feel OK about my son or daughter dating someone from a different racial 0 1 2 3 4
group.
NPD OBP 2004 66


Disagree sure Agree
44.
In the past few years there has been too much attention directed toward 0 1 2 3 4
multicultural or minority issues in education.
45.
Most of my close friends are from my own racial group. 0 1 2 3 4
46.
I think that it is (or would be) important for my children to attend schools that are 0 1 2 3 4
racially mixed.
47.
multicultural or minority issues in business.
48.
Overall, I think racial minorities in Britain complain too much about racial 0 1 2 3 4
discrimination.
49.
I think White people’s racism toward minority ethnic groups still constitutes a major 0 1 2 3 4
problem in Britain.
50.
I think the school system, from primary school through to college, should 0 1 2 3 4
encourage minority and immigrant children to learn and fully adopt traditional
British values.
51.
If I were to adopt a child, I would be happy to adopt a child of any race. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 67


Disagree sure Agree
52.
I think the school system, from primary school through college, should promote 0 1 2 3 4
values representative of diverse cultures.
53.
I believe that reading the autobiography of Nelson Mandela would be of value. 0 1 2 3 4
54.
I think it is better if people marry within their own race. 0 1 2 3 4
55.
Even though I may start out with the best of intentions I have trouble staying “on 0 1 2 3 4
track”.
56.
I sometimes let my thoughts and ideas run wild and ignore the problems and 0 1 2 3 4
difficulties associated with my plans until it is too late.
57.
I find myself taking shortcuts, even when I know these shortcuts will create 0 1 2 3 4
problems later.
58.
I will frequently start an activity, project or job but then never finish it. 0 1 2 3 4
59.
I tend to let things go when I should act, in the hope that they will work out in time. 0 1 2 3 4
60.
I have trouble following through on good initial intentions. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 68


Disagree sure Agree
61.
I tend to act impulsively under stress. 0 1 2 3 4
62.
I tend to put off until tomorrow what should have been done today. 0 1 2 3 4
63.
I have difficulty deciding if my thoughts, ideas and plans are good or poor. 0 1 2 3 4
64.
If challenged I will sometimes go along by saying “yeah, you’re right,” even when I 0 1 2 3 4
know the other person is wrong, because it’s easier than arguing with them about
it.
65.
I tend to get easily side tracked so that I rarely finish what I start. 0 1 2 3 4
66.
If there is a short-cut or easy way around something I will find it. 0 1 2 3 4
67.
I have trouble controlling my angry feelings. 0 1 2 3 4
68.
Even when I set goals I frequently do not obtain them because I am distracted by 0 1 2 3 4
things going on around me.
69.
When frustrated, I stop thinking rationally and say to myself statements such as 0 1 2 3 4
“sod it” or “to hell with it”.
NPD OBP 2004 69


Disagree sure Agree
70.
I rarely considered the consequences of my actions before committing my current 0 1 2 3 4
offence.
71.
tend to push problems to the side rather than deal with them. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 70

Form Three
8 realistic life situations that many people might face are given.
• Each one can be seen as a problem to solve.

• Each one has 5 possible solutions with it.
You are to choose up to 3 of the solutions that you think are the best. Do not
put anything against those you would not consider.
You should rank them 1st, 2nd and 3rd by putting a 1, 2 or 3 in the ‘rank’
column.
NPD OBP 2004 71

SITUATION A
A friend borrowed some money from you several weeks ago. You asked
if he could return it as soon as possible because you might need it. He
has made no effort to pay you back nor has he mentioned the money on
the last few occasions you have seen him. You get the impression he is
avoiding you.
Possible Solutions rank
1. Go round to his place. Threaten him that unless he pays you all he owes
immediately he can expect trouble. If he still refuses to pay carry out your
threats.
2. Write it off as experience, and break off the friendship. Make a resolution
that you won’t lend money to anyone else in future.
3. Keep mentioning it now and again. After all he is a mate and you don’t
want to ruin the friendship. He is sure to repay you when he can.
4. Go round to see him. Tell him you need the money and ask when he
intends to pay you. If he cannot pay all the money at once take what you
can and get him to agree a date for repayment.
5. Go round to see him. Tell him you need the money now. Explain if he
doesn’t pay up immediately that is the end of the friendship and you’ll let
everyone else know what he’s like.
NPD OBP 2004 72

SITUATION B
At work you have a clash of personalities with your immediate

supervisor. He always seems to pick on you. Apart from this difficulty
you enjoy your job and would hate to leave it.
1. Wait until the next time he says anything, have it out with him there and
then in front of everyone. No one should be allowed to get away with the
way he’s behaving.
2. Arrange a private discussion with him to try to sort out your differences
3. Think up some way that you can get your own back on him. Perhaps
something which will make him look stupid or create problems for him.
4. Look for another job. He’s not going to change so you will be best of out of
the situation.
5. Put up with it. It’s just one of those things that happens. Eventually he
might start picking on someone else.
NPD OBP 2004 73

SITUATION C
You are driving a car on a very urgent matter and have broken the speed
limit. A police car appears behind you and flags you down.
1. Accelerate, you can probably lose then and your journey is too important
to stop and waste time.
2. Pull over and do nothing. It would only make matters worse and it’s too
late now anyway.
3. Pull over, remain calm and explain about the urgent nature of your journey
4. Pull over and complain about being stopped when you are in such a hurry
.Ask why they haven’t got better things to do than pull people up for
speeding
5. Pull over, apologise, promise you will never do it again and hope he let
you off with a caution.
NPD OBP 2004 74

SITUATION D
You have been going out with someone for several weeks. You realise
they are becoming far more serious about the relationship than you are.
You do not want a long-term relationship at present.
1. Carry on seeing them, but show less interest. Turn up late, and cancel
dates at short notice. Sooner or later they will get the message.
2. Start seeing someone else and make sure they find out about it.
3. Take her/him out somewhere quiet, ask them how they see the
relationship and talk about the current situation, explaining your point of
view.
4. Start an argument with her/him next time you meet. This will then give you
a good excuse to finish with them or make them finish with you.
5. Do nothing at present. After all, you might not want a long term
commitment but why end it yet? Just avoid any talk about future plans.
NPD OBP 2004 75

SITUATION E
You are taking a course which is very important to your career

prospects. You are certain you will pass most of the practical work
involved, but are very concerned about some aspects of the written
examination. You are always very nervous and perform badly in that sort
of situation.
1. Explain your difficulties to the course tutor and seek their advice.
2. Take it as it comes. There is no point worrying. If you fail, you fail.
3. Try to smuggle a few notes into the exam room just to give you that extra
edge.
4. Persuade a mate who has already done the course to take the exam for
you, he’s bound to pass and no one will ever know.
5. Give up the course. If you’re going to fail this part, what’s the point?
NPD OBP 2004 76

SITUATION F
You’re bored. You’ve not been out all week and you want some
excitement, but you have got very little spare cash after paying off some
of your debts.
1. Borrow some more money, you can have a good time tonight and always
pay it back later.
2. Just stay in and put up with it. Very little can be done without money.
3. Obtain some cash in some way, take some money which belongs to
someone else, or sell something which isn’t really yours.
4. Consider all the options, think of all the things you can afford and choose
the best.
5. Threaten someone until they give you some money.
NPD OBP 2004 77

SITUATION G
You have arranged to meet your regular partner in a local pub. You have
been held up and arrive 15 minutes late. When you get there you find
they are sat laughing and talking with a stranger of about your age. They
do not see you immediately.
1. Grab hold of your partner, pull them aside and demand an explanation of
their behaviour.
2. Go over, sit down and start talking to your partner. Ignore the other person
completely, hopefully they will get the message and go away.
3. Leave immediately before they have a chance to see you. Wait for your
partner to return home then ask for an explanation of their behaviour.
4. Go over, introduce yourself and try to find out at close quarters what the
situation is really about.
5. Go over and tell the other person to clear off immediately, otherwise there
will be trouble.
NPD OBP 2004 78

SITUATION H
Someone sets you up to take the blame for something that you did not
do. You know who it was but you cannot prove it.

1. Beat them up.
2. Get your own back by arranging for them to be blamed for something they
did not do.
3. Avoid them in the future.
4. Try to forget it, it’s over and done with.
5. Confront them about it. Make sure they are aware how you feel and how it
won’t happen again.
NPD OBP 2004 79

ThinkFirst Summary
THINKFIRST OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR PROGRAMME
ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMME SHORT TERM EFFECTS FROM

STANDARDISED SELF-REPORTS
SUMMARY
• Pre and post programme evaluation measures (psychometric tests) for the ThinkFirst
programme were analysed.
• Data in sufficient quantity was available from ten of the 28 areas which use ThinkFirst.
• The analysis showed a significant change in the desired direction - offenders are reporting
improvements in attitude and thinking styles after the programme.
• There is an improvement in the homogeneity of the results by area.
• Pre-programme measures indicate regional/area variation in the cognitive deficits reported
by offenders who have been selected for the ThinkFirst programme.
• London area offenders start in a lower range of deficit across all the measures; they show
less improvement than offenders from most other areas.
• The pre-programmes scores for offenders who drop out of the programme show they
report significantly higher levels of criminogenic need and deficit before the programme
than those who complete. The prognosis for this group, in terms of reconviction, could be
considered worse, though OGRS scores might be comparable.
Introduction
Cognitive behavioural techniques have been used in the modification of a range of problematic
behaviours and the clinical evidence indicates their broad effectiveness when applied in a
consistent and planned way. Offending Behaviour Programmes based on these techniques
have been shown to be effective in reducing offending behaviour. The theoretical basis of the
programmes is the link between specific cognitive deficits, and risk of re-offending. The
cognitive deficits which increase the risk of re-offending include impulsivity, a rigid or restricted
approach to problem solving, pro-offending attitudes and lifestyle. These are sometimes
termed dynamic risk factors as they are accessible to change unlike the historic risk factors
associated with previous behaviour. Cognitive skills programmes are devised to ameliorate
cognitive deficits through a series of directed tasks which involve active participation or
rehearsal. The programmes combine a multi-modal approach including teaching of specific
cognitive skills. They are of sufficient dosage and intensity to change entrenched patterns of
behaviour. The cognitive skills programmes employed with offenders in England and Wales
have included Reasoning and Rehabilitation, Enhanced Thinking Skills and ThinkFirst.
ThinkFirst
ThinkFirst is the general offending behaviour programme most widely used with offenders in
the community. It was devised by James McGuire on cognitive-behavioural theoretical
principles, which attempt to address behaviour and attitudes linked to risk of offending. The
dynamic risk factors or deficit areas which ThinkFirst targets are:
• Cognitive Social Problem solving skills
• Self-management
• Social Interaction problems
• Pro-social attitudes and values
• Social cognitive patterns
Offenders are selected through an algorithm, which excludes those who are unlikely or unable
to benefit from the programme, those with a low risk of re-offending, and those unable to
participate in groups through psychiatric or psychological reasons, such as instability through
substance abuse. The resulting pool of selected offenders are considered to be medium to
1
ThinkFirst Summary
medium high risk of re-offending and to show evidence in interview of deficits in two of the
target areas. There are no offence specific exclusions; consequently the programmes in the
community are termed general offending programmes.
There are the 29 areas undertaking ThinkFirst; data in acceptable numbers was available for
10 areas. This provided data for 1827 pre and post programme comparisons. This represents
the largest study so far of a community programme.
The measures and analysis
The evaluation is restricted to Short Term Intervention Effects. This is a comparison of the
assessment measures undertaken before and after the programmes. These measures consist
of self-reports by offenders on a number of items or questions related to attitudes and thinking
which are linked to offending and targeted within ThinkFirst. The measures are copyright
standardised and validated assessment instruments which have been developed and used
with offender populations on previous occasions. They have been selected as the most
appropriate measures available of the attitudes and thinking targeted by the ThinkFirst
programme. The tests are described below in Figure 1. They provide an interim measure of the
effectiveness of the programme.
Figure 1
There are five self-report measures; the scores are selectively reported according to the
findings of the psychometric review. The measures themselves are most closely related to
the dynamic risk factors which the programmes address - general pro-criminal attitudes,
acceptance of responsibility/control of actions, anticipation of consequences and problem-
solving strategies.
Barratt Impulsivity
- total scale
Crime PICS
- General offending
- Anticipation of Re-Offending
- Victim Hurt Denial
Locus of control (external)
PICTS
- Cognitive Indolence
SPSI
- Positive solving
- Rational
- Negative
- Impulsive
- Avoidant
Pre-post Programme Results - the pre-test scores for each individual are compared with
the post test score of the same individual - the extent of the change if any is measured
statistically (matched pairs T.Test).
The data may be subject to considerable natural variation which could be mistaken for the
intervention effects of the programme - there is a statistical adjustment (Cohen's delta) to
take account of this and produce a size effect which can be attributed to programme
effects. A size effect above 0.30 is considered to demonstrate a moderate effect, but in a
free environment study such as this, size effects of 0.24 are considered acceptable or
promising.
A longer term goal is to show a change in behaviour, as well as attitude. This would be
signified by a reduction in offending, as indicated by reconviction when compared with a group
2
ThinkFirst Summary
of offenders who would have been suitable for a general offending programme, but did not
receive this intervention. This analysis will be undertaken when reconviction data becomes
available.
The Data
The information was taken from the offending behaviour team data-base. The database
contains the entire data set so far supplied through IAPS to NPD, covering a period up to
August 2003 (plus data previously assimilated for the psychometric review, Parts 1 and 2).
The database has also been expanded to include booklet information sent to NPD since
August 2003. The 2003 performance figures (Apr-to Dec) showed that 6104 offenders starting
a ThinkFirst programme and 1500 dropping out within that period (an unknown proportion will
have actually started before April 2003), but in that period there were an average of 678 starts
and 166 drop-outs per month. In the same period in 2002 there were an average of 603 starts
and 229 drop-outs per month. The 2003 figures indicate an improvement in retention over the
year. Not all the data was available to OBPT, but what was indicates in Figure 2 that there are
clear area differences in the proportions of those completing programmes, suggesting
operational practice differences. The level of difference in terms of psychometric report
between offenders completing and not completing will be examined.
Table 1
GOBP ThinkFirst
Area Started & Started only % Cumulative Total
completed complete completers
London 708 78 91% 708
Northumbria 296 259 53% 1004
Lancs 233 308 43% 1237
Durham 128 103 55% 1365
Bedford 110 179 38% 1475
Avon & Somerset 78 178 30% 1553
North Yorkshire 71 131 35% 1624
Thames Valley 65 155 29% 1689
Devon & Cornwall 57 297 16% 1746
Humberside 44 222 16% 1790
Dorset* 37 88 30% 1827
1827
Gloucester 24 75 24%
South Yorkshire 22 0? 100%?
Cumbria 18 52 26%
Wiltshire 18 138 11%
Cheshire 16 43 27%
West Mercia 5 135 0
Kent 0 1
Cambridgeshire ? ?
Derbyshire ? ?
Hertfordshire ? ?
Manchester ? no data -
Merseyside ? ?
Norfolk ? ?
Nottinghamshire ? ?
Suffolk ? ?
Sussex ? ?
Teeside ? ?
3
ThinkFirst Summary
RESULTS
Previous analyses indicate some caution in combining area results as this process has been
found to mask important results. Therefore the results are presented by individual area and as
a grouped total.
Table 2. Provides a summary of the ThinkFirst Short Term Intervention Effects. The main
results are significant changes in the desired direction on most measures; this means
offenders are reporting changes in attitude and thinking styles after the programme, which
indicate more pro-social functioning.
Four measures have been selected to compare area results and give a representative analysis
of the measurement of change before and after the programme:
- Impulsivity Total score - tendency to act without thinking of consequences
- General scale of CPICS - pro-criminal attitudes
- Locus of control - attributing control of behaviour to external events
- Cognitive Indolence scale PICTS - is described in the manual as 'typically elevated by
individuals who take shortcuts and the easy way around problems. Such individuals are
continually in trouble because their short cuts catch them up sooner or later’. This has
also been associated with the prediction of disciplinary offences.
- The SPSI (D’Zurilla, Nezu and Maydeu-Olivares, 2000) is not now considered a
particularly appropriate measure of programme effectiveness. (The pre-programme
scores show an unacceptable level of variation. It is not intended to continue with this
measure.)
The total change scores illustrate very clearly that in the majority of cases where offenders
attend the ThinkFirst programme they are able to improve their stated attitudes and thinking
style. Three measures showed a significant effect size. One measure, the Locus of Control
psychometric, did not show an acceptable size effect. In this instance, the amount of change
after the programme could still be attributed to 'natural ' variation of response, rather than the
effects of the programme. This is consistent with previous studies of general offending
programmes for offenders in custody, though ThinkFirst is not one of the programmes. The
short-term results are generally very positive, showing that offenders who have participated in
a programme improve on the level of the cognitive deficits they report, although, larger effect
sizes are reported on the prison run programmes.
Table 2
ThinkFirst
Pre-prog Post SD Change Size effect n
mean prog (pre) Sig.*
mean
Impulsivity 71.81 69.16 10.62 0.000 0.25 1415
CPICS 39.81 36.90 9.56 0.000 0.30 1544

General
Scale
Locus of 31.50 29.34 12.62 0.000 0.17 1571
Control
PICTS 17.37 15.97 4.72 0.000 0.32 1726
Cognitive
Indolence
*Matched pairs T.test - the same individuals compared pre and post programme scores : significant change is measured as a less
than 0.05 probability that the change is due to chance. This is the accepted standard of evidential association.
The total programme effectiveness is also analysed at area level, as there has been
considerable variation between areas in previous analyses. There are a potentially forty-four
scores of effect size representing the effectiveness of ThinkFirst across the areas. It has been
4
ThinkFirst Summary
said that a moderate effect of 0.24 or above represents an acceptable level of change which
can be attributed to programme effect rather than natural variation. This was found for 33 of
the scores. There is an improvement in the homogeneity over previous analysis of the results.
Table 3.
Size effect Pre-Prog Mean
Area& Impulse CPICS Locus PICTS Impul CPICS Locus PICTS
number General of Cognitive se General of Cognitive
Control Indolence Control Indolence
London - 0.18 0.15 0.08 0.25 68.57 37.30 27.03 16.07
708
Northumbria - 0.25 0.47 0.28 0.51 74.44 43.41 31.42 19.26
296
Lancs - 0.29 0.38 0.30 0.28 72.44 39.16 30.21 17.33
233
Durham - 0.38 0.46 0.31 0.30 73.48 41.66 30.87 17.85
128
Bedford - 0.36 ns ns 0.35 71.19 38.04 28.40 17.15
110
Avon & 0.24 0.31 0.33 0.27 74.97 40.17 29.45 17.87
Somerset - 78
North 0.24 0.57 0.48 0.50 74.25 40.74 29.14 18.69
Yorkshire - 71
Thames 0.32 0.45 ns 0.39 71.98 41.60 27.52 17.14
Valley - 65
Devon & 0.38 0.49 0.37 ns 73.12 41.38 31.30 18.23
Cornwall - 57
Humberside - ns 0.22 ns 0.44 72.00 40.00 30.22 17.62
44
Dorset - 0.40 ns ns 0.41 74.15 42.42 27.91 18.66
37
There appear to be some difficulties for a few areas; this may be an artefact of data quality,
rather than the effective delivery of the programmes.
The pre-programme means for each area show the starting point of the offenders as they see
themselves at the beginning of the programme. It is expected that there will be a great
similarity as the programme selection criteria have been standardised. The advantage for
evaluation is that similarity of offenders on dynamic risk factors, as measured through pre-
programme self-report, allows the post programme changes to be considered as differential
programme effects. Using the Locus of Control self-report in this way as a key indicator, it can
be seen that the offenders selected for ThinkFirst are in general comparable across the areas.
It can be seen that the selected offenders start from the same baselines, but the other
measures indicate a wider regional/area variation in the cognitive deficits reported by offenders
who have been selected for the ThinkFirst programme.
London area offenders start in a lower range of deficit across all the measures. This offers an
explanation as to why London does not achieve the large effect sizes found in some other
areas. If offenders are starting with lower levels of cognitive deficit, there is less opportunity for
them to improve. This might suggest that London is targeting for the programme in a slightly
different way to other areas. At the time the data were collected, London was also running
Reason and Rehabilitation for higher risk offenders and it might be that some of those with
greater deficits went there rather than to ThinkFirst.
One point which needs to be made here is that at this point we are not certain how much
change on the measures is essential to reduce likelihood of reconviction. We will only know
this for certain once changes scores are correlated with reconviction data. It is quite likely that
it is not the overall movement on any single measure that is most closely linked to reductions in
5
ThinkFirst Summary
offending, but reaching a threshold on a number of measures. Thus one cannot say that areas
producing the biggest changes are going to be the most effective. It might be that the level of
performance on post programme scores is the most predictive.
Attrition- Psychometric differences
The psychometric or self-report measures were used to compare the level of cognitive deficit
reported at the start of the programme by offenders. A comparison can be made between
areas to illustrate the operation of selection criteria. They can also be used to explore the self-
reported differences in the criminogenic needs of offenders selected for ThinkFirst who
completed the programme with the same self-report measures of those who dropped out. It is
not possible to know at which part of the programme or the reason for their non-completion.
There is evidential value in examining if there were some intrinsic differences reported by the
offenders between those completing the programme and those who though selected as equally
suitable for ThinkFirst subsequently failed to benefit from the programme.
Table 4
Completers Non- Sig
Pre-prog sd n completers sd n Mean
mean Pre-prog diff.
mean
Impulsivity 71.96 10.68 1642 74.64 10.57 1401 0.000
General 38.80 9.42 1304 41.82 9.57 1569 0.000
Locus 28.80 10.93 1536 30.77 11.08 1344 0.000
Cognitive 16.95 4.73 2330 18.68 4.83 1908 0.000
Indolence
- The self-report measures for offenders who drop out show they had significantly higher levels
of criminogenic need and deficit. The prognosis for this group in terms of reconviction could be
considered worse than none drop–outs, though OGRS scores for both groups might be
comparable. In other words, one might use the measures to identify drop out in advance, but
the drop outs are probably the offenders who most need the programme.
- The problem of attrition and the implications for targeting are complex issues and still, to some
extent, a matter of viewpoint. It can be argued that the programmes are successful with a
targeted group which becomes self selected into a more programme-responsive group. If this
group, which started with evident criminogenic need, shows improvement in short term
evaluation of attitude change and long term evaluation in reconviction compared to those
without intervention, then this is a successful intervention appropriately targeted. There
remains the issue of an effective intervention strategy for those offenders who do not benefit
from or refuse programme attendance but have high levels of criminogenic needs linked to risk
of re-offending.
Kay Nooney
Senior Psychologist
Offending Behaviour Programmes Team
NPD May 2004
6
Nomination(s) for 8th September Research Event at NPD, London
1. Name: ………………………………………………………………………….
Post: ………………………………………………………………………….
Any special requirements (e.g. dietary)
………………………………………………………………………………….
e mail address: ………………………………………………………….
2. Name: ………………………………………………………………………….
Post: ………………………………………………………………………….
Any special requirement (e.g. dietary)
…………………………………………………………………………………
e mail address: …………………………………………………………
Nomination(s) for 1st October Research Event at Leeds
1. Name: ………………………………………………………………………….
Post: ………………………………………………………………………….
Any special requirements (e.g. dietary)
………………………………………………………………………………….
e mail address: ………………………………………………………….
2. Name: ………………………………………………………………………….
Post: ………………………………………………………………………….
Any special requirement (e.g. dietary)
…………………………………………………………………………………..
e mail address: …………………………………………………………..
Please return this form by 20 August to:

Ruth Taylor, Room 223, 2nd Floor, Horseferry House,
Dean Ryle Street, London SW1P 2AW
E mail: Ruth.taylor@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
ACCREDITED PROGRAMME EVALUATION MEASURES
Nominated contact name for …………………………………………….. area.
Name: …………………………………………………………………………..
Post: …………………………………………………………………………..
Address: …………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………..
E mail: …………………………………………………………………………..
Please return this form to: Ruth Taylor, Room 223, 2nd Floor, Horseferry House,
Dean Ryle Street, London SW1P 2AW
E mail: Ruth.taylor@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Appendix D
Competency framework for psychometrics administrators
1. Attitude
• Presents a positive attitude towards the session

• Avoids making negative or undermining comments about the assessment process
2. Awareness
• Has a basic familiarity with each of the measures

• Aware of the importance of the administration upon the integrity of the assessment
process
• Sufficiently informed to be able to deal with questions, without compromising purpose
of questionnaire or integrity of assessment
3. Domestics
• Aware of importance of setting and deals with housekeeping issues/requirements

• Attentive to detail – ensures that all the required materials are present and correct, that
room layout and conditions are suitable, that offenders’ names are entered, and that
booklets are being completed fully and correctly
• Prevents/minimises external interruptions
• Ensures that all material is collected in at the end
4. Managing the session
• Explains the purpose of the session, what will happen, and the rationale for using the
questionnaires
• Allows opportunity for questions and puts participants at ease
• Gives clear instructions to participants
• Checks participants’ understanding
• Sensitive to the needs of individuals within the group throughout the session
• Able to maintain order within the group setting and keeps appropriate control over the
session (able to deal with interruptions or disruptive participants promptly and
appropriately)
* * * * *
FORM ONE
Below are a number of statements that people use to describe themselves.
Read each statement.

• If the statement is true for you, circle T.
• If it is false for you, circle F.
Do not spend too much time on any one statement.
Give the answer that seems best to describe you.
1.
I often long for excitement. T F
2.
I feel at my best after taking a couple of drinks. T F
3.
I save regularly. T F
4.
I often buy things on impulse. T F
5.
I often feel I’ve made the wrong choice in my T F
occupation.
6.
When I was going to school I truanted quite T F
often.
7.
I would do almost anything for a dare. T F
8.
I have always had a lot of bad luck. T F
NPD OBP 2004 1

9.
It is hard to amount to anything at present. T F
10.
I am stricter about right and wrong than most T F
people.
11.
Things are all mixed up in my life. T F
12.
I often do and say things without stopping to T F
think of the consequences.
13.
I have often got into a jam because I do things T F
without thinking.
14.
I often like to get high (on booze or drugs). T F
15.
I am a very impulsive person. T F
16.
I am afraid of the dark. T F
17.
I hardly ever get thrilled or excited. T F
18.
My parents disapproved of my friends. T F
19.
My home life was always happy. T F
NPD OBP 2004 2

20.
I often act on the spur of the moment. T F
21.
My parents let me make my own decisions. T F
22.
I usually think carefully before doing anything. T F
23.
I often enjoy breaking rules I consider to be T F
unreasonable.
24.
I mostly speak before thinking things out. T F
25.
I often get involved in things I wish I could get T F
out of.
26.
I would rather go without something than ask for T F
a favour.
27.
I have had more than my share of things to T F
worry about.
28.
When I meet a stranger I often think that s/he is T F
better than I am.
29.
Before I do something I try to consider how my T F
friends will react to it.
NPD OBP 2004 3

30.
I have never been in trouble with the law. T F
31.
In school I was sometimes sent to the Head for T F
misbehaving.
32.
I keep out of trouble at all costs. T F
33.
Most of the time I feel happy. T F
34.
I often feel as though I have done something T F
wrong or wicked.
35.
It is hard for me to act natural when I am with T F
new people.
36.
I get carried away with new and exciting ideas. T F
37.
I get bored very easily doing the same old T F
things.
38.
Planning things takes the fun out of life. T F
39.
I need to use a lot of control to stay out of T F
trouble.
40.
I have often gone against my parents’ wishes. T F
NPD OBP 2004 4

41.
I often think about how I look and what T F
impression I am making upon others.
42.
I have never done any heavy drinking. T F
43.
I find it easy to ‘drop’ or ‘break with’ a friend. T F
44.
I get nervous when I have to ask someone for a T F
job.
45.
Sometimes I used to feel that I would like to T F
leave home.
46.
I never worry about my looks. T F
47.
I have been in trouble one or more times T F
because of my behaviour towards the opposite
sex.
48.
Almost everything enjoyable is either illegal or T F
immoral.
49.
I am often surprised at people’s reaction to what T F
I say.
50.
I go out of my way to meet trouble rather than try T F
to escape it.
NPD OBP 2004 5

51.
My home life was always very pleasant. T F
52.
I seem to do things that I regret more often than T F
other people do.
53.
My table manners are not quite as good at home T F
as when I am out in company.
54.
It is pretty easy for people to win arguments with T F
me.
55.
I know who is responsible for most of my T F
troubles.
56.
I get pretty discouraged with the law when a T F
smart lawyer gets a criminal free.
57.
I have used alcohol excessively. T F
58.
I get extremely impatient if kept waiting by T F
someone who is late.
59.
An evening out is more exciting if planned at the T F
last moment.
60.
I get restless staying around the same place for T F
too long.
NPD OBP 2004 6

61.
Even when I have got into trouble I was usually T F
trying to do the right thing.
62.
It is very important to me to have enough friends T F
and social life.
63.
I sometimes wanted to run away from home. T F
64.
Life usually hands me a pretty raw deal. T F
65.
People often talk about me behind my back. T F
66.
I would never play cards (poker) with a stranger. T F
67.
I don’t think I’m quite as happy as others seem T F
to be.
68.
I used to sometimes steal when I was a T F
youngster.
NPD OBP 2004 7

Form Two
Below are a number of statements about how topics can affect your personal beliefs.
There are a large number of people who agree with these statements. There are also a large number of people who disagree with them.
On the scale mark how you feel about each of the statements.
• agree 3
• not sure 2
• disagree 1

Disagree sure Agree
1.
I can anticipate difficulties and take action to avoid them. 0 1 2 3 4
2.
A great deal of what happens to me is just a matter of chance. 0 1 2 3 4
3.
Everyone knows that luck or chance determines the future. 0 1 2 3 4
4.
I can control my problems only if I have outside support. 0 1 2 3 4
5.
When I make plans I am almost certain I can make them work. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 8


Disagree sure Agree
6.
My problems will dominate all my life. 0 1 2 3 4
7.
My mistakes and problems are my responsibility to deal with. 0 1 2 3 4
8.
Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. 0 1 2 3 4
9.
My life is controlled by outside actions and events. 0 1 2 3 4
10.
I believe people are victims of circumstances beyond their control. 0 1 2 3 4
11.
To continually manage my problems I need professional help. 0 1 2 3 4
12.
When I am under stress the tightness in my muscles is due to things outside my 0 1 2 3 4
control.
13.
I believe a person really can be master of his own fate. 0 1 2 3 4
14.
It is impossible to control irregular fast breathing when I am having difficulties. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 9

Disagree sure Agree
15.
I understand why my problems vary so much from one occasion to another. 0 1 2 3 4
16.
I am confident of being able to deal successfully with future problems. 0 1 2 3 4
17.
In my case maintaining control over my problems is mainly due to luck. 0 1 2 3 4
18.
I have often been blamed for events beyond my control. 0 1 2 3 4
19.
In the end, crime does pay. 0 1 2 3 4
20.
I have never hurt anyone by what I’ve done. 0 1 2 3 4
21.
I will always get into trouble. 0 1 2 3 4
22.
Crime has now become a way of life for me. 0 1 2 3 4
23.
Crime can be a useful way of getting what you want. 0 1 2 3 4
24.
I believe in living for now, the future will take care of itself. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 10


Disagree sure Agree
25.
Most people would commit offences if they knew that they could get away with it. 0 1 2 3 4
26.
I definitely won’t get into trouble with the police in the next six months (6 months 0 1 2 3 4
after release if you are in prison).
27.
I don’t see myself as a real “criminal”. 0 1 2 3 4
28.
Committing crime is quite exciting. 0 1 2 3 4
29.
I find it hard to resist an opportunity to commit a crime. 0 1 2 3 4
30.
Many so-called crimes are not really wrong. 0 1 2 3 4
31.
My crimes have never harmed anyone. 0 1 2 3 4
32.
If things go wrong for me, I might offend again. 0 1 2 3 4
33.
I am not really a criminal. 0 1 2 3 4
34.
I always seem to give in to temptation. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 11


Disagree sure Agree
35.
When people have no money, they can’t be blamed for stealing. 0 1 2 3 4
36.
There was no victim of my offence(s). 0 1 2 3 4
37.
I wouldn’t commit the offence(s) again. 0 1 2 3 4
38.
Once a criminal, always a criminal. 0 1 2 3 4
39.
I really think affirmative action programmes for ethnic minorities on college sites 0 1 2 3 4
constitute reverse discrimination.
40.
I feel I could develop an intimate relationship with someone from a different race. 0 1 2 3 4
41.
My friendship network is very racially mixed. 0 1 2 3 4
42.
I am against affirmative action programmes for ethnic minorities in business. 0 1 2 3 4
43.
I would feel OK about my son or daughter dating someone from a different racial 0 1 2 3 4
group.
NPD OBP 2004 12


Disagree sure Agree
44.
multicultural or minority issues in education.
45.
Most of my close friends are from my own racial group. 0 1 2 3 4
46.
I think that it is (or would be) important for my children to attend schools that are 0 1 2 3 4
racially mixed.
47.
multicultural or minority issues in business.
48.
Overall, I think racial minorities in Britain complain too much about racial 0 1 2 3 4
discrimination.
49.
I think White people’s racism toward minority ethnic groups still constitutes a major 0 1 2 3 4
problem in Britain.
50.
I think the school system, from primary school through to college, should 0 1 2 3 4
encourage minority and immigrant children to learn and fully adopt traditional
British values.
51.
If I were to adopt a child, I would be happy to adopt a child of any race. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 13


Disagree sure Agree
52.
I think the school system, from primary school through college, should promote 0 1 2 3 4
values representative of diverse cultures.
53.
I believe that reading the autobiography of Nelson Mandela would be of value. 0 1 2 3 4
54.
I think it is better if people marry within their own race. 0 1 2 3 4
55.
Even though I may start out with the best of intentions I have trouble staying “on 0 1 2 3 4
track”.
56.
I sometimes let my thoughts and ideas run wild and ignore the problems and 0 1 2 3 4
difficulties associated with my plans until it is too late.
57.
I find myself taking shortcuts, even when I know these shortcuts will create 0 1 2 3 4
problems later.
58.
I will frequently start an activity, project or job but then never finish it. 0 1 2 3 4
59.
I tend to let things go when I should act, in the hope that they will work out in time. 0 1 2 3 4
60.
I have trouble following through on good initial intentions. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 14


Disagree sure Agree
61.
I tend to act impulsively under stress. 0 1 2 3 4
62.
I tend to put off until tomorrow what should have been done today. 0 1 2 3 4
63.
I have difficulty deciding if my thoughts, ideas and plans are good or poor. 0 1 2 3 4
64.
If challenged I will sometimes go along by saying “yeah, you’re right,” even when I 0 1 2 3 4
know the other person is wrong, because it’s easier than arguing with them about
it.
65.
I tend to get easily side tracked so that I rarely finish what I start. 0 1 2 3 4
66.
If there is a short-cut or easy way around something I will find it. 0 1 2 3 4
67.
I have trouble controlling my angry feelings. 0 1 2 3 4
68.
Even when I set goals I frequently do not obtain them because I am distracted by 0 1 2 3 4
things going on around me.
69.
When frustrated, I stop thinking rationally and say to myself statements such as 0 1 2 3 4
“sod it” or “to hell with it”.
NPD OBP 2004 15


Disagree sure Agree
70.
I rarely considered the consequences of my actions before committing my current 0 1 2 3 4
offence.
71.
tend to push problems to the side rather than deal with them. 0 1 2 3 4
NPD OBP 2004 16

Form Three
8 realistic life situations that many people might face are given.
• Each one can be seen as a problem to solve.

• Each one has 5 possible solutions with it.
You are to choose up to 3 of the solutions that you think are the best. Do not
put anything against those you would not consider.
You should rank them 1st, 2nd and 3rd by putting a 1, 2 or 3 in the ‘rank’
column.
NPD OBP 2004 17

SITUATION A
A friend borrowed some money from you several weeks ago. You asked
if he could return it as soon as possible because you might need it. He
has made no effort to pay you back nor has he mentioned the money on
the last few occasions you have seen him. You get the impression he is
avoiding you.
1. Go round to his place. Threaten him that unless he pays you all he owes
immediately he can expect trouble. If he still refuses to pay carry out your
threats.
2. Write it off as experience, and break off the friendship. Make a resolution
that you won’t lend money to anyone else in future.
3. Keep mentioning it now and again. After all he is a mate and you don’t
want to ruin the friendship. He is sure to repay you when he can.
4. Go round to see him. Tell him you need the money and ask when he
intends to pay you. If he cannot pay all the money at once take what you
can and get him to agree a date for repayment.
5. Go round to see him. Tell him you need the money now. Explain if he
doesn’t pay up immediately that is the end of the friendship and you’ll let
everyone else know what he’s like.
NPD OBP 2004 18

SITUATION B
At work you have a clash of personalities with your immediate

supervisor. He always seems to pick on you. Apart from this difficulty
you enjoy your job and would hate to leave it.
1. Wait until the next time he says anything, have it out with him there and
then in front of everyone. No one should be allowed to get away with the
way he’s behaving.
2. Arrange a private discussion with him to try to sort out your differences
3. Think up some way that you can get your own back on him. Perhaps
something which will make him look stupid or create problems for him.
4. Look for another job. He’s not going to change so you will be best of out of
the situation.
5. Put up with it. It’s just one of those things that happens. Eventually he
might start picking on someone else.
NPD OBP 2004 19

SITUATION C
You are driving a car on a very urgent matter and have broken the speed
limit. A police car appears behind you and flags you down.
1. Accelerate, you can probably lose then and your journey is too important
to stop and waste time.
2. Pull over and do nothing. It would only make matters worse and it’s too
late now anyway.
3. Pull over, remain calm and explain about the urgent nature of your journey
4. Pull over and complain about being stopped when you are in such a hurry
.Ask why they haven’t got better things to do than pull people up for
speeding
5. Pull over, apologise, promise you will never do it again and hope he let
you off with a caution.
NPD OBP 2004 20

SITUATION D
You have been going out with someone for several weeks. You realise
they are becoming far more serious about the relationship than you are.
You do not want a long-term relationship at present.
1. Carry on seeing them, but show less interest. Turn up late, and cancel
dates at short notice. Sooner or later they will get the message.
2. Start seeing someone else and make sure they find out about it.
3. Take her/him out somewhere quiet, ask them how they see the
relationship and talk about the current situation, explaining your point of
view.
4. Start an argument with her/him next time you meet. This will then give you
a good excuse to finish with them or make them finish with you.
5. Do nothing at present. After all, you might not want a long term
commitment but why end it yet? Just avoid any talk about future plans.
NPD OBP 2004 21

SITUATION E
You are taking a course which is very important to your career

prospects. You are certain you will pass most of the practical work
involved, but are very concerned about some aspects of the written
examination. You are always very nervous and perform badly in that sort
of situation.
1. Explain your difficulties to the course tutor and seek their advice.
2. Take it as it comes. There is no point worrying. If you fail, you fail.
3. Try to smuggle a few notes into the exam room just to give you that extra
edge.
4. Persuade a mate who has already done the course to take the exam for
you, he’s bound to pass and no one will ever know.
5. Give up the course. If you’re going to fail this part, what’s the point?
NPD OBP 2004 22

SITUATION F
You’re bored. You’ve not been out all week and you want some
excitement, but you have got very little spare cash after paying off some
of your debts.
1. Borrow some more money, you can have a good time tonight and always
pay it back later.
2. Just stay in and put up with it. Very little can be done without money.
3. Obtain some cash in some way, take some money which belongs to
someone else, or sell something which isn’t really yours.
4. Consider all the options, think of all the things you can afford and choose
the best.
5. Threaten someone until they give you some money.
NPD OBP 2004 23

SITUATION G
You have arranged to meet your regular partner in a local pub. You have
been held up and arrive 15 minutes late. When you get there you find
they are sat laughing and talking with a stranger of about your age. They
do not see you immediately.
1. Grab hold of your partner, pull them aside and demand an explanation of
their behaviour.
2. Go over, sit down and start talking to your partner. Ignore the other person
completely, hopefully they will get the message and go away.
3. Leave immediately before they have a chance to see you. Wait for your
partner to return home then ask for an explanation of their behaviour.
4. Go over, introduce yourself and try to find out at close quarters what the
situation is really about.
5. Go over and tell the other person to clear off immediately, otherwise there
will be trouble.
NPD OBP 2004 24

SITUATION H
Someone sets you up to take the blame for something that you did not
do. You know who it was but you cannot prove it.

1. Beat them up.
2. Get your own back by arranging for them to be blamed for something they
did not do.
3. Avoid them in the future.
4. Try to forget it, it’s over and done with.
5. Confront them about it. Make sure they are aware how you feel and how it
won’t happen again.
NPD OBP 2004 25

UK Home Office: PC44

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UK Home Office: PC44

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RE-LAUNCH OF ACCREDITED

PROGRAMME EVALUATION Probation

National Probation Directorate

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection

The purpose of intermediate (psychometric) Evaluation Measures

Using the measures

PC44/2004 - Re-launch of Accredited Programme Evaluation Measures (Psychometrics) 2

PC44/2004 - Re-launch of Accredited Programme Evaluation Measures (Psychometrics) 3

Administration and Interpretation

PC44/2004 - Re-launch of Accredited Programme Evaluation Measures (Psychometrics) 4

Implementing the new measures

PC44/2004 - Re-launch of Accredited Programme Evaluation Measures (Psychometrics) 5

NPD OBP 2004 1

• Introduction and purpose

Section 2 - Issues in assessment

Section 3 - Uses of assessments

• Measuring programme effectiveness

Section 4 - Assessment measures

NPD OBP 2004 2

Introduction and purpose

Reasoning and Rehabilitation

The manual is divided into sections covering:

The purpose of psychometric evaluation is to assess the impact of specific

NPD OBP 2004 3

The ultimate effectiveness of programmes for offenders is determined by

Psychometric assessments are standardised self-report measures that

• to establish quality control of programme delivery

NPD OBP 2004 4

SECTION 2 - ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT

Social and ethical implication of testing

NPD OBP 2004 5

appropriate by the Offending Behaviour Programmes Team. Relevant

A Probation Circular (PC 59/2003) has been issued regarding the

Scoring and Interpretation

NPD OBP 2004 6

The interpretation of clinical impact results for individual offenders is not

Interpretation of group data is less problematic, but requires a reasonable

Recording and storing of assessments

NPD OBP 2004 7

NPD OBP 2004 8

SECTION 3 – THE USE OF ASSESSMENTS

Measuring Programme Effectiveness

It is a requirement of accreditation that programmes are evaluated. This is a

There is an increasing concern in the implementation of large-scale

NPD OBP 2004 9

Progress can be measured by a movement towards the attainment of the

b) A test of significance should be applied to pre and post programme results

c) It is also considered important that any change found should represent

NPD OBP 2004 10

presented in a clear, meaningful and useable format to prevent misuse or

Reporting to staff and other professionals

Reporting of assessments to offenders

NPD OBP 2004 11

isolation; knowledge is needed of the offender’s performance during the

The resulting scores of the psychometrics would have to be conveyed in a

Identifying further treatment targets

The psychometric assessments will be used at an aggregate level to report on

NPD OBP 2004 12

SECTION 4 - ASSESSMENT MEASURES

Evidence of Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioural Programmes

NPD OBP 2004 13

relation to others, plays an important role in his criminal conduct. Fabiano, et

Based on this approach a programme of cognitive skills training was