This paper evaluates whether participation in the Thinking for a Change cognitive behavioral program produces improvement in social problemsolving skills in a prison context. Data are derived from a randomized experiment, with a focus on whether improvement in social problemsolving skills varies across modified delivery formats, and whether improvements are attributable to program completion or program dosage. We find that there are significant improvements in social problem solving between the pre- and post-test, and that delivery of the curriculum using video conferencing technology or inmate co-facilitated formats produces equivalent outcomes relative to traditional classroom administration. On average, significant improvements accrue to participants who receive greater program dosage. However, program completion, commonly viewed as a primary marker of satisfactory program performance, is not associated with improvement in social problem solving. Implications of the findings for rehabilitation programming are discussed, including considerations in a pandemic context.
AllenF. A. (1981). Decline of the rehabilitative ideal—penal policy and social purpose. Yale University Press.
2.
AndrewsD. A.ZingerI.HogeR. D.BontaJ.GendreauP.CullenF. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis*. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x
3.
AxR. K.FaganT. J.MagalettaP. R.MorganR. D.NussbaumD.WhiteT. W. (2007). Innovations in correctional assessment and treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807301555
4.
BackhausA.AghaZ.MaglioneM. L.ReppA.RossB.ZuestD.Rice-ThorpN. M.LohrJ.ThorpS. R. (2012). Videoconferencing psychotherapy: A systematic review. Psychological Services, 9(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027924
5.
BatastiniA. B.KingC. M.MorganR. D.McDanielB. (2016). Telepsychological services with criminal justice and substance abuse clients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Services, 13(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000042
6.
BatastiniA. B.MorganR. D. (2016). Connecting the disconnected: Preliminary results and lessons learned from a telepsychology initiative with special management inmates. Psychological Services, 13(3), 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000078
7.
BickleG. (2013). An intermediate outcome evaluation of the evaluation of the thinking for a change program. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Bureau of Research and Evaluation.
8.
BourgonG.ArmstrongB. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854804270618
9.
BushJ.GlickB.TaymansJ. M., & National Institute of Corrections (U.S.). (1997). Thinking for a change: Integrated cognitive behavior change program. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
10.
CortinaJ. M.FolgerR. G. (1998). When is it acceptable to accept a null hypothesis: No way, jose?Organizational Research Methods, 1(3), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819813004
11.
CullenA.ClarkeA.KuipersE.HodginsS.DeanK.FahyT. (2012). A multisite randomized trial of a cognitive skills program for male mentally disordered offenders: Violence and antisocial behavior outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(6), 1114–1120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030291
12.
CullenF. T.GendreauP. (1989). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation. In GoodsteinL.MacKenzieD. L. (Eds.), The American prison: Issues in research and policy (pp. 23–44). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5652-3_3
GoldenL. S.GatchelR. J.CahillM. A. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of the national institute of corrections’ “Thinking for a change” program among probationers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(2), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v43n0203
17.
GottschalkM. (2006). The Prison and the gallows: The politics of mass incarceration in America. Cambridge University Press.
18.
GottschalkM. (2016). Caught: The prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton University Press.
19.
HipkinsJ. H. (1997). Telemedicine in correctional systems. In BashurR. L.SandersJ. H.ShannonG. W. (Eds.), Telemedicine theory and practice (pp. 375–389). Charles C. Thomas.
20.
HollinC. R.McGuireJ.HounsomeJ. C.HatcherR. M.BilbyC. A. L.PalmerE. J. (2008). Cognitive skills behavior programs for offenders in the community: A reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807312234
21.
JaykaranSaxenaD.YadavP.KanthariaN. D. (2011). Nonsignificant P values cannot prove null hypothesis: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences, 3(3), 465–466. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.84470
22.
LatessaE. J.ManchakS.LuxJ.NewsomeJ.LugoM.PappJ. (2017). The ohio risk assessment system (ORAS): A re-validation and inter-rater reliability study. The University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute.
23.
LatessaE. J.SmithP.SchweitzerM. (2009). Evaluation of selected institutional offender treatment programs for the pennsylvania department of corrections: Final report. University of Cincinnati.
24.
LipseyM. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In CookT.CordrayD.HartmannH.HedgesL.LightR. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83–127). Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
LipseyM. W.LandenbergerN. A.WilsonS. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders: A systematic review. The Campbell Collaboration.
26.
LowenkampC. T.HubbardD.MakariosM. D.LatessaE. J. (2009). A quasi-experimental evaluation of thinking for a change: A “real-world” application. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808328230
27.
MakariosM.SperberK. G.LatessaE. J. (2014). Treatment dosage and the risk principle: A refinement and extension. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(5), 334–350.
28.
MartinsonR. (1974, Spring). What works?-questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.
29.
MorganR. D.PatrickA. R.MagalettaP. R. (2008). Does the use of telemental health alter the treatment experience? Inmates’ perceptions of telemental health versus face-to-face treatment modalities. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(1), 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.1.158
30.
O’ConnorT. P.PerreyclearM. (2002). Prison religion in action and its influence on offender rehabilitation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35(3/4), 11. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v35n03_02
31.
OsenbachJ. E.O’BrienK. M.MishkindM.SmolenskiD. J. (2013). Synchronous telehealth technologies in psychotherapy for depression: A meta-analysis: Research article: Meta-analysis of synchronous telehealth for depression. Depression and Anxiety, 30(11), 1058–1067. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22165
32.
PetersiliaJ. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.
33.
SalesC. P.McSweeneyL.SaleemY.KhalifaN. (2018). The use of telepsychiatry within forensic practice: A literature review on the use of videolink - A ten-year follow-up. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 29(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1396487
34.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
35.
SloanD. M.GallagherM. W.FeinsteinB. A.LeeD. J.PruneauG. M. (2011). Efficacy of telehealth treatments for posttraumatic stress-related symptoms: A meta-analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 40(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2010.550058
36.
SmithP.CullenF. T.LatessaE. J. (2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders*. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00551.x
37.
SperberK. G.LatessaE. J.MakariosM. D. (2013). Examining the interaction between level of risk and dosage of treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(3), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812467942
38.
SperberK. G.LowenkampC. T. (2017). Dosage is more than just counting program hours: The importance of role-playing in treatment outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56(7), 433–451.
39.
StrimpleE. O. (2003). A history of prison inmate-animal interaction programs. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203255212
YoungL. B. (2012). Telemedicine interventions for substance-use disorder: A literature review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 18(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1258/jtt.2011.110608
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
