LogFAQs > #954832157

Biscotti posted...

how about this one:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/088626099014012001

'Consistent with findings in other areas of clinical practice, it was predicted that good treatment behavior (in terms of in-session behavior, homework quality, and global ratings of motivation and change achieved) would be associated with parole success and lower recidivism in a sample of 283 sex offenders. This prediction was not supported: Good treatment behavior was unrelated to parole failure or general recidivism, and it was associated with higher serious recidivism (a new violent or sexual offense) after an average time at risk of 32 months. Further exploration revealed that men who scored higher in psychopathy and better in treatment behavior were the most likely to reoffend. These results could have important implications for risk management and treatment planning.

if you want to split hairs about psychopaths, rapists, and peadophiles, go ahead.

i've now linked one general summary article, and one scholarly.

your turn.

This article does not, and cannot by its design, say that treatment led to higher recidivism. All it really says is that people high on psychopathy measures might be able to game psychiatrists into believing they are doing better, which is surprising to no one.

If you look at Table 2 this point is clear, those who are high in psychopathy show more recidivism when their percieved treatment change is positive. Those who are low on psychopathy show pretty much no difference between high and low treatment effects. Most likely this just means that those who are planning to reoffend try to game the system to make it seem like they've gotten better.

However, it's unclear how the overall group's recidivism is different compared to those who got no treatment at all because this wasn't measured.

More-or-less, this doesn't support your point.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]