Training Evaluation: Adolescent Sex Offending Perpetration – Module 2

(NJ-Part 01 Module 2) Training Evaluation – Adolescent Sex Offending Perpetration – Module 2

Training Name: Adolescent Sex Offending Perpetration – Module 2

Learning Objectives

As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1) Explain why adolescent sexual arousal must be understood within the broader context of emotional and physiological development rather than treated automatically as a sign of risk.
2) Describe the iatrogenic effects that can arise when youth who have engaged in misconduct are grouped together, and the conditions under which group treatment remains appropriate.
3) Identify the elements of trauma-informed practice, including the prevalence of trauma among youth in detention and the distinction between being trauma-informed and providing trauma treatment.
4) Distinguish among the major assessment tools (JSOAP-II, JSORRAT-II, YNPS, PROFESOR, SAVRY) by their purposes, structures, and limitations, including the caveat that adolescent risk assessment involves “moving targets.”
5) Describe cautions surrounding polygraph use with adolescents and the features of well-structured interviews and evaluation reports.

I certify that I am the above-named person completing this form and that the information I submit here is accurate.
1. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? 5 = Very much, 1 = Very little
2. Rate the quality of the program content 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
3. Rate how current/relevant the program content is 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
4. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development? 5 = Extremely Useful, 1 = Not Useful at all
5. Rate the instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (David Prescott, LICSW, ATSA-F) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6. Rate the instructor’s teaching ability (David Prescott, LICSW, ATSA-F) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met?
Learning Objective #1: “Explain why adolescent sexual arousal must be understood within the broader context of emotional and physiological development rather than treated automatically as a sign of risk.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Describe the iatrogenic effects that can arise when youth who have engaged in misconduct are grouped together, and the conditions under which group treatment remains appropriate.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Identify the elements of trauma-informed practice, including the prevalence of trauma among youth in detention and the distinction between being trauma-informed and providing trauma treatment.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “Distinguish among the major assessment tools (JSOAP-II, JSORRAT-II, YNPS, PROFESOR, SAVRY) by their purposes, structures, and limitations, including the caveat that adolescent risk assessment involves “moving targets.”” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.5. Would you agree that learning objective #5 was met?
Learning Objective #5: “Describe cautions surrounding polygraph use with adolescents and the features of well-structured interviews and evaluation reports.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
8. Rate how well the program met your expectations (according to the promotional materials) 5 = Very well, 1 = Not well at all
9. Rate the quality of the provided course materials 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
10. Rate the quality of the facilities (in-person) or technology (online). 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
11. Rate how well disability accommodations were met, if requested. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
12. Rate the ease of the registration process 5 = Very Easy, 1 = Very Difficult
13. Rate the instructor’s (David Prescott, LICSW, ATSA-F) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive*
14. Rate the program staff’s responsiveness to questions 5 = Very responsive, 1 = Not responsive at all