Training Evaluation: Adolescent Sex Offending Perpetration – Module 4

(NJ-Part 01 Module 4) Training Evaluation – Adolescent Sex Offending Perpetration – Module 3

Training Name: Adolescent Sex Offending Perpetration – Module 4

Learning Objectives

As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1. Describe the relationship between the Good Lives Model and the risk-need-responsivity principles, including why the GLM, properly applied, adheres to RNR.
2. Distinguish primary human goods from secondary goods, and explain how offending can reflect the pursuit of legitimate goals through harmful, maladaptive means.Identify the eleven primary human goods and describe how they were adapted into eight goals in simplified language for adolescents.
3. Explain the four obstacles to a Good Life Plan (harmful means, narrow scope, conflict between goods, and lack of internal or external capacity) and recognize them in case material.
4. Contrast risk-focused and strengths-based case descriptions, and describe how approach-oriented, future-focused language changes treatment and supervision planning.
5. Contrast risk-focused and strengths-based case descriptions, and describe how approach-oriented, future-focused language changes treatment and supervision planning.

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: “Describe the relationship between the Good Lives Model and the risk-need-responsivity principles, including why the GLM, properly applied, adheres to RNR.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Distinguish primary human goods from secondary goods, and explain how offending can reflect the pursuit of legitimate goals through harmful, maladaptive means.Identify the eleven primary human goods and describe how they were adapted into eight goals in simplified language for adolescents.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Identify the eleven primary human goods and describe how they were adapted into eight goals in simplified language for adolescents.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “Explain the four obstacles to a Good Life Plan (harmful means, narrow scope, conflict between goods, and lack of internal or external capacity) and recognize them in case material.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.5. Would you agree that learning objective #5 was met?
Learning Objective #5: “Contrast risk-focused and strengths-based case descriptions, and describe how approach-oriented, future-focused language changes treatment and supervision planning.” 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