CE Training Evaluation: Offending (SAPROF-SO): Advances in the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors Against Sexual Offending (SAPROF-SO): Current Research and Practice Considerations

(OT324) CE Training Evaluation: Offending (SAPROF-SO): Advances in the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors Against Sexual Offending (SAPROF-SO): Current Research and Practice Considerations

Training Name: Offending (SAPROF-SO): Advances in the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors Against Sexual Offending (SAPROF-SO): Current Research and Practice Considerations
Presented by: Gwenda M. Willis, PhD, PGDipClinPsyc, David Thornton, PhD, and Sharon Kelley, PsyD
Date: November 9, 2026

Learning Objectives
As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1) Describe the average inter-rater reliability of the SAPROF-SO
2) Identify whether the SAPROF-SO is incrementally predictive of sexual recidivism relative to the Static-99R, the STABLE-2007, or the VRS-SO
3) Explain one limitation of the SAPROF-SO Calculator

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 current/relevant, 1 = Not current/not relevant at all
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
5.1 Rate the first instructor’s (Gwenda Willis) knowledge and expertise of the subject. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.1 Rate the second instructor’s (David Thornton) knowledge and expertise of the subject. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.2 Rate the third instructor’s (Sharon Kelley) knowledge and expertise of the subject. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.1 Rate the first instructor’s (Gwenda Willis) teaching ability. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2 Rate the second instructor’s (David Thornton) teaching ability. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2 Rate the third instructor’s (Sharon Kelley) teaching ability. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met?
Learning Objective #1: “Describe the average inter-rater reliability of the SAPROF-SO. ” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Identify whether the SAPROF-SO is incrementally predictive of sexual recidivism relative to the Static-99R, the STABLE-2007, or the VRS-SO.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Explain one limitation of the SAPROF-SO Calculator.” 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 well, 1 = Not well at all
12. Rate the ease of the registration process 5 = Very Easy, 1 = Very Difficult
13. Rate the instructor’s responsiveness to questions 5 = Very responsive, 1 = Not responsive at all
14. Rate the program staff’s responsiveness to questions 5 = Very responsive, 1 = Not responsive at all