Evaluation – The Good Lives Model with Justice-Involved Women (OT200-A)

(OT200-A) Evaluation – The Good Lives Model with Justice-Involved Women

Course Name: The Good Lives Model with Justice-Involved Women

Learning Objectives

As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1) Explain how the “Primary Human Goods” (also known as “common life goals”) of the Good Lives Model (GLM) are relevant to the treatment of women in the criminal justice system.
2) Distinguish between common life goals that are important to women in general, and those goals specifically implicated in their offending.
3) Explain four kinds of obstacles that women often experience when attempting to implement their “Good Life Plan”.
4) Explain GLM-based assessment and intervention planning for women.
5) Distinguish between integration and implementation of GLM in the treatment of women.

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
5.1 Rate the instructor’s (Dawn Pflugradt, PsyD, LP, LCSW) knowledge and expertise of the subject 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.2 Rate the instructor’s (Bradley P. Allen, Ph.D. J.D) knowledge and expertise of the subject 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.3 Rate the instructor’s (David Prescott, LICSW, ATSA-F) knowledge and expertise of the subject 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.1 Rate the instructor’s (Dawn Pflugradt, PsyD, LP, LCSW) teaching ability 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2 Rate the instructor’s (Bradley P. Allen, Ph.D. J.D) teaching ability 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.3 Rate the instructor’s (David Prescott, LICSW, ATSA-F) teaching ability 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met?
Learning Objective #1: “Explain how the “Primary Human Goods” (also known as “common life goals”) of the Good Lives Model (GLM) are relevant to the treatment of women in the criminal justice system” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Distinguish between common life goals that are important to women in general, and those goals specifically implicated in their offending” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: ” Explain four kinds of obstacles that women often experience when attempting to implement their “Good Life Plan”” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “Explain GLM-based assessment and intervention planning for women” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.5. Would you agree that learning objective #5 was met?
Learning Objective #5: “Distinguish between integration and implementation of GLM in the treatment of women” 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
13.1. Rate the first instructor’s (Dawn Pflugradt, PsyD, LP, LCSW) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive*
13.2. Rate the first instructor’s (Bradley P. Allen, Ph.D. J.D) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive*
13.3. Rate the first 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 High, 1 = Very Low