Title: Evidence-Based Strategies for Treating Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder Who Sexually Harm (OT251-A)


(OT251-A) Evaluation – Evidence-Based Strategies for Treating Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder Who Sexually Harm

Training Name: Evidence-Based Strategies for Treating Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder Who Sexually Harm

Learning Objectives

As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1) Analyze peer-reviewed literature on the latest trends and insights into the interplay between ASD and sexually harmful behavior.
2) Identify several evidence-based, therapeutic intervention strategies recommended for individuals with ASD who engage in problematic sexual behaviors.
3) Summarize best practices for integrating the unique treatment needs of those with ASD into a treatment program designed for those who have committed sexual offenses.
4) List evidence-based, targeted interventions and supports developed to address the unique challenges faced by individuals with ASD who have caused sexual harm.
5) Discover proven methods for identifying and accessing qualified providers within specific geographical regions, fostering a collaborative network of expertise that ensures access to specialized interventions and support for individuals with ASD.

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 (Kim Spence, PhD) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6. Rate the instructor’s teaching ability (Kim Spence, PhD) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met?
Learning Objective #1: “Analyze peer-reviewed literature on the latest trends and insights into the interplay between ASD and sexually harmful behavior. ” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Identify several evidence-based, therapeutic intervention strategies recommended for individuals with ASD who engage in problematic sexual behaviors.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Summarize best practices for integrating the unique treatment needs of those with ASD into a treatment program designed for those who have committed sexual offenses.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “List evidence-based, targeted interventions and supports developed to address the unique challenges faced by individuals with ASD who have caused sexual harm.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.5. Would you agree that learning objective #5 was met?
Learning Objective #5: “Discover proven methods for identifying and accessing qualified providers within specific geographical regions, fostering a collaborative network of expertise that ensures access to specialized interventions and support for individuals with ASD.” 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 (Kim Spence, PhD) 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