Training Evaluation: Addressing Accountability and Denial in Sex Offense Treatment: Evolving Practices and Practical Frameworks

(OT291-A) Training Evaluation – Addressing Accountability and Denial in Sex Offense Treatment: Evolving Practices and Practical Frameworks

Training Name: Addressing Accountability and Denial in Sex Offense Treatment: Evolving Practices and Practical Frameworks

Learning Objectives

As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1) Discuss categorical denial’s relationship to the principles of effective correctional communication (risk, need, and responsivity)
2) Identify past practices by sex-offense treatment programs with respect to denial and accountability
3) Describe common concerns expressed by abuse survivors about their experiences with sex-offense treatment and the criminal justice system
4) List common clinical considerations in addressing denial.

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 first instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.2. Rate the second instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (Leslie Barfknecht, LCSW, ATSA-F) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.3. Rate the third instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (David Prescott) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.1. Rate the first instructor’s teaching ability (Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2. Rate the second instructor’s teaching ability (Leslie Barfknecht, LCSW, ATSA-F) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.3. Rate the third 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: “Discuss categorical denial’s relationship to the principles of effective correctional communication (risk, need, and responsivity)” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Identify past practices by sex-offense treatment programs with respect to denial and accountability” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Describe common concerns expressed by abuse survivors about their experiences with sex-offense treatment and the criminal justice system” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “List common clinical considerations in addressing denial” 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 (Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive*
13.2. Rate the second instructor’s (Leslie Barfknecht, LCSW, ATSA-F) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive*
13.3. Rate the third 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