Training Evaluation: Addressing Accountability and Denial in Sex Offense Treatment

(OT291) Training Evaluation: Addressing Accountability and Denial in Sex Offense Treatment

Training Name: Addressing Accountability and Denial in Sex Offense Treatment: Evolving Practices and Practical Frameworks
Presented by: Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky, LCSW, Leslie Barfknecht, LCSW, ATSA-F, & David Prescott, LICSW, ATSA-F
Date: January 27, 2026

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 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 (Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky) knowledge and expertise of the subject. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.2 Rate the second instructor’s (Leslie Barfknecht) knowledge and expertise of the subject. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.3 Rate the third instructor’s (David Prescott) knowledge and expertise of the subject. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.1 Rate the first instructor’s (Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky) teaching ability. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2 Rate the second instructor’s (Leslie Barfknecht) teaching ability. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.3 Rate the third instructor’s (David Prescott) teaching ability. 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 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