Training Evaluation: Evidence-Informed Practices for Addressing Juvenile Sexual Offenses

(OT255-A) Evaluation – Evidence-Informed Practices for Addressing Juvenile Sexual Offenses

Training Name: Evidence-Informed Practices for Addressing Juvenile Sexual Offenses

Learning Objectives

As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1) Identify the distinctions between sexual and nonsexual recidivism to enhance intervention strategies.
2) Discover how adolescent brain development impacts harmful behaviors and informs prevention efforts.
3) Identify two assessment tools specific to adolescents who have sexually abused.
4) Analyze two treatment approaches designed to support the rehabilitation of adolescents who have sexually abused.

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 (Norbert Ralph, PhD, MPH) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.2. Rate the second instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (Mikaela Vidmar, MSc, Reg Psych (Canada), MA, Psy Assoc (California)) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.1. Rate the first instructor’s teaching ability (Norbert Ralph, PhD, MPH) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2. Rate the second instructor’s teaching ability (Mikaela Vidmar, MSc, Reg Psych (Canada), MA, Psy Assoc (California)) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met?
Learning Objective #1: “Identify the distinctions between sexual and nonsexual recidivism to enhance intervention strategies.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Discover how adolescent brain development impacts harmful behaviors and informs prevention efforts.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Identify two assessment tools specific to adolescents who have sexually abused.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “Analyze two treatment approaches designed to support the rehabilitation of adolescents who have sexually abused.” 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 (Norbert Ralph, PhD, MPH) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive*
13.2. Rate the second instructor’s (Mikaela Vidmar, MSc, Reg Psych (Canada), MA, Psy Assoc (California)) 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