Training Evaluation: Structured Assessment of Protective Factors Against Sexual Offending (SAPROF-SO) Version 1 Training (OT280)

(OT280) Training Evaluation: Structured Assessment of Protective Factors Against Sexual Offending (SAPROF-SO) Version 1 Training

Training Name: Structured Assessment of Protective Factors Against Sexual Offending (SAPROF-SO) Version 1 Training
Presented by: Gwenda M. Willis, PhD, PGDipClinPsyc, LCSW, David Thornton, PhD, & Sharon Kelley, PsyD
Date: October 23, 2025

Learning Objectives

As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1) Identify at least one theoretical source and one empirical source that substantiate the utilization of SAPROF-SO.
2) Identify two primary strengths of using the SAPROF-SO in risk assessments.
3) Identify specific situations/contexts in which the SAPROF-SO is appropriate to use.
4) Explain in what circumstances protection from the Professional Risk Management subscale might be indicated.
5) Demonstrate proficiency in scoring the SAPROF-SO by rating one practice case with sufficient accuracy.
6) Describe at least two ways to use the SAPROF-SO to help inform release/discharge planning.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 (Gwenda Willis) knowledge and expertise of the subject. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.2. Rate the second instructor’s (David Thornton) knowledge and expertise of the subject. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.3. Rate the third instructor’s (Sharon Kelley) knowledge and expertise of the subject. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.1. Rate the first instructor’s (Gwenda Willis) teaching ability. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2. Rate the second instructor’s (David Thornton) teaching ability. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.3. Rate the third instructor’s (Sharon Kelley) teaching ability. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met?
Learning Objective #1: “Identify at least one theoretical source and one empirical source that substantiate the utilization of SAPROF-SO.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Identify two primary strengths of using the SAPROF-SO in risk assessments.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Identify specific situations/contexts in which the SAPROF-SO is appropriate to use.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “Explain in what circumstances protection from the Professional Risk Management subscale might be indicated.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.5. Would you agree that learning objective #5 was met?
Learning Objective #5: “Demonstrate proficiency in scoring the SAPROF-SO by rating one practice case with sufficient accuracy.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.6. Would you agree that learning objective #6 was met?
Learning Objective #6: “Describe at least two ways to use the SAPROF-SO to help inform release/discharge planning.” 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 instructors’ 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