APLS 2009 Presentation_final - UCI Webfiles

Patrick J. Kennealy 1 , Jennifer Eno Louden 1 ,
Eliza Nicholson 2 & Jennifer L. Skeem 1
University of California, Irvine 1
Simon Fraser University 2
APLS Conference March 2009
San Antonio, TX

RQ described as “quintessential integrative
variable” across treatments and influences:
Patient satisfaction
Treatment adherence
Therapeutic outcomes
Wolf & Goldfried, 1988, p. 449
Typically evaluated by measures of
Therapeutic Alliance (TA)
Affective bond
Collaboration

Development of RQ in criminal justice
settings are complicated by:
Client/Provider characteristics
System factors
Ross, Polaschek, & Ward (2008)
Setting differences require providers to
perform dual-roles (D-R)
Counselor
Control
Trotter, 1999

Development of Dual-Role Relationships
Inventory-Revised (DRI-R)
30-item questionnaire
Renders total score and 3 factors
Caring-Fairness
Trust
Toughness
Skeem, Eno Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007

Skeem & colleagues (2007) report that in
offenders with mental illness…
D-R RQ was predictive of:
Observer-rated within session behavior
Confrontation by officer
Change talk & resistance by offender
Rule compliance
TA was not predictive of:
Observer-rated within session behavior
Rule compliance

Little is known about the mechanisms underlying
the association between D-R RQ and supervision
failure
Skeem & Colleagues (2007) suggest:
Perceived fairness of decisions
Effective use of counseling and control roles
Alternative explanations include potential
confounds of:
Risk-Level & Personality
Dual-Role
RQ
Risk
Supervision
Failure

Does D-R RQ predict future supervision
failure among general offenders?
Are parolee ratings of D-R RQ a function of
their risk level or personality?
Is D-R RQ predictive of supervision failure
beyond risk and personality?

Participants
Sample of General Offenders on Parole
N = 109
Baseline Assessment
DRI-R
Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI)
Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004
History Clinical Risk 20 (HCR-20)
Webster, Douglas, Eaves & Hart, 1997
Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire-Brief From (MPQ-BF)
Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002
Criminal Justice Outcomes
Arrests and Returns to Custody
Measured via official state parole records
Average follow-up period was about 18 months

Does D-R RQ predict future supervision
failure among general offenders?

Arrests RTC
DRI-R Total -.29** -.17
* p < .05; ** p < .01.

Are parolee ratings of D-R RQ a function of
their risk level or personality?

Risk Measures
DRI-R
Total
DRI-R
Caring-
Fairness
DRI-R
Trust
DRI-R
Toughness
LS/CMI Total Score -.14 -.13 -.19 * .17
HCR-20 Total Score -.13 -.09 -.24* .13
Personality Measures
Positive Emotionality -.09 -.10 -.05 .04
Negative Emotionality -.07 -.02 -.23* .12
Constraint .04 .02 .11 -.02
* p < .05; ** p < .01.

Is D-R RQ predictive of supervision failure
beyond risk and personality?

Risk
Arrests RTC
LS/CMI Total .29** .15
HCR-20 Total .20† -.07
Personality
Positive Emotionality .04 -.01
Negative Emotionality .19* .16
Constraint -.06 -.11
† p < .08; * p < .05; ** p < .01.

Hazard ratios for DRI-R & LS/CMI predicting
number of days until first:
DRI-R
Arrests Scoring
Range
LS/CMI Total Score 1.05** 0-43
DRI-R Total Scores .76* 1-7
* p < .05; ** p < .01.

Key Findings
D-R relationships characterized by firm, but fair
approach influence whether offenders succeed
Predictive utility of D-R RQ for supervision failure is not
a function of risk level and personality
Future Directions
Examine how D-R RQ may change over time
Examine utility of Officer-rated D-R RQ in general
offenders

California Policy Research Center
UCI South Central Research Team
Region III, South Central Parole Office