Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022;61(3):135-147.
doi: 10.1080/10509674.2022.2045528. Epub 2022 Mar 15.

A psychometric reevaluation of the TCU criminal thinking scales (CTS)

Thomas B Sease  1 , George Joe  1 , Jennifer Pankow  1 , Wayne E K Lehman  1 , Kevin Knight  1
Affiliations

A psychometric reevaluation of the TCU criminal thinking scales (CTS)

Thomas B Sease et al. J Offender Rehabil. 2022.

Abstract

In the United States, approximately 9 million people cycle in and out of jail and more than 600,000 people are released from prison each year. Unfortunately, the reentry process includes several barriers people must overcome (e.g., criminal thinking) to achieve adequate psychosocial functioning. As such, valid and reliable assessments that allow correctional staff to monitor clients' progress in treatment and test program effectiveness are paramount to reducing this major public safety concern. The TCU Criminal Thinking Scales (CTS) are a widely used assessment of criminal thinking in correctional settings. This study reevaluated the psychometric properties of the TCU CTS using Item Response Theory. Results showed the TCU CTS had good internal reliability and each scale loaded onto one factor. Item level analysis revealed most items adequately fit the model, generally measuring moderate levels of criminal thinking. Furthermore, several TCU CTS scales were negatively correlated with motivation for treatment and psychosocial functioning.

Keywords: assessment; criminal justice system; criminal thinking; evaluation; measurement.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Alper M, Durose MR, & Markman J (2018). 2018 update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year follow-up period (2005–2014). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://babsim.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2018-update-on-prisoner-re...
    1. Andrews DA, & Bonta J (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. 10.1037/a0018362 - DOI
    1. Bartholomew NR, Morgan RD, Mitchell SM, & Van Horn SA (2018). Criminal thinking, psychiatric symptoms, and recovery attitudes among community mental health patients: An examination of program placement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(2), 195–213. 10.1177/0093854817734007 - DOI
    1. Best D, Day E, Campbell A, Flynn PM, & Simpson DD (2009). Relationship between drug treatment engagement and criminal thinking style among drug-using offenders. European Addiction Research, 15(2), 71–77. 10.1159/000189785 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bonta J, & Andrews DA (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1–22. https://www.securitepublique.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/rsk...

LinkOut - more resources