3.5.1 Social Problem Solving Inventory for Offenders (SPSIO)
Using a social problem solving model, Corrections psychologist, Paul Whitehead, has developed the SPSIO as a screening instrument for selecting candidates for the Departments’ cognitive skills (“Straight Thinking”) programme. Social problem solving has to do with the behavioural and cognitive strategies used to deal with everyday problems. As deficits in this area have been linked to offending behaviour, Straight Thinking was developed as an intervention to improve an offender’s ability to solve problems in a non-criminal way. Whitehead (2000) describes SPSIO as “a psychometric test that measures an individual’s criminogenic thinking around six core psychological constructs” (p. 1) These constructs are identified as: impulsivity, avoidance, positive problem orientation, negative problem orientation, rational problem solving and antisocial distortions and criminal companions. The first five are sub-constructs of the social problem solving construct, developed through the work of Maydeu-Olivares and D’Zurilla (1995, 1996, cited inWhitehead, 2002). In order to better orientate the social problem solving inventory for use with criminal offenders, Whitehead has added the sixth construct, which he describes as a measure of antisocial distortions and criminal companions. While this added construct makes up almost a third of the questions (30 of the 99) in the SPSIO assessment, only two questions directly relate to criminal companions (“My friends break the law” and “My friends don’t see that there is any real problem with me breaking the law”). Criminal attitudes and antisocial ways of thinking is clearly the focus of the sixth construct, and therefore in the MARC research the title of this measure has been abbreviated to antisocial attitudes.
SPSIO is a 99-item Likert scale self-report inventory. In addition to antisocial attitudes, the SPSIO constructs that seemed most indicative of criminogenic thinking were impulsivity and negative problem orientation. While antisocial attitudes is used as a key indicator of improved thinking in the results section, scores for impulsivity and negative problem orientation are also included. Whitehead (2000) describes impulsivity a way of problem solving that involves acting
on impulse or emotion without considering the best solution to a problem (e.g. “if it feels good, do it” and “I often act on the first idea that comes to my head”). Negative problem orientation describes a level of negative belief used in dealing with everyday problems (e.g. “problems get me down” and “I never get a good deal in life”). Antisocial distortions give an indication of antisocial attitudes and criminally orientated ways of thinking (e.g. “rules are made to be broken” and “no one pushes me around and gets away with it”).
Testing within the Department of Corrections has verified the reliability and validity of the SPSIO measure. It has been shown to reliably discriminate between groups of pro-social and anti-social respondents across all six test areas. Initial field trials used Correctional staff for the pro-social group and offenders referred to Straight Thinking for the antisocial group. From this study, cut-off criterion scores were established for each of the six scales (Whitehead, 2000). Later testing showed test-retest reliability across subscales as ranging from .64 (positive problem orientation) and .93 (antisocial distortions), and 77% of SPSIO items had test-retest reliability within their respective subscales of above .84. Both internal and external convergent validity, as well as discriminant, criterion and face validity of the SPSIO scales has also been demonstrated (Whitehead, 2003).
In selecting offenders for the Straight Thinking programme, the SPSIO measure used the criterion score of each category as a thresholds beyond which a respondent showed evidence of criminogenic thinking. A score equal to or deviating from the criterion score in a negative direction indicated that the candidate has a skill deficit on that particular social problem solving construct. In order to visually present the MARC results, skill deficits on each of the constructs are represented by the amount of negative deviation from the SPSIO thresholds. Beginning from a position 20 points below the threshold, bar-graphs are used to show whether the participant has scored above the threshold (indicating problematic or criminogenic thinking). Due to the antisocial distortions construct being the most relevant to this research, it has been highlighted with a bolder colour on the bar-graphs in the results section.
3.5.2 Measures of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (MCAA)
MCAA was developed by Jeremy Mills and Daryl Kroner in the late 1990’s in response to the weight of research making the connection between antisocial attitudes and associates, with antisocial behaviour. In a meta-analysis of a number of predictors of criminal behaviour, it was found that antisocial attitudes/associates had the strongest correlation with criminal conduct (Gendreau, Goggin, ChanteLoupe & Andrews, 1992, cited in Mills & Kroner, 2001). Mills and Kroner noted that the inter-relationship between antisocial attitudes and anti-social associates is also well-supported in research literature. A number of studies have found that where a person’s attitudes are reinforced by the norms of their peer group, the relationship between attitude and behaviour is much stronger. This suggests that antisocial attitudes are more likely to be expressed in criminal actions when these attitudes and actions are the norm within the participant’s circle of friends.
The MCAA scale is comprised of two parts. Part A is a self-report, quantifiable measure of criminal associates, indicating the frequency and time spent with criminal associates and their level of criminality. Combining this information produces the “Criminal Friend Index,” giving each respondent a rating from 0 – 64 that is indicative of the level of their criminal associations. Part B is a 46-item questionnaire where respondents answer by agreeing or disagreeing with each item. It is designed to measure the four domains of attitudes towards violence, attitudes towards entitlement, antisocial intent and attitudes towards associates. Apart from the
associates’ domain, with a maximum score of 10, the other domains have a maximum score of 12 (indicating strength of antisocial attitude). Upon examining the items on the attitudes towards associates domain it was evident that they were mainly factual statements, relating to actual involvement with criminal friends, rather than attitudes per se. Items such as “I know several people who have committed crime,” and “I have committed a crime with friends,” do not change over time, even when a participant is no longer associating with these criminal friends. For these reasons this domain was not included in the MCAA measure of antisocial attitudes presented in the result section.
The following descriptions of the three antisocial attitude domains used in this study are taken from the user manual. The violence scale gives an indication of attitudes that are supportive of
violence. It shows a willingness to use violence to obtain a desired goal. The entitlement scale measures attitudes that focus on the right to take whatever they want, based on the egocentric belief that they are taking what they deserve. The antisocial Intent scale measures the potential for future anti-social actions, by assessing perceptions of what will guide future behaviour (Mills & Kroner, 2001). The sum of these three scales gives the MCAA level of antisocial attitudes presented on the bar-graphs in the results section (maximum score 36). Also included on these graphs is the level of involvement with criminal associaties, taken from the MCAA criminal friend index.
Studies conducted with both Canadian offenders and university students demonstrated
acceptable reliability of the MCAA measure, as well as convergent, discriminant and criterion validity. This, along with other research, supports the reliability and validity of this instrument as a measure of antisocial attitudes (Mills & Kroner, 2001). Internal consistency, as measured by pre- and post-co-efficient alpha results, ranged from a = .63 for the Entitlement subscale to a = .89 on the total score for Part B. MCAA has also been found to perform well as a predictor of recidivism (Mills, Kroner, & Hemmati, 2004).