Behavioural and cognitive psychotherapy · 2013
Developing an assessment of fire-setting to guide treatment in secure settings: the St Andrew's Fire and Arson Risk Instrument (SAFARI).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Long Clive G, Banyard Ellen, Fulton Barbara, Hollin Clive R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Arson and fire-setting are highly prevalent among patients in secure psychiatric settings but there is an absence of valid and reliable assessment instruments and no evidence of a significant approach to intervention.
AIMS: To develop a semi-structured interview assessment specifically for fire-setting to augment structured assessments of risk and need.
METHOD: The extant literature was used to frame interview questions relating to the antecedents, behaviour and consequences necessary to formulate a functional analysis. Questions also covered readiness to change, fire-setting self-efficacy, the probability of future fire-setting, barriers to change, and understanding of fire-setting behaviour. The assessment concludes with indications for assessment and a treatment action plan. The inventory was piloted with a sample of women in secure care and was assessed for comprehensibility, reliability and validity.
RESULTS: Staff rated the St Andrews Fire and Risk Instrument (SAFARI) as acceptable to patients and easy to administer. SAFARI was found to be comprehensible by over 95% of the general population, to have good acceptance, high internal reliability, substantial test-retest reliability and validity.
CONCLUSIONS: SAFARI helps to provide a clear explanation of fire-setting in terms of the complex interplay of antecedents and consequences and facilitates the design of an individually tailored treatment programme in sympathy with a cognitive-behavioural approach. Further studies are needed to verify the reliability and validity of SAFARI with male populations and across settings.
AIMS: To develop a semi-structured interview assessment specifically for fire-setting to augment structured assessments of risk and need.
METHOD: The extant literature was used to frame interview questions relating to the antecedents, behaviour and consequences necessary to formulate a functional analysis. Questions also covered readiness to change, fire-setting self-efficacy, the probability of future fire-setting, barriers to change, and understanding of fire-setting behaviour. The assessment concludes with indications for assessment and a treatment action plan. The inventory was piloted with a sample of women in secure care and was assessed for comprehensibility, reliability and validity.
RESULTS: Staff rated the St Andrews Fire and Risk Instrument (SAFARI) as acceptable to patients and easy to administer. SAFARI was found to be comprehensible by over 95% of the general population, to have good acceptance, high internal reliability, substantial test-retest reliability and validity.
CONCLUSIONS: SAFARI helps to provide a clear explanation of fire-setting in terms of the complex interplay of antecedents and consequences and facilitates the design of an individually tailored treatment programme in sympathy with a cognitive-behavioural approach. Further studies are needed to verify the reliability and validity of SAFARI with male populations and across settings.