Suchergebnisse

Sexual abuse is a global issue and, therefore, responding to and preventing sexual abuse are global challenges. Although we have examples of and evidence for sexual abuse prevention initiatives internationally, these tend to come from a small, select group of countries (i.e., United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Australia) and not from a broader global pool. This article will present the qualitative data from an online study (n = 82), covering 17 countries, on professionals' (i.e., people working in the arena of sexual offending from a clinical, criminal justice, policy, research, and/or practice perspective) perceptions sexual abuse prevention in theory, practice, and policy. The article identifies three main themes: (a) professionals' understandings of the prevention of sexual abuse, (b) public understanding of sexual abuse prevention, and (c) governmental attitudes towards, and support of, sexual abuse prevention programs. The article highlights that, although there are similar understandings of sexual abuse prevention internationally, practice is characterised by national differences in the funding of, provision of, and public/policy perceptions of prevention as well as its impact on offending.

BackgroundA stable assessment of cognition is of paramount importance for forensic psychiatric patients (FPP). The purpose of this study was to compare repeated measures of IQ scores in FPPs with and without intellectual disability.MethodsRepeated measurements of IQ scores in FPPs (n = 176) were collected. Differences between tests were computed, and each IQ score was categorized. Additionally, t‐tests and regression analyses were performed.ResultsDifferences of 10 points or more were found in 66% of the cases comparing WAIS‐III with RAVEN scores. Fisher's exact test revealed differences between two WAIS‐III scores and the WAIS categories. The WAIS‐III did not predict other IQs (WAIS or RAVEN) in participants with intellectual disability.DiscussionThis study showed that stability or interchangeability of scores is lacking, especially in individuals with intellectual disability. Caution in interpreting IQ scores is therefore recommended, and the use of the unitary concept of IQ should be discouraged.