C R I M E - P I C S II · c r i m e - p i c s ii m a n u a l c o n t e n t s introduction 3 the...

C R I M E - P I C S II

M A N U A L

C O N T E N T S

INTRODUCTION 3

THE CRIME-PICS II INSTRUMENT 7

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION 9

CRIME-PICS II SCORING 14

SCORE CONVERSION AND SCORE PROFILE 16

DERIVATION OF THE SCALED SCORES 19

RELIABILITY OF THE SCALES 20

VALIDITY OF THE SCALES 23

SUMMARY 26

NB Not all information on CRIME-PICS II is included in theWeb version. All details are available in the printed copy of theManual. This WEB version was updated in October 2013.

M&A Research is an independent Policy Research Group whichspecialises in Crime and Criminal Justice Policy.

PAGE 1 © M&A Research 2013

The authors of CRIME-PICS II hold senior positions inUniversities and are members of the M&A Research Group.

Professor Frude is a Chartered Psychologist and Professor ofPsychology, having trained as a clinical psychologist. He haswritten several books on such topics as family relationships,abuse and violence and has for many years been involved inpost-qualification training of many professionals includingsocial workers, probation officers and psychiatric nurses.

Professor Terry Honess is a Chartered Psychologist andProfessor of Psychology who has held major grants andpublished widely in the areas of family and youth studies,decision making and crime control.

Professor Mike Maguire is a Professor of Criminology whohas held major grants and published widely in the areas ofpolicing, prisons, parole and probation work. He is co-editor ofa major textbook, The Oxford Handbook of Criminology(Oxford University Press, Fifth Edition, 2012).

Contact details:

Website: http://www.crime-pics.co.uk

For purchase and general enquiries:[email protected] (Mrs J. Whitley)

For enquiries about the use of CRIME-PICS II:[email protected] (Professor T.M. Honess)

Tel/Fax (+44) 01792 846300


mailto:[email protected]


http://www.crime-pics.co.uk/

INTRODUCTION

CRIME-PICS II, which has been in widespread use since 1994,is the improved and carefully tested successor to CRIME-PICS,an instrument originally developed by the authors with thesupport of the Mid-Glamorgan Probation Service. Theinstrument offers probation services, prisons and other agenciesa convenient and standardised means of measuring changes inoffenders' attitudes to offending.

Traditionally, the assessment of the impact of interventions withoffenders has been made on the basis of simple activitymeasures such as compliance levels, or crude outcome measuressuch as reconviction rates. It is now widely recognised that,while such data are clearly very important, they do not aloneprovide a satisfactory picture of the degree to which a servicehas brought about change in offenders. Reconviction rate,moreover, is not only a very blunt measure, but involves anappreciable time lapse before outcomes can be evaluated.

CRIME-PICS II, with its special focus upon attitude change,offers a powerful additional tool for assessing the impact ofintervention with offenders. It can be used, alongside othermeasures, as an important indicator to help evaluate the successof any intervention. Furthermore, changes in CRIME-PICSscores have been shown to be associated with reconvictionoutcomes.

The CRIME-PICS II instrument is straightforward to administer and can be scored quickly and easily. The whole process including scoring usually takes no more than 15


minutes. This time is further reduced if the new downloadable scoring tool is used.

The instrument consists of 20 questionnaire items and a 15-item"Problems" inventory. The offender's responses can betranslated into FIVE scores, which together provide a profile forthat individual. Raw scores can also be translated whereappropriate to scaled scores on a 0-9 scale, so that eachconforms to a broadly comparable metric.

The main score (which is referred to as 'G') represents thatperson's GENERAL ATTITUDE TO OFFENDING at the pointin time at which the questionnaire was completed.

In addition to this general score, the questionnaire provides specific measures of the offender's:

- anticipation of re-offending ('A')- victim hurt denial ('V')- evaluation of crime as worthwhile ('E') - perception of current life problems ('P')

Thus a numerical profile of the offender's attitudes on five scalescan be obtained. This is a snapshot at one point in time. Asimilar snapshot obtained by repeating the process at some latertime enables the officer to identify any change on each of thefive scales. A profile of change can be obtained, for example,by comparing scores at different times.

In the CRIME-PICS II scoring system, each of the five scalesis scored in such a way that a high score indicates that the


offender has attitudes which predispose towards involvement incrime, or, in the case of the Problems scale, has problems inmany areas of his or her life. A reduction in the raw score fromone administration of the instrument to the next is interpreted asan improvement in the offender's attitude or, in the case of the Pscore, as a reduction in the number of problems the personidentifies in his or her life.

In addition to the five scale scores obtained, each of theindividual items on the questionnaire provides usefulinformation in itself. For example, specific items in theProblems inventory provide a quick scan of issues in theoffender's current lifestyle which are problematic. An offender'sresponses to these and the other items can provide importantdiagnostic information for the officer working with theindividual, and may form the basis for later examination anddiscussion.

CRIME-PICS II scores can be aggregated across groups ofoffenders to evaluate general patterns of change. This isparticularly useful to those who wish to evaluate and/ordemonstrate the impact of special intervention programmes.

There have been very many important research studies based on CRIME-PICS scores, one of the earliest published being that by James McGuire and his team: 'Short Term Effects of Probation Programs: An Evaluative Study', International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39 (1), 1995. Individual services have also used the instrument to conduct substantial in-house evaluations of particular programmes. A listof available research reports, academic journal articles and other


publications are available on the CRIME-PICS website: http://www.crime-pics.co.uk

Apart from their value as a tool in research projects, aggregatedata from CRIME-PICS II are of interest to managers andpolicy makers, providing them with an additional numericalindex of the overall impact of the service. The instrument allowsmanagers to demonstrate effectiveness in a standard way that iseasily communicated and is statistically meaningful.

In sum, extensive use with tens of thousands of offenders showsthat CRIME-PICS II is user friendly and stimulates interestamong offenders. It provides information that has immediaterelevance for the work of individual officers, as well as giving avalid base line measure against which the effects of anyintervention programme can be measured.


http://www.crime-pics.co.uk/

THE CRIME-PICS II INSTRUMENT

The CRIME-PICS II instrument is in four parts.

The first consists of a number of items summarising theoffender's current status and history of past offending, togetherwith various demographic characteristics. This may be freelymodified to suit the particular purposes of different services.

The second part is the 20-item CRIME-PICS II questionnaire.Twenty statements are presented, and the offender has toindicate the degree to which he or she agrees or disagrees witheach of the statements. The response options are "StronglyAgree", "Agree", "Neither Agree nor Disagree", "Disagree" and"Strongly Disagree".

The third part is the PROBLEMS checklist - an inventory of 15common problem areas in people's lives. In each case theoffender is asked by the person administering the instrumentwhether each item represents "A big problem", "A problem", "Asmall problem", or "No problem" in their life at present.

The fourth part of the questionnaire provides a summary pagefor the offender's scores on the dimensions G, A, V, E and P.

CRIME-PICS II was initially designed for administration to anindividual offender. However, its administration to groups ofoffenders is now widespread. Details for both forms ofadministration are given below. Although the instrument can beadministered by the officer who has generally had the mostcontact with the offender, it is recommended that if CRIME-


PICS II is to be used for formal evaluation purposes (forexample, for assessing the effectiveness of a particularintervention programme) it should be administered by someoneother than the officer generally responsible for an interventionwith the offender.

The instrument can be administered a number of times to thesame offender, and will be particularly valuable in monitoringchanges, both in terms of the offender's general attitude tooffending and in terms of other specific sub scales. In most casesit will be appropriate to construct a profile for an individualoffender at least twice, once near the beginning of interventionand once near the end.


INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION

(1) INDIVIDUAL OFFENDERS

The instrument should be administered in private, and in asrelaxed an atmosphere as possible. It is in the nature of suchinstruments that some offenders are likely to produce answerswhich they think may be expected rather than reflecting whatthey actually feel. The risk of this will be reduced if theadministrator fosters a climate that is friendly, supportive andnon-judgmental. Do be as informative as you possibly can aboutthe purpose of the questionnaire, stressing, if appropriate, thatanonymity is sustained in summarising the findings from thequestionnaires.

In order to foster such an atmosphere, the administrator ispermitted to paraphrase or explain particular sentences if this isnecessary, for example in the case of an offender with learningdifficulties. The important point is that the offender shouldunderstand each item and should be encouraged to give anhonest answer.

Begin by explaining to the offender that the probation service,prison service, or other agency, needs to understand offenders'attitudes as much as possible, and that offenders are now beingasked about their attitudes using a questionnaire. Reassure theoffender that there are no right or wrong answers - "it's not atest" - and express a hope that they will be relaxed and will justsay what they honestly feel.


Although as a general rule each statement should be read in itsoriginal form, the administrator has some freedom to paraphraseor explain particular sentences if it becomes clear that theoffender does not understand the item. The questionnaire shouldbe administered in the spirit of a relaxed interview, rather than ina formal (and possibly intimidating) manner. Avoidconversation following the offender's responses, however, andavoid leading them towards particular responses.

The following might be used to introduce the questionnaire partof the instrument (however, try to avoid reading this or anyother formulation):

"I am going to read out some sentences, and I want you to tellme whether you agree with them or not. Some you will probablyagree with, and some you will probably disagree with. Some youmight not agree OR disagree with. As I read each one out to you,tell me whether you Agree , Disagree , or Neither agree nordisagree".

For each of the first few responses, after the offender has saidthat they "Agree" or "Disagree" with the statement, ask them toindicate whether they "STRONGLY" Agree (or Disagree) or"JUST" Agree (or disagree). Most people will soon pick up the5-point response convention. However, it is essential that allitems - including the first few - are coded using the 5-pointscale.

When you have established an offender's response, clearly circle the appropriate label "SA", "A", "N", "D" or "SD".


If the questionnaire is being used for offenders with custodialsentences, questionnaire item 8 should read: I definitely won’tget into trouble with the police in the six months after myrelease

Next, the offender should be asked to respond to the ProblemsInventory. This might be introduced in the following way:

"Now I'd like to ask you about the kinds of problems that many people have in their life, and how these affect your own life. As I read through the list, I want you to tell me whether each one is ‘A big problem’, ‘A problem’, ‘A small problem’ or ‘No problem’ in your life at present. The first is ‘Problems with money’”

The offender should be regularly reminded of all of the scalepoints, because it is essential that all items are scored using thefour-point scale. When you have established the offender'sresponse, clearly circle the appropriate label "BP", "P", "SP" or"NO".


INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION

(2) A GROUP OF OFFENDERS

This can be more challenging for an administrator, but may beemployed for the convenience of using just one testing sessionfor a group of offenders. Nevertheless, the questionnaire must becompleted independently, without consultation or discussionbetween offenders.

The issues discussed above, under administration instructionsfor individual offenders, are relevant here. In particular,preparation becomes especially important. Individual offenderswill be thinking: Who does the administrator represent? Howlong will it last? What if I don't know the answers? Will it bepersonal? What will the administrator do with my answers? Theadministrator should be prepared to deal with such questions. Inaddition, he or she will also find it helpful to check in advancefor any known literacy difficulties and ensure that the room forthe administration is comfortable for themselves and theoffenders.

The administrator will find it helpful to go through theinstructions to the questionnaire with the whole group beforeallowing individuals to complete the questionnaire on their own.In order to check that each individual is completing thequestionnaires properly, it will be necessary for theadministrator to look at what they are doing as they arecompleting the questions. It will be helpful for the groups to betold this in advance. Group members should be informed thatthey may clearly cross out an answer made in error, and then


simply to circle the answer they wish to give. When the groupare reminded that there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers, this anopportunity to stress that answers should not be copied. Oncegroup members have begun on their own, the administratorshould show interest and ask if there are any questions, but theadministrator should be aware of giving people sufficientprivacy to think about and complete the questions.


CRIME-PICS II SCORING

There are several methods of scoring: Using the computer scoring aid (see Web Site for Download Tool), by Hand, or using statistical software such as SPSS. The last is commonly used in large scale research studies. The user will follow the details provided below in ‘scoring by hand’ for using any statistical package

Computer scoring aid

The user simply enters optional information to identify the offender, then enters responses to the Attitude questionnaire items and the Problem questionnaire items. The scoring programme gives both raw and standardised scores.

Scoring by hand

For the CRIME-PICS II scores, all data, S1 to S20 is used.

1 Reversing some scoresEach item S1 to S20 has a value between 1 and 5 - for 4 of these items, the score needs to be “reversed” to reflect the natureof the question – this is done by recoding the data using the (x = 6 – x) formula (so 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4 etc. – 3 stays the same). The four S items that need to be reversed are S8 S9 S15 and S19


2 Calculating total raw scores

The dataset S1 to S20 (now with the reversed scores) is then used to calculate 4 sub-scales G A V and E. This is achieved ineach case by simply adding certain data items

G (“GENERAL ATTITUDE TO OFFENDING”)

This total raw score is the sum of S1 to S20 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF S2 S13 and S18So the scores of 17 items are added to give the raw G score (giving a valid range for the G raw score of 17 – 85)

A (“ANTICIPATION OF RE-OFFENDING”)

The A raw score is the sum of 6 items - S3 S4 S8 S9 S14 S19

V (“VICTIM HURT DENIAL”)

The V raw score is the sum of 3 items - S2 S13 S18

E (“EVALUATION OF CRIME AS WORTHWHILE”)

The E raw score is the sum of 4 items - S1 S5 S7 S10Finally, the Total Raw PERCEPTION OF CURRENT LIFE PROBLEMS score is simply the addition of all items P1 to P15(valid range therefore 15 – 60)


SCORE CONVERSION AND SCORE PROFILE

Each of the five raw scores should now be transferred to thescore sheet on the back page of the questionnaire. Forevaluation purposes, those who analyse CRIME-PICS II datawill wish to work only with the raw scores, since these providegreater discrimination. Indeed, for a fine-grain analysis, changesin the scores for particular items may be of interest.

However, it is possible to transform the raw scores to scalescores. To transform the raw scores to their “scaled score”equivalents, use the Conversion Table below.

RAW SCORES TO SCALED SCORESG A V E P SCALED

17-34 6-8 3-4 4-7 15-16 035-38 9 5 8 17-19 139-40 10 6 9 20-22 241-42 11 7 10 23-25 343-44 12-13 8 11 26 445-46 14 9 12 27-29 547-48 15 10 13 30-32 649-51 16 11 14 33-36 752-54 17-18 12 15 37-40 855-85 19-30 13-15 16-20 41-60 9

Locate the raw score obtained for a particular scale in thecolumn of the Table relating to that scale, and then follow therow across to the right until you reach the last column, whichprovides the equivalent scaled score.


All scaled scores are within the range 0-9. The scaled scores foreach of the five scales should be entered on the score sheet onthe back page of the questionnaire immediately after havingbeen read from the Table. It is now an easy matter to present thescores for the scales graphically on the chart provided on theback page of the questionnaire.

If CRIME-PICS II has been administered to the same offenderon a previous occasion, the scaled scores from the previousadministration can also be entered on the score sheet, and adifference calculated. Remember that for each scale adecreased score represents an improvement in the offender’sattitude (or a perceived reduction in life problems). The changescan also be illustrated graphically, perhaps by plotting the twosets of scaled scores using different symbols as in the followingexample.


© M&A Research 2013

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

G A V E P

DERIVATION OF THE SCALED SCORES

For each of the dimensions. G, A, V, E and P, scaled scoreswere derived in the same way. Consider G as an example: thefrequencies of G scores obtained by the initial standardisationsample of 422 probation offenders were inspected and dividedinto ten categories. Each of the ten categories was defined by ascore range which contained approximately 10% of theoffenders.

The lowest scoring range (i.e., containing the 10% of offenderswho had scored lowest) was assigned a scaled score of 0, and soon, with the highest score range assigned a scale score of 9.Thus, approximately 50% of the offenders obtained transformedscores in the 0-4 range and the other 50% obtained transformedscores in the 5-9 range.

Remember that each scale is scored in such a way that a highscore is undesirable. Thus someone who scores a ‘9’ on theProblems dimension has more problems than at least 90% of thestandardisation sample. As the person perceives his or her lifeas less problematic, this score would be expected to fall.


RELIABILITY OF THE SCALES

This information is based on the original M&A Research sampleof 422 offenders only. The reader is encouraged to consult themore recent publications detailed on the M&A Website.

For a measurement to be useful it must be reliable, and there area number of ways in which the reliability of a measure can beevaluated. One important psychometric indicator of thereliability of a scale is how well the relevant items “holdtogether” to form an integrated scale. This is labelled the“internal reliability”. Another important indicator of reliability isthe extent to which a measure gives the same results whenadministered twice to the same offender group. This is referredto as the “test-retest reliability”.

Internal Reliability

It is important to establish whether the scores from the itemsthat make up a scale are correlated with each other in thepredicted direction. It is also possible to compute one overallestimate of such internal consistency for each scale. This isknown as the “alpha coefficient”, and it is generally advised thatan alpha value of .70 or above indicates good internalconsistency. However, this coefficient reflects the number ofitems in a scale as well as the inter-correlations within a scale.This means that higher alpha values are generally more difficultto establish for short scales. The Table below provides the alphacoefficients for each of the CRIME-PICS II scales.


SCALE alphacoefficient

GENERAL ATTITUDE TO OFFENDING (17 items) G 0.76ANTICIPATION OF RE-OFFENDING (6items) A 0.75VICTIM HURT DENIAL (3 items) V 0.73EVALUATION OF CRIME AS WORTHWHILE (4 items) E 0.55PERCEPTION OF CURRENT LIFE PROBLEMS (15 items) P 0.83

It can be seen that sub-scale E (“Evaluation of crime asworthwhile”) fails to meet the alpha “adequacy” criterion,although the four items that make up this scale do significantlycorrelate with each other. From the internal reliability dataalone, however, scores on this scale should be treated withcaution.

Thus in terms of internal consistency, at least four of the fivesub-scales are reliable.

Test-Retest Reliability and Test Sensitivity

A reliable measuring instrument also provides stableinformation; it should not yield different scores if administeredby different persons, nor should it generally yield differentscores on a day to day basis. CRIME-PICS II should yield


stable information of this kind, yet it should also be sensitive toreal change in clients attitudes, which would lead us to expectscore changes in specified directions.

The following Table is based on a sample of clients who hadundergone intervention programmes, with varying test-retestperiods. We would therefore expect score changes as a result ofinterventions, but to meet the test-retest reliability criterion, allscales would be expected to provide significant associationsbetween Time 1 and Time 2: CRIME-PICS II clearly meets thetest-retest criterion - all coefficients are highly significant. Notethese coefficients are correlations not alpha coefficients.

SCALE correlations

GENERAL ATTITUDE TO OFFENDING (17 items) G 0.63ANTICIPATION OF RE-OFFENDING (6items) A 0.58VICTIM HURT DENIAL (3 items) V 0.59EVALUATION OF CRIME AS WORTHWHILE (4 items) E 0.56PERCEPTION OF CURRENT LIFE PROBLEMS (15 items) P 0.55


Each of the scales also demonstrates movements in the predicteddirection, i.e. towards a more desirable attitude to offending.

VALIDITY OF THE SCALES

This information is based on the original M&A Research sampleof 422 offenders only. The reader is encouraged to consult themore recent publications detailed on the M&A Website.

CRIME-PICS II has good face validity. It was devised on thebasis of extensive discussions and trials with probation officersand covers all of the important general dimensions that appear tobe relevant to attitudes to offending.

In the psychometric context, “validity” refers to the issue ofwhether a test or scale actually measures what it is supposed tobe measuring. The “concurrent validity” of a measure can bedetermined by establishing whether the measure discriminatesbetween groups that should be different on the variable that issupposedly being assessed. In the specific context of CRIME-PICS II, we would expect that certain client groups would differin terms of their scores on various scales.

In order to assess whether the CRIME-PICS II scales werevalid, we examined the relationship between the scales and thefollowing variables:

i) A composite risk-of-reoffending scoreii) Number of previous convictionsiii) Number of previous custodial sentences iv) Type of (recent) offence


i) The composite risk of re-offending (ROR) score used for thisanalysis was routinely employed by the Mid-GlamorganProbation Service and is similar to scores used in manyprobation services within the United Kingdom. It takes intoaccount the client’s age, offence type, previous convictions, anda number of the other factors. We predicted that a higher RORscore should be associated (positively correlated) with theCRIME-PICS II scales. This proved to be the case, with threeof relationships being particularly strong: those with higher riskof re-offending scores tend to have higher scores on theCRIME-PICS II G, A and E scales (General Attitude toOffending, Anticipation of Re-offending, and Evaluation ofCrime as Worthwhile).

ii) and iii) Clients were banded into four groups on the basis ofthe number of their previous convictions, and two groups on thebasis of whether they had or had not had a previous custodialsentence. We then analyzed our data to determine whether therewere any differences between the CRIME-PICS II scores ofthese different groups.

Each of the CRIME-PICS II scores discriminated between thegroups in a meaningful fashion. The following relationshipswere particularly strong:

- the group with the lowest number of previousconvictions (two or less) had the lowest scores onthe G and A scales. The group with the highestnumber of convictions (eleven or more) had thehighest scores on these two scales.


- a similar pattern was evident for those who hadexperienced a custodial sentence: they hadsignificantly higher G and A scores than thosewho had not had a previous custodial sentence.Those who had had a custodial sentence alsoreported significantly more ‘Problems’ in theircurrent lifestyle. However, this group alsoacknowledged greater harm for the victim(s) oftheir crimes (a lower V score) which is of courselikely to reflect the type of offence committed.

iv) Client offences were originally coded in terms of the HomeOffice classification system. For the purposes of our analysis,we conflated certain of these categories and formed threebroader groups:

a) offences against the personb) property offencesc) motor vehicle related offences.

Differences in the CRIME-PICS II scores of these three groupsprovided clear support for the validity of the scales. As onewould expect, those convicted of offences against the person(who are generally less likely to reoffend than propertyoffenders) had significantly lower scores than each of the othergroups for each of the scales. The group convicted of propertyoffences reported the most problems.


SUMMARY

CRIME-PICS II can be used in a variety of ways. In particular:

1) With individual offenders: A CRIME-PICS IIquestionnaire administered during an early meeting with anoffender will provide information about the individual'sattitudes and perceived problems. This can suggest issues forfurther discussion and intervention on a case basis. It alsoprovides a baseline measure against which future changescan be assessed: comparing the scores obtained from twoadministrations of the CRIME-PICS II questionnaire givesan indication of how the individual has changed on a numberof key dimensions.

2) With groups of offenders, resulting scores can be aggregatedto allow comparisons, for example between offender types,and before and after specific types of intervention. If aparticular facet of offending behaviour is being targeted,then specific CRIME-PICS II dimensions might bespecified as the most appropriate outcome indicator.Moreover, profiles of different offenders may help in theselection of particular individuals for the most appropriatetype of intervention.

When considering precisely how CRIME-PICS II is to be used,it will be helpful to keep the following summary interpretationsin mind:


G - GENERAL ATTITUDE TO OFFENDING (17 items)

A person with a low G score believes that offending is not anacceptable way of life. In essence, they are saying "Crime is notfor me".

A - ANTICIPATION OF RE-OFFENDING (6 items)

This measure provides a direct assessment of the individual'sacceptance of the likelihood of re-offending. A low scoreindicates a resolve not to offend again.

V - VICTIM HURT DENIAL (3 items)

This is a measure of the degree to which the offender rejects oraccepts that his or her crime had adverse effects on a victim.This will be of much clearer relevance to those convicted ofcertain offences. A low score indicates an acceptance thatoffending does have adverse effects for victims.

E - EVALUATION OF CRIME AS WORTHWHILE (4 items)

A measure of the degree to which the individual accepts orrejects the view that crime is a useful way of obtaining goods orof getting excitement or "kicks". A low score indicates arejection of the view that crime has benefits that outweigh thecosts.

P - PERCEPTION OF CURRENT LIFE PROBLEMS (15 items)

A measure of the number of problem areas the person perceivesin his or her life. The higher the score the more problem areasthe individual has identified.


Finally, we hope you have found our Website useful. If youhave any further questions or comments please contact us. Onceagain, our email address is [email protected]



C R I M E - P I C S II · c r i m e - p i c s ii m a n u a l c o n t e n t s introduction 3 the...

Documents

Transcript of C R I M E - P I C S II · c r i m e - p i c s ii m a n u a l c o n t e n t s introduction 3 the...