Truthought Thinking Error Survey Development

By Dr. Kay Baker

Truthought came into being in the mid 1990s as a result of a desire to help clinicians and correctional personnel make a difference in the lives of others.  I think the development of the Truthought Thinking Errors Survey (click the link to access the survey) falls into the “it’s about time” category.  Those of us who have been using Truthought know that indeed it does make a difference, but until now, there has been no assessment tool specifically linked to the Truthought Thinking Errors.  The Truthought Thinking Errors Survey is now available at www.Truthought.org and anyone can use it for free.

I am Dr. Kay Baker, Director of Central Texas Treatment Center (CTTC) in Granger, Texas.  We have been using Truthought at CTTC since 2001.  During that time, I have sought a way to accurately measure the impact Truthought was having on our residents’ criminal thinking.  The most widely used and cost effective of these was the Texas Christian University’s Criminal Thinking Scale (TCU CTS).  We have been administering this instrument since February 2005.  The resulting data clearly shows that our programming does positively impact residents’ thinking, however, because the categories of criminal thinking in the TCU CTS don’t exactly correspond to the Thinking Errors of Truthought, it proved difficult to draw conclusions about how the Truthought Thinking Errors were impacted, specifically.

In the fall of 2010, I was presented with a problem.  The Director of Williamson County Adult Probation asked me if there was a way to assess offender’s criminal thinking so that they could be placed in an appropriate level of cognitive education.  Several possibilities came to mind, but when I was informed that the cognitive education agency used the Truthought materials, I thought that an instrument that specifically measured use of Truthought Thinking Errors was needed.  Thus began this project.

Using the Thinking Error descriptions from the Truthought curriculum, I developed 75 questions or items, broken down into 11 categories.  Nine of the categories equate to the Truthought Thinking Errors, two categories are intended to help determine if the respondent has actually read the items or if they have responded randomly without reading them.  Before using the survey with residents I tested it for validity and reliability by administering it to members of my staff.  The results showed the survey to be both valid and reliable.

Results Of The Thinking Error Survey
Residents at CTTC were used in the initial test of the survey.  The survey was administered four times: to newly admitted residents (within 5 days of arrival at CTTC); before moving from phase I to phase II of treatment (approximately 90 days in treatment); before moving from phase II to phase III (approximately 180 days in treatment); and right before discharge (approximately 220 days in treatment).  This schedule of assessment is standard at CTTC.  We administer several assessment instruments at these points in the treatment process, thus allowing us to compare data, knowing it is consistently gathered.

Seventy-four residents took the survey at all four points in treatment, and those results are presented in this article.

Pre and Post-Test
At CTTC, we do longitudinal testing, 4 times during the course of 200 + days of treatment.  After collecting years of data, we have discovered that administering an assessment only before and after treatment has limited value to us.  What we see, over and over again is that residents can respond very optimistically on their first try at an assessment.  We think the reason for this is that they are not familiar with the jargon used in treatment, so may misunderstand some of the questions, and that they are reluctant to answer honestly, not knowing what the consequences might be if the treatment team knew just how “bad” they are.  Consequently, the first administration usually reflects lower scores than the second administration.  However, this phenomenon was not observed in the test of the Truthought Thinking Error Survey.

 

Table 1 contains the data for the first and last administrations of the Thinking Error Survey.

Table 1*

Note:  CT = Closed Thinking, UNIQ = Uniqueness, POSS = Possessive Attitude, RECK = Reckless Attitude, POWER = Power & Control, IGRAT = Instant Gratification, FLF = Fear of Losing Face, VIC = Victim Role, OK = I’m OK Attitude, INC=Inconsistency, INF=Infrequency
*Scoring range (0-32)

Because only one area tested, Power and Control, showed a lower beginning score and a higher ending score, these results lead us to believe that the Thinking Error Survey differs from other instruments that we use at CTTC.  There could be any number of reasons for this.  Additional research would be necessary to determine if the same phenomenon reoccurs with different populations in different settings.  Never the less, these results lead me to believe that the Thinking Error Survey can be used effectively as a pre and post-test.

Longitudinal Data Collection
The preferred method of collecting data on offenders is to do longitudinal data collection.  This involves determining logical points in the treatment process where data can be collected.  Phase change was the logical time for us to administer our assessments.

Table 2 contains Thinking Error Survey data for all four administrations.

Table 2*

Note:  CT = Closed Thinking, UNIQ = Uniqueness, POSS = Possessive Attitude, RECK = Reckless Attitude, POWER = Power & Control, IGRAT = Instant Gratification, FLF = Fear of Losing Face, VIC = Victim Role, OK = I’m OK Attitude, INC=Inconsistency, INF=Infrequency
*Scoring range (0-32)

In four areas, Closed Thinking, Power and Control, Victim Role and I’m OK Attitude, the second administration is higher than the first.  At CTTC, we would look at the second administration as a more honest indication of the residents’ level of criminal thinking. After 90 days of treatment, residents have received weeks of Truthought orientation and education and weeks of reinforcement of Truthought principles as they attend counseling sessions and live in our therapeutic community setting.  They understand the jargon and have begun to open up to the possibility that they have thinking errors that need correcting.  Their trust level with staff has also increased, and they know that we need to know who they really are in order for this treatment to be successful.  If you compare the second administration scores to the final scores, you see improvement in all but one area, power and control.  Perhaps, this is because our program focuses on teaching them to control their thinking and behaviors and our staff frequently emphasize this.  What about the third administration?  We believe the third administration reflects a more self critical look at the offender’s thinking, and maybe more so in certain areas where they are receiving feedback that they need to work on those particular areas.   We will discover more as more programs use the survey.

Below you will find the scores for this same group on the TCU Criminal Thinking Scale. Their scores are slightly higher on the second administration, but not as high as previous test groups. It may just be this group, or we may have changed something in our program that has led to the effect. It is unknow at this point. The bottom line is that the data suggests the Truthought Thinking Error survey can be used effectively pre and post-instruction. I will continue to collect data at CTTC, and perhaps, over time, we will have more information.

Table 3 contains TCU Criminal Thinking Scale data for all four administrations.

Table 3

Note:  Just=Justification, Ration=Criminal Rationalization, Cold=Cold Heartedness, Power=Power Orientation, Irresp=Irresponsibility, Ent=Entitlement

The Truthought Thinking Error Survey is in its infancy as assessment instruments go.  Only very limited data has been collected, and much work can still be done to improve the instrument.  I encourage you to use it as it is, with confidence that it does measure what it says it measures (validity) and that it does so upon repeated administrations (reliability).  I know that Truthought is eager to see a similar instrument crafted that would measure the use of Tactics and also an instrument measuring values in correctives.  We welcome students and others to use the instrument in their own research projects.  If you have specific questions concerning the instrument please contact me.