Alexithymia in nonviolent offenders.

BACKGROUND: Alexithymia is a trait involving difficulties processing emotions. Existing data suggest it is associated with violent offending. In violent offender programmes, therefore, violent offenders are screened for alexithymia and it is attended to if necessary. No studies have, however, examined alexithymia levels in nonviolent offenders and it is, therefore, unknown whether it is also a criminogenic factor in this population. AIMS: To investigate alexithymia levels among incarcerated nonviolent offenders and compare them with a community comparison group. METHOD: The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale was used to compare the alexithymia levels of 67 incarcerated nonviolent offenders with a group of 139 people from the general public living in the community. RESULTS: Alexithymia levels did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: It appears that alexithymia is not a criminogenic factor for nonviolent offenders and screening of such offenders appears unnecessary.

Assessing alexithymia in forensic settings: Psychometric properties of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale among incarcerated adult offenders.

BACKGROUND: Alexithymia is a trait involving difficulty identifying feelings (DIF), difficulty describing feelings (DDF) and externally orientated thinking (EOT). It is a risk factor for criminal behaviour. It is commonly assessed with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), but the psychometrics of the TAS-20 have not been tested across the range of offender populations, and it has been suggested it might be unsuitable in incarcerated offenders. AIM: To establish the psychometrics of the TAS-20 among incarcerated offenders. METHODS: Factorial validity was examined using confirmatory factor analyses, and the invariance of this factor structure was tested against a published community sample. Reliability coefficients were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred and forty six incarcerated offenders were recruited. The factor structure of the TAS-20 was invariant across the samples. The intended factor structure composed of DIF, DDF and EOT factors performed well overall (with a reverse-scored method factor added), but six EOT items had low factor loadings. The total scale score and DIF and DDF subscales had acceptable reliability, but EOT did not. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the TAS-20 functions similarly in offender and community samples. Its total scale score, and DIF and DDF subscale scores can be used confidently, but the assessment of externally oriented thinking may not be adequate with this scale alone. In sum, the TAS-20 can facilitate robust assessment of alexithymia in closed criminal justice settings as well as in the wider community.

Forensic Experts' Perspectives on Australian Indigenous Sexual Offenders and Factors Important in Evaluating the Risk of Recidivism.

Law and ethics require that risk assessment should be cross-culturally valid and fair, but Australian research in this regard is underdeveloped. A logical first step in progressing the work required to build a strong evidence base on culturally sensitive risk assessment in Australia is to determine the expert views of those in the field. We interviewed 13 Australian evaluators who assess Indigenous sexual offenders' recidivism risk to determine their perceptions of the risk assessment instruments they use and the attributes they believe evaluators doing cross-cultural assessments should have. Our central findings are that evaluators use the available instruments because they believe that the same factors predict sexual recidivism for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders, but that they do so cautiously knowing the limitations of the instruments. Evaluators nevertheless want more research data to guide them when they use the available instruments to assess people from cultures that differ from those of people in the normative sample. Participants acknowledge that the unique challenges of assessing Indigenous sexual offenders require non-Indigenous evaluators to be culturally competent and confident. These findings should be valuable to evaluators and those who train or supervise evaluators and/or intend to establish or improve the validity of risk instruments in Australia.