TY - JOUR
T1 - Development and preliminary assessment of a measure of shame, guilt, and denial of offenders
AU - Xuereb, Sharon
AU - Ireland, Jane L.
AU - Davies, Michelle
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - The development and preliminary assessment of a bespoke measure of shame, guilt, and denial for offenders is outlined. In Study 1, the new measure was developed using a Delphi expert method. Thirty-nine experts participated in this study. In Study 2, the measure was piloted with 339 adult male prisoners from an English prison. It was predicted that shame, guilt, and denial would be confirmed as distinct concepts. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that this model did not fit the data. Exploratory factor analyses indicated an eight-factor solution, comprising: (1) Chronic distress and low self-worth, (2) Chronic self-blame, (3) Emotional capacity and respect, (4) Responsibility and self-blame, (5) Distress and rejection, (6) Lack of negative emotion, (7) Minimisation of harm, and (8) Functions of denial. There were significant differences in the factors across offence type and agreement with offence charges. It was also indicated that denial had a similar structure across offence types.
AB - The development and preliminary assessment of a bespoke measure of shame, guilt, and denial for offenders is outlined. In Study 1, the new measure was developed using a Delphi expert method. Thirty-nine experts participated in this study. In Study 2, the measure was piloted with 339 adult male prisoners from an English prison. It was predicted that shame, guilt, and denial would be confirmed as distinct concepts. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that this model did not fit the data. Exploratory factor analyses indicated an eight-factor solution, comprising: (1) Chronic distress and low self-worth, (2) Chronic self-blame, (3) Emotional capacity and respect, (4) Responsibility and self-blame, (5) Distress and rejection, (6) Lack of negative emotion, (7) Minimisation of harm, and (8) Functions of denial. There were significant differences in the factors across offence type and agreement with offence charges. It was also indicated that denial had a similar structure across offence types.
UR - http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/534872
U2 - 10.1080/14789940903174014
DO - 10.1080/14789940903174014
M3 - Article
SN - 1478-9949
VL - 20
SP - 640
EP - 660
JO - Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology
JF - Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology
IS - 5
ER -