The Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ) is a theoretically and empirically based instrument. It is the first multidimensional self-administered questionnaire that was specifically designed to predict violent and nonviolent offender recidivism among correctional and forensic populations and to assist with the assignment of these populations to appropriate treatment or correctional programs and different institutional security levels. It was designed to be multifaceted, covering content areas that have been demonstrated to be important for measuring criminogenic factors related to the assessment of recidivism and treatment of offenders. After further describing the SAQ, this article discusses its uses, describes how to score and interpret, and reviews its reliability, validity, and advantages.
Description of the SAQ
The SAQ was developed in 1996 and published in 2005 with the Mental Health Systems, Toronto. It was designed to cover the predominant predictive areas found in the offender recidivism literature, as some of these areas were ignored or not adequately covered by other tools. The SAQ consists of 72 items, with seven subscales that measure quantitative criminogenic risk/need areas. The first subscale, Criminal Tendencies, taps antisocial attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and feelings. These tendencies are considered central to the major theories of criminality and the prediction of recidivism. Previous studies, including meta-analysis studies, indicated that the best individual predictors of recidivism were attitudes, values, and behaviors that support a criminal lifestyle.
The second SAQ subscale is Antisocial Personality Problems. This subscale covers characteristics similar to those used to diagnose antisocial personality disorder, which has been the psychiatric diagnosis traditionally used to predict recidivism. Self-reported antisocial personality characteristics have been shown to predict static and dynamic factors of violent recidivism.
The third subscale, Conduct Problems, assesses childhood behavioral problems. Research has indicated that conduct problems during childhood are among the best predictors of later offending and the development of a criminal career. The fourth subscale considers the offender’s Criminal History, as past criminality has been shown to be a robust predictor of future criminal acts.
The fifth subscale is Alcohol/Drug Abuse. The relationship between substance abuse and crime, including violence, is well documented and has been found to correlate with recidivism. The sixth subscale assesses Anti-Social Associates, an area with demonstrated value in the prediction of recidivism.
The seventh subscale, Anger, measures the offender’s reaction to anger. This scale is not included in the total score of the SAQ due to the controversial and unconfirmed relationship between anger and recidivism. This subscale could be useful in assigning offenders to anger management or control programs. The Validity scale is a subscale that can be used to validate the offender’s truthfulness in responding to the SAQ’s items.
Uses of the SAQ
The SAQ can be used for several purposes. First, the SAQ can be used to predict post-release adjustment such as violent and nonviolent recidivism, parole violations, and probability of being convicted of a new offence. The SAQ can also be used to assign offenders to institutional security levels and predict institutional adjustment. Another purpose of the SAQ is the assignment of offenders to treatment programs such as substance abuse, anger management, cognitive skills, and programs dealing with antisocial attitudes, antisocial behavior, antisocial feelings, antisocial beliefs, insight, and similar types of programs. In addition, the SAQ provides information that may assist with diagnosing a substance abuse problem, conduct problems, and antisocial personality disorder. Finally, the SAQ can be used as a pretreatment and posttreatment measure to assess the effect of treatment and determine changes in offenders’ attitude and attributions, particularly those related to the offender’s criminal tendencies.
Uses of the SAQ by Correctional and Forensic Professionals
The SAQ can be used by professionals and nonprofessionals alike due to its ease of use. Psychiatrists and psychologists may use the SAQ to reach diagnoses related to antisocial personality disorder, conduct disorder, and substance abuse. They may also use the SAQ to make predictions regarding the level of risk a particular offender may pose upon release from prison as well as predictions regarding institutional adjustment. Furthermore, psychiatrists and psychologists may use the SAQ for program participation suggestions, to design individualized treatment plans to deal with offenders’ inappropriate responses to the SAQ’s items, and to follow up treatment gains. Case managers may use the SAQ to help them make decisions regarding the level of risk a particular offender may pose if released, to determine program needs, and to make appropriate referrals. Program delivery officers may use the SAQ to assign offenders to appropriate programs according to their needs; for example, offenders with high scores on the SAQ Criminal Tendencies subscale could be offered a cognitive behavior program. Similarly, offenders with high scores on the SAQ Alcohol/ Drug Abuse subscale could be offered participation in substance abuse programs. Likewise, offenders with high scores on the SAQ Anger subscale may be offered an anger management program. Parole officers/case managers, program officers, and counselors can design individualized treatment plans to deal with offenders’ inappropriate responses to the SAQ’s items. Staff, regardless of their professional background, can use the SAQ as a pre- and a post-measure to assess changes in offenders’ attitudes and beliefs. Lastly, researchers can include the SAQ in research projects.
Instructions for Completing the SAQ
After explaining the purpose of the questionnaire, the person administering the SAQ simply asks the offender to read the instructions for completing the SAQ aloud. Essentially, the offender is asked to answer with a true or false response to the included statements. The person administering the SAQ may respond to an offender’s request for clarification in a manner that does not influence the offender’s response. After the offender completes the SAQ, the person administering the SAQ checks for unanswered questions, as ideally, no item should be left unanswered. Occasionally, an offender may not be able to easily answer a question, so the person administering the SAQ can explain the question to the offender and obtain a response. If more than 3 items are left unanswered, the results of the particular scale that those items contribute to may be affected but not necessarily the result of the whole test.
Offenders who can read and comprehend what they read can complete the SAQ. If a client does not have the requisite literacy skills (e.g., fifth-grade reading level), the person administering the SAQ can read the items to the client without interpretation and entered the client’s responses on the answer sheet.
Scoring the SAQ
Scoring the SAQ typically takes just a few minutes. The total SAQ score is the aggregate of the SAQ subscale scores. Completing the Validity scale of the SAQ involves verifying the accuracy of the offender’s responses on some items through his or her criminal history.
Interpreting and Reporting the Results of the SAQ
The offender’s level of risk/needs is reported, according to the established norms, the in either Low, Low–Moderate, High–Moderate, or High range of committing a violent and nonviolent offense within a period of approximately 2 years after the offender’s release from prison. Results could also be reported in percentiles. Some clinicians prefer to include the offender’s scores on the subscales, especially if the scores are elevated.
Instructions on the SAQ answer sheet provide direction about the level of risk/needs and possible management consideration. For example, a score of 43 or more indicates a high probability for violent and nonviolent recidivism and indicates a need to assign the offender to a maximum-security institution. An offender with a score from 23 to 42 is considered at a moderate-to-high risk of violent and nonviolent recidivism and may be considered for medium-security institutions. Suggestions for program assignments based on SAQ subscale scores are also included in the instruction sheet. An offender with a score from 11 to 22 is considered at a low-to-moderate risk of violent and nonviolent recidivism, and assignment to a minimum- or medium-security institution should be considered. An offender with a score of fewer than 11 is considered at a low risk of violent and nonviolent recidivism and could be considered for assignment to a minimum-security institution. He or she may not need to participate in programs.
User Qualifications
The SAQ can be administered and scored by clerical staff after a short training session; however, interpretation should be done by a psychologist, behavior specialist, case manager, social worker, or other staff member who is experienced in the assessment of human behavior in a correctional or forensic setting. Minimal training is required for correctional and forensic professionals to be able to administer and interpret the SAQ.
Reliability and Validity of the SAQ
Numerous studies have demonstrated the concurrent, construct, and predictive validities of the SAQ. The follow-up predictive studies demonstrated the predictive validity of the SAQ over 2-, 5-, and 9-year periods on Canadian offenders. The SAQ has also been validated on samples from the United States, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, and several European countries. Samples included Caucasians, African Americans, Asians, Aboriginals, Hispanics, and offenders from other origins. The SAQ has also been validated on women, youth, and offenders with mental illness. Comparative predictive studies—which included other measures— over 2- and 5-year periods have demonstrated that the SAQ is at least as effective as well-recognized clinician-administered measures. A meta-analysis study that included 10 measures indicated that the SAQ was more predictive of violent reoffending than eight other well-known predictive measures. In addition, two studies have demonstrated that the SAQ as a self-report is not affected by self-biases, lying, and/ or deception. The results of these two studies and the result of the meta-analysis refute the claim that self-report measures are not as effective as professionally administered measures.
Advantages of the SAQ
There are practical advantages of using the SAQ in addition to its coverage of the predominant content areas supported by the prediction literature. The SAQ is a self-report questionnaire, and there is evidence that self-report questionnaires can be equivalent to traditional methods of predicting violent recidivism and nonviolent recidivism. Self-report ensures maximal objectivity by avoiding possible misinterpretation of offenders’ responses and reducing the possibility of assessor biases. It also decreases the possibility of litigation due to the offender’s perception of misrepresentation by engaging the offender in the assessment process. In addition, the SAQ is more convenient and economical to use than traditional methods of risk assessment. Instructions are provided and can be given by paraprofessionals. It usually takes approximately 15–20 minutes to complete, with offenders providing yes or no responses to the items. The SAQ may also be administered in a group session. Interpreting the results requires minimal professional time and training, so prior extensive experience and/or special skills are not needed to credibly and reliably interpret its results.
Furthermore, the SAQ incorporates a large number of dynamic risk factors, in contrast to some other well-established risk tools that do not include any dynamic factors. In addition, when applying the SAQ, one may subsequently use many of the offender’s responses as part of an individualized cognitive treatment plan. For example, irrational or faulty cognition demonstrated through the endorsement of statements such as “I can fool most people if I want” or “Almost anyone would lie to save himself from trouble” can be challenged during treatment. Moreover, the endorsement of some of the SAQ’s statements could aid clinicians in the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and a history of conduct disorder and substance abuse. A focus on content areas particularly related to the prediction of violent recidivism during the development of the SAQ is also an advantage, as is its lack of reliance on the results of other tools or sources. A final advantage of the SAQ is that neither its items nor its total score may be used to attach negative labels to the offenders.
In spite of the several studies that demonstrated the reliability and validity of the SAQ, a 2006 study by Ojmarrh Mitchell and Doris Layton MacKenzie questioned the predictive validity of the SAQ. However, in 2007, Gurmeet K. Dhaliwal, Wagdy Loza, and John R. Reddon demonstrated their erroneous conclusion.
References:
- Dhaliwal, G. K., Loza, W., & Reddon, J. R. (2007, August). Invalidity of “Disconfirmation of the predictive validity of the self-appraisal questionnaire in a sample of high-risk drug offenders” (2006): A Reply. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1077–1089. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507303238
- Loza, W. (2005). Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ): A tool for assessing violent and non-violent recidivism. Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Mental Health Systems.
- Loza, W., Dhaliwal, G., Kroner, D., & Loza-Fanous, A. (2000). Reliability, construct, and concurrent validities of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire: A tool for assessing violent and nonviolent recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 356–374. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027003005
- Loza, W., & Green, K. (2003). The Self-Appraisal Questionnaire: A self-report measure for predicting recidivism versus clinicians administered measures. A five-year follow-up study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 781–797. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503253240
- Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). Disconfirmation of the predictive validity of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire in a sample of high-risk drug offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 449–466. doi:10.1177/0093854806287421