Table 3. Main Findings and Limitations of Research Reviewed Author(s) Main Findings Effect Size Limitations Moore & Gudjonsson (2002) There were no significant No inferential statistics presented and Selection bias of sample (people differences in GBAI subscale effect size therefore is not available diagnosed with PD were more scores between offender type, but likely to complete the there was a non-significant trend questionnaires). for lower external attribution Unclear about exact scores in participants who had characteristics of the included committed a sexual offence, sample. compared to those with violent or other offences. Difficult to ascertain exact sample as analysis was done on Those with a primary diagnosis of GBAI External Attribution scores and different groups and this was not personality disorder had diagnosis: clearly reported. significantly lower scores on effect size d = t=2.2, df = 88, p≤.05 – 0.48 external attribution subscale than Diagnostic complexities may those with a primary diagnosis of affect the way the sample were mental illness. grouped. Some oral administration of questionnaires. Not all participants had index offences. Large SDs in scores – heterogeneous.
Table 3. Main Findings and Limitations of Research Reviewed Author(s) Main Findings Effect Size Limitations Moore & Gudjonsson (2002) There were no significant differences in GBAI subscale scores between offender type, but there was a non-significant trend for lower external attribution scores in participants who had committed a sexual offence, compared to those with violent or other offences. Those with a primary diagnosis of personality disorder had significantly lower scores on external attribution subscale than those with a primary diagnosis of mental illness. No inferential statistics presented and effect size therefore is not available GBAI External Attribution scores and diagnosis: t=2.2, df = 88, p≤.05 – effect size d = 0.48 Selection bias of sample (people diagnosed with PD were more likely to complete the questionnaires). Unclear about exact characteristics of the included sample. Difficult to ascertain exact sample as analysis was done on different groups and this was not clearly reported. Diagnostic complexities may affect the way the sample were grouped. Some oral administration of questionnaires. Not all participants had index offences. Large SDs in scores – heterogeneous.
6344163%20E-thesis.docx