Purpose
The current study investigates the predictive value of neurobiological factors in relation to detainees’ treatment outcome, in order to better understand why some individuals respond favorably to treatment while others do not. It was hypothesized that low levels of heart rate activity are associated with poor treatment outcome and that weak neurocognitive functioning is predictive of more benefit from therapy.
Methods
Background characteristics, behavioral measures, neurocognitive functioning and heart rate activity of 121 male detainees selected for cognitive skills training were assessed. Outcome measures included program completion, evaluations by trainers and ward staff, and detainees’ self-reported motivation and treatment evaluation.
Results
Concentration performance, a neurocognitive skill, significantly predicted treatment dropout over and above background and behavioral measures, including self-reported motivation. In addition, high selfreported ‘meanness’, a psychopathic feature, was associated with low treatment motivation and an expectation bias seemed to be present among highly motivated detainees. These results did not confirm the hypotheses.
Conclusions
Offenders who are characterized by a decreased concentration performance, low motivation and increased meanness, are less likely to benefit from treatment. The results have the potential to improve the current treatment assessment procedures in order to reduce dropout rates and, eventually, recidivism rates.

This study investigates changes in neurobiological characteristics after a cognitive skills program for prisoners. It was hypothesized that prisoners who completed a cognitive skills training program would show improved neurocognitive functioning and changes in heart rate (HR) activity. In addition, it was expected that neurobiological changes were related to behavioral improvement. Male adult prisoners were included in the study and divided into two groups: the ?intervention group??prisoners participating in a cognitive skills training program?and the ?control group??prisoners placed on a waitlist. Several neurocognitive skills and HR activity measures were assessed at pre- and posttest assessment. In addition, trainers, prison officers, and prisoners were requested to evaluate behavioral changes over time. Results did not confirm the hypotheses. The absence of both neurobiological and behavioral improvement is discussed in light of the measures used, the content and duration of the current intervention program, and the prison setting.