Reasoning and Rehabilitation

1. Introduction

Version followed: the original Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R) Cognitive Skills Development Program (Ross, Fabiano & Ross, 1986 handbook; Ross, Fabiano & Ewles, 1988), as described by the developers' handbook guidance reported in Pullen (1996). Notes cover the shorter R&R2 family (Ross & Hilborn, 2008), with R&R2MHP (Young & Ross, 2007) as the R&R2 version that is best documented in the sources. The licensed handbooks themselves are not drawn on here. Content attributed to them comes via the evaluation reports cited here [uncertain where marked].

R&R is a manualised, closed-group cognitive skills programme for people whose antisocial behaviour has brought them under criminal-justice (or, for R&R2, social-service or mental-health) supervision. Robert Ross and Elizabeth Fabiano developed it in Canada in the mid-1980s for high-risk offenders, and it was first tested with high-risk adult probationers. Probation officers delivered that trial [source: Ross, Fabiano & Ewles 1988 abstract; Tong & Farrington 2008].

Theory of change (the "cognitive model"): many offenders are under-socialised. They have not acquired the cognitive skills, attitudes and values needed for prosocial adjustment. These are deficits in problem solving, consequential thinking, means-end reasoning, social perspective-taking, critical reasoning, abstract reasoning, creative thinking and values. The programme treats these as skills, not pathology, so they can be taught. It aims to change how people think, not only how they act. Prosocial attitudes, beliefs and behaviour are expected to follow, and recidivism to fall [source: Pullen 1996, summarising the R&R handbook; Ross, Fabiano & Ewles 1988 abstract]. R&R2 reframes the goal as "prosocial competence" and adds techniques drawn from a neurocriminology model of prosocial neurodevelopment [source: Ross academia profile listings; Sánchez de Ribera et al. 2024].

2. Framework

R&R is a programme rather than an individual therapy. It has no phases in the psychotherapy sense. Instead it runs a fixed sequence of modules, delivered in a fixed order by trained "coaches" to a closed group [source: Pullen 1996].

Versions and dose (sources differ; name the one you are licensed for):

Version	Sessions	Length	Group	Frequency	Source
Original R&R	35 sequential sessions in ~10 modules (other sources: 36 or 38)	90–120 min ("2-hour")	6–8	At least 2 per week, never 2 sessions in one meeting; ~18 weeks in Colorado	Pullen 1996; Tong & Farrington 2008; Sánchez de Ribera et al. 2024
R&R2 short version (adults, youths)	~14–15	not found [uncertain]	not found [uncertain]	not found [uncertain]	Sánchez de Ribera et al. 2024; Ross academia listing
R&R2MHP (mental health problems)	16	90 min + 15-min break	5–8	Weekly, plus individual mentor contacts	Rees-Jones et al. 2012; Young et al. 2013
R&R2ADHD	15	not found	not found	not found	Ross academia listing

Other R&R2 versions exist for girls and young women and for families and support persons [source: Ross academia listing]. Content is [uncertain].

Stages of a course (as a delivering clinician experiences it):

Selection and preparation. The programme was designed for higher-risk offenders, so target moderate-to-high risk in line with the Risk-Need-Responsivity model, which R&R2 explicitly follows [source: Tong & Farrington 2008; Young et al. 2013]. Form gender-homogeneous groups of similar age. Hold an individual meeting with each member before the first session to build rapport and buy-in. Screen out people too disruptive to benefit, using a consistent, written rule [source: Pullen 1996]. It worked for both volunteers and mandated participants [source: Tong & Farrington 2008].
Coach preparation. Coaches complete a one-week training run by a certified R&R trainer (theory, modules, practice delivery with feedback). They write a separate lesson plan for each session, at roughly two hours of preparation per session and about 70 hours before the first group. They should deliver their first group within 30–60 days of training [source: Pullen 1996].
Module sequence. Skills are introduced, then repeated alongside each new related skill (an iterative, cumulative design). The handbook says the order must not be altered. In the original R&R the skill areas include problem solving, social skills, negotiation skills, management of emotions, creative thinking, values enhancement, critical reasoning and cognitive exercises [source: Pullen 1996]. The ten-module list often cited also includes self-control, meta-cognition and social perspective-taking [uncertain: not confirmed in the sources]. R&R2MHP has five modules: neurocognitive, problem solving, emotional control, prosocial skills and critical reasoning [source: Rees-Jones et al. 2012].
Transfer. Each skill is practised in real-life situations (the "transfer of training" step). R&R2MHP also uses workbook homework and a staff mentor between sessions [source: Pullen 1996; Young et al. 2013].
Completion and maintenance. In R&R2MHP, completion means attending at least 12 of 16 sessions [source: Rees-Jones et al. 2012]. For juveniles, the developers recommended involving parents to help skills last [source: Pullen 1996]. Formal participant booster sessions are not described in the sources [uncertain].

Criteria for moving on: Progress is by session sequence, not by individual mastery tests. The group is closed, so members start and finish together. Within each session the coach checks whether participants have understood the skill and changes teaching strategy if they have not before moving on [source: Pullen 1996]. Handling of individuals who fall far behind is not specified in the sources [uncertain].

3. Guiding principles

[source: Pullen 1996 summarising the R&R handbook unless marked otherwise]

Skills deficit, not pathology: treat antisocial behaviour as a gap in learnable skills. Teach the skills and do not diagnose character.
Teach how to think, not what to think: the values module does not promote particular right or wrong values. Participants examine and defend their own reasoning.
Challenging thinking is the heart of the programme: delivering content is not enough. Each session must actively question participants' reasoning.
Confront without demeaning: be assertive, contain the discussion, and challenge ideas while protecting the person's dignity.
Empathy within agency rules: be warm and understanding without bending supervision conditions.
Follow the handbook, don't read it aloud: keep its structure and sequence, but deliver in your own words from a full grasp of the material.
Keep the sequence intact: never reorder sessions or merge two sessions into one meeting. Combining sessions was one of the integrity failures named in the Colorado evaluation.
Link across modules: connect each new skill to the ones already taught so the skills build into a single way of thinking.
Make it personal: ask participants to apply each skill to their own real situations. Adapt examples to their culture, age and gender, but leave the content intact.
Check understanding and adapt: watch for signs that a concept has not landed, and switch teaching method rather than pressing on.
Prepare every session: use a written lesson plan with sequenced objectives, an introduction, a summary and links back to earlier sessions.
Fidelity drives outcomes: effects are weaker when delivery slips. Monitor delivery through supervision, observation or video review [source: Pullen 1996; Tong & Farrington 2008; Rees-Jones et al. 2012].
Match to risk and responsivity: use R&R for higher-risk clients. Adjust pace, length and supports (e.g. the R&R2MHP neurocognitive module and mentors) to clients' cognitive and mental-health needs [source: Young et al. 2013; Sánchez de Ribera et al. 2024].
Emphasise benefit over compulsion: in Colorado, presenting the programme mainly as mandatory was associated with poor engagement [source: Pullen 1996; this inference is partly synthesis].

4. Intervention inventory

The R&R and R&R2 handbooks are licensed and copyrighted. The steps below name the components and teaching methods the sources describe, written in my own words. Where the sources only name a component, the step detail is marked [synthesis] and the licensed handbook takes precedence. The sources describe the general teaching methods as role-play, modelling, discussion, individual exercises, audiovisual material, workbooks, games and real-life practice [source: Sánchez de Ribera et al. 2024; Young et al. 2013; Pullen 1996].

1. Pre-group individual meeting

Purpose / when: Before session 1, with every participant, to build rapport, explain the programme and secure buy-in, especially with mandated or adolescent clients [source: Pullen 1996].
Steps: (1) Meet one-to-one. (2) Explain the format: closed group, number of sessions, attendance rule. (3) Frame it as practical thinking-skills training that serves the person's own goals, not as punishment. (4) Ask about a recent situation that went badly, to show where the skills apply. (5) Agree attendance and group rules. (6) Note literacy, attention, mental-health and language needs for responsivity [steps 3–6 synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "This isn't about telling you what to think. It's about getting more options when things go sideways. What's a situation lately where you wish you'd had more options?"
Watch for: Engagement driven only by compulsion. In Colorado, most officers stressed that attendance was mandatory and few emphasised benefits or fun, and adolescent engagement was poor [source: Pullen 1996]. It's working when the person can name a personal reason to attend.

2. Challenging thinking in group discussion (core coach method)

Purpose / when: In every session. The handbook guidance reported by Pullen calls challenging participants' thinking "the heart of the program" [source: Pullen 1996].
Steps: (1) Draw out the participant's reasoning about a situation or exercise. (2) Ask questions that test it: what evidence, what alternatives, what consequences, how others would see it. (3) Hold the challenge assertively but without demeaning the person. (4) Contain the discussion and bring it back to the skill being taught. (5) Link the point to skills from earlier sessions. (6) Ask the person to apply the point to their own life [steps 2 and 6 partly synthesis; the label "Socratic" is not used in the sources].
Example language (illustrative): "You said he 'made' you do it. Walk me through the moment just before. Were there other things you could have done, even ones you didn't like?"
Watch for: Content delivered with no challenge. Fabiano's video review in Colorado found content covered while skill development "barely" happened [source: Pullen 1996]. It's working when participants begin questioning each other's reasoning using the programme's language.

3. Self-control and impulse control ("stop and think")

Purpose / when: Early, because impulsivity blocks every later skill. The impulse-control content is confirmed for R&R2MHP's neurocognitive module [source: Rees-Jones et al. 2012; Young et al. 2013]. That the original R&R has a separate self-control module and uses the phrase "stop and think" is [uncertain: not confirmed in the sources].
Steps [synthesis]: (1) Have participants recall situations where they acted before thinking. (2) Teach a personal pause signal and a brief self-instruction to delay action. (3) Model it aloud in a provocation scenario. (4) Role-play with rising provocation. (5) Assign real-life practice and debrief it next session.
Example language (illustrative): "Before your hands or mouth move, what's your signal to yourself to hit pause?"
Watch for: Pausing that is taught but never rehearsed under arousal. It's working when participants report catching themselves in real situations.

4. Neurocognitive strategies: attention, memory, planning (R&R2MHP)

Purpose / when: In R&R2MHP and R&R2ADHD, for participants whose attention, memory, impulse control or planning deficits block engagement [source: Rees-Jones et al. 2012; Young et al. 2013; Ross academia listing].
Steps [synthesis; specific strategies not described in the sources]: (1) Explain how attention and memory lapses lead to trouble. (2) Teach compensatory strategies, such as reminders, written plans, breaking tasks into steps and reducing distraction. (3) Practise constructive planning on a real upcoming task. (4) Have the mentor review use of the strategies between sessions.
Example language (illustrative): "Let's plan Tuesday's appointment backwards: what has to happen, and when, for you to get there?"
Watch for: Overload, so keep material short and visual. It's working when attendance, homework completion and on-task behaviour improve. R&R2ADHD includes the RATE-S and RATE-I rating scales [source: Ross academia listing]. Their items are not reproduced here.

5. Meta-cognition (thinking about one's thinking)

Purpose / when: Throughout the programme, to help participants notice and evaluate their own thinking. It is widely cited as part of the R&R model [uncertain: not described in the sources].
Steps [synthesis]: (1) After each exercise, ask participants how they arrived at their answer. (2) Name the thinking skill they used, or skipped. (3) Ask what they would do differently next time.
Example language (illustrative): "What was going on in your head right then? Which thinking tool would have helped?"
Watch for: Answers about events rather than thinking. It's working when participants spontaneously label their own thinking steps.

6. Problem recognition and definition

Purpose / when: At the start of the problem-solving module. Participants learn to recognise and define problems, identify feelings, and separate facts from opinions [source: Pullen 1996; Rees-Jones et al. 2012].
Steps: (1) Present a short scenario. (2) Ask participants to notice early signs that a problem exists, such as bodily feelings or others' reactions. (3) Have them name the feelings involved. (4) Sort statements about the scenario into facts and opinions. (5) Write a one-sentence problem definition that does not blame [steps 2 and 5 detail synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "'He disrespected me' — fact or opinion? What exactly did he say or do?"
Watch for: Problems defined as other people's faults. It's working when definitions become specific and solvable.

7. Alternative thinking (generating options)

Purpose / when: After the problem is defined, to break rigid, single-option thinking [source: Pullen 1996; Rees-Jones et al. 2012].
Steps: (1) Brainstorm as many options as possible without judging them. (2) The coach adds unusual options to model flexibility. (3) Count the options so growth across sessions is visible [step 3 synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Let's get to ten options before anyone says which is best, including silly ones."
Watch for: Early judging and fixation on aggression or avoidance. It's working when option counts rise and include prosocial choices.

8. Consequential thinking

Purpose / when: To weigh each option's consequences, for oneself and for others, in the short and long term [source: Pullen 1996; Rees-Jones et al. 2012].
Steps: (1) For each option, list likely consequences. (2) Separate consequences for self from consequences for others, and short-term from long-term. (3) Discuss how likely each consequence is [step 2 grid synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "What happens tonight if you do that? What about in three months? Who else is affected?"
Watch for: Consideration of immediate payoff only. It's working when participants raise long-term and other-person consequences unprompted.

9. Choosing a solution and planning the steps (means-end reasoning)

Purpose / when: To select the best option and plan the steps to reach the goal. Means-end reasoning is a deficit the programme targets [source: Pullen 1996; Rees-Jones et al. 2012 "choice-making"].
Steps [synthesis for sequence detail]: (1) Choose an option based on the consequence review. (2) Break it into concrete steps. (3) Anticipate obstacles and plan responses. (4) Rehearse in role-play. (5) Try it in real life and review the result next session.
Example language (illustrative): "You've picked calling your PO first. What's step one, and what could get in the way?"
Watch for: Plans that skip obstacles. It's working when real-life attempts are reported and reviewed.

10. Social skills training (structured learning sequence)

Purpose / when: In the social skills component, to build specific interpersonal skills. Named skills include asking for help, expressing a complaint, persuading others, responding to failure, responding to persuasion and responding to contradictory messages [source: Pullen 1996].
Steps (five-step sequence named in the source; detail paraphrased): (1) Pre-training: introduce the skill, why it matters and its behavioural steps. (2) Modelling: coaches demonstrate the skill, ideally both doing it well and doing it badly [contrast demonstration is synthesis]. (3) Role-play: each participant rehearses the skill in a situation from their own life. (4) Feedback: the coach and peers give specific feedback, starting with what went well. (5) Transfer of training: the participant agrees a real situation in which to use the skill before the next session and reports back.
Example language (illustrative): "Show us how you'd raise the problem with your landlord. Everyone else, watch for whether he says what he wants, not just what's wrong."
Watch for: Joking that derails role-plays, and role-plays that rehearse the old behaviour. It's working when participants report using the skill outside the group.

11. Negotiation skills

Purpose / when: To handle conflict through compromise rather than domination or withdrawal [source: Pullen 1996].
Steps: (1) Participants identify their own usual conflict style. (2) Present a conflict scenario. (3) Generate options that meet both sides' interests. (4) Weigh the consequences of each option. (5) Role-play reaching a compromise. (6) Give feedback [source: Pullen 1996; ordering synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "What does each side actually need here? Is there a deal where both get something?"
Watch for: Compromise felt as "losing". Explore what is gained. It's working when participants describe win-win outcomes in real disputes.

12. Management of emotions

Purpose / when: To prevent emotion-driven responses in conflict. R&R2MHP extends this to anxiety as well as anger [source: Pullen 1996; Rees-Jones et al. 2012].
Steps: (1) Learn to recognise one's own emotional states and early bodily cues during conflict. (2) Practise monitored breathing. (3) Practise calming, task-focused self-talk. (4) Rehearse both in role-plays of rising conflict. (5) Plan to use them in a real situation [steps 1–3 source; 4–5 synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Notice the jaw, the fists. That's your early warning. Breathe out slowly, and tell yourself: 'I don't have to answer right now.'"
Watch for: Breathing taught but not used under arousal, and distress in trauma-exposed members. It's working when reported blow-ups shrink in frequency or intensity.

13. Creative thinking (CoRT thinking tools)

Purpose / when: To develop alternative views and systematic, flexible thinking [source: Pullen 1996].
Steps: The original programme uses Edward de Bono's CoRT cards as thinking "tools" [source: Pullen 1996]. Which CoRT tools are used, and in what order, was not confirmed [uncertain]. De Bono's CoRT lessons include tools such as listing positives, negatives and interesting points, considering all factors, considering consequences, and considering other people's views. In general [synthesis]: (1) introduce one tool on a card; (2) practise it on a neutral, impersonal problem; (3) apply it to a participant's real issue; (4) link it to earlier problem-solving steps.
Example language (illustrative): "Before deciding, use the card: what's good about this idea, what's bad, and what's interesting?"
Watch for: Treating it as a game only. It's working when participants use tool names to structure their own decisions.

14. Values enhancement (moral dilemmas and games)

Purpose / when: To examine one's own beliefs and others' perspectives through moral dilemmas. The module does not promote particular right or wrong values [source: Pullen 1996].
Steps: (1) Present a dilemma, or use the commercial Scruples or Dilemma games named in the source. (2) Each participant states a choice and the reasons for it. (3) The coach asks about other people's perspectives and the reasoning behind each position. (4) Participants compare reasons, not just choices. (5) Ask whether any reasons have shifted [steps 2–5 synthesis consistent with the source].
Example language (illustrative): "I'm not interested in the 'right' answer. I'm interested in your reasons, and in how the person on the other end would see it."
Watch for: The coach moralising, which breaks the module's stance, and procriminal norms dominating the group. It's working when reasons become more perspective-taking and less self-serving.

15. Critical reasoning

Purpose / when: To think carefully, logically and rationally, and to evaluate information and options. It emphasises curiosity, objectivity, flexibility and open-mindedness [source: Pullen 1996; Rees-Jones et al. 2012]. Tong & Farrington note that the derivative Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS) programme dropped the critical reasoning module that R&R has.
Steps [synthesis]: (1) Present a claim, argument or persuasive message. (2) Identify what is fact and what is assumption. (3) Ask who benefits from the message and what evidence is missing. (4) Apply the same scrutiny to one's own justifications.
Example language (illustrative): "Your mate says 'nobody gets caught for that.' What's the evidence? Who's telling you, and why?"
Watch for: Critical thinking used only against authorities. It's working when participants turn it on their own excuses.

16. Social perspective-taking and prosocial skills

Purpose / when: To recognise others' thoughts and feelings, build empathy and support negotiation and conflict resolution. This is R&R2MHP's prosocial skills module. Social perspective-taking is a deficit the original model targets [source: Rees-Jones et al. 2012; Pullen 1996].
Steps [synthesis]: (1) Replay a scenario from another person's position. (2) Ask what that person was likely thinking and feeling. (3) Check the guesses against cues in the scenario. (4) Choose a response that accounts for the other person's view.
Example language (illustrative): "Sit in her chair for a minute. You come home and see that. What are you thinking?"
Watch for: Perspective-taking used to manipulate. Pair it with values work. It's working when participants explain others' behaviour without assuming hostility.

17. Cognitive exercises

Purpose / when: Named as an area of the original programme. Its content is not described in the sources [source: Pullen 1996; uncertain]. Follow the licensed handbook. No steps are given here, to avoid inventing content.

18. Transfer of training, homework and workbooks

Purpose / when: After every skill, to move it into daily life. R&R2MHP uses workbooks with homework assignments [source: Pullen 1996; Young et al. 2013].
Steps: (1) At the end of a session, each participant names a real situation in the coming days where they will use the skill. (2) They record what happened, in a workbook or orally. (3) Review the attempt at the start of the next session, reinforcing tries and problem-solving failures [review format synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Where's one place this week you could try a complaint the new way? We'll start next time with how it went."
Watch for: Uncompleted homework, which needs a non-punitive review (see section 5). It's working when participants bring real examples.

19. Mentoring between sessions (R&R2MHP)

Purpose / when: In R&R2MHP, to transfer skills into daily activities and help participants rehearse [source: Young et al. 2013; Rees-Jones et al. 2012].
Steps: (1) Assign a staff mentor, such as a primary nurse, keyworker, assistant psychologist or social supervisor. (2) Give the mentor written guidance for each session. (3) Build the mentor contact into routine meetings rather than adding an extra session. (4) The mentor reviews the week's skill and helps the participant apply it to a current situation. (5) Mentors and facilitators meet regularly for supervision [source: Rees-Jones et al. 2012; Young et al. 2013]. Waugh et al. (2014) describe a similar manualised "coaching" component.
Example language (illustrative): "This week's group was about stopping to think before reacting. Has anything come up on the ward where you could use that?"
Watch for: Mentors drifting into general support. It's working when mentors report participants using the skill language in daily life.

5. Handling problems

The sources give limited problem-handling guidance. Items are tagged with their source or marked [synthesis].

Low motivation or mandated attendance: Use the pre-group meeting, and frame the programme around the person's own goals and some enjoyment, not compulsion [source: Pullen 1996]. R&R worked with both volunteers and non-volunteers [source: Tong & Farrington 2008]. In-group, invite participants to argue against the skill, then test it on their own example [synthesis].
Disruptive participants: Redirecting attention to the material was frequent and time-consuming in Colorado. The developers allow exclusion of people too disruptive to benefit, but Colorado applied this inconsistently, so write a clear exclusion and re-entry rule before the group starts [source: Pullen 1996]. Also: agree group rules in session 1, give the disruptive member an active role (e.g. a role-play partner), speak to them privately at the break, and have the co-coach handle the individual while the lead coach keeps the group on task [synthesis].
Attention fading or overload (adolescents, ADHD, mental illness, intellectual disability): For adolescents, attention waned about halfway through, so keep sessions to 60–90 minutes [source: Pullen 1996]. Consider R&R2MHP or R&R2ADHD, with a neurocognitive module, a 15-minute break and mentors [source: Rees-Jones et al. 2012; Ross academia listing]. Minor adaptations made R&R2MHP feasible with intellectual disability, with 92% completion [source: Waugh et al. 2014]. Shorten explanations, use visuals and repeat key steps [synthesis].
Dropout and non-adherence: Non-completion ranged from about 4% to 45%, and some dropouts did worse than controls. Higher-risk participants may be more likely to drop out [source: Tong & Farrington 2008]. Mentoring improved completion in mentally disordered offenders. One study of the original R&R in community patients had no completers, and its authors suggested paying for attendance [source: Waugh et al. 2014 citing Hodgins et al.]. Contact absent members the same day, review missed content one-to-one before the next session, and involve the supervising officer or mentor [synthesis]. For non-completed homework, ask what got in the way and problem-solve it with the group, using the programme's own steps [synthesis].
Coach drift and poor fidelity: Typical failures include weak linking of concepts, inadequate preparation, confusing explanations, not challenging thinking, merging sessions and low relevance to the group [source: Pullen 1996]. Remedies: booster training 30–45 days after initial training, a quality-control system, a cognitive coordinator, and video review [source: Pullen 1996]. R&R2MHP uses steering-committee meetings, supervision by the author, random session observation and group supervision [source: Young et al. 2013]. Results were weaker in more recent evaluations than in older ones [source: Tong & Farrington 2008]. Linking this to scale-up and fidelity loss is a common interpretation [uncertain].
Ruptures and hostility toward the coach: The handbook asks coaches to confront without demeaning and to show empathy within agency rules [source: Pullen 1996]. When challenged: acknowledge the person's point, separate your coaching role from your enforcement role (especially if you are their probation officer), avoid power struggles in front of the group, and repair privately [synthesis].
Procriminal talk dominating discussion: Use values and critical-reasoning methods. Ask for reasons and consequences, invite other members' perspectives and avoid moralising [synthesis, consistent with the stance in Pullen 1996].
Emotional overwhelm or disclosures (trauma, suicidality): Not addressed in the sources [synthesis]. Pause the exercise and offer a break with the co-coach. After the session, assess risk using your service's standard suicide and self-harm protocol. Refer for individual treatment. Do not process trauma in the skills group.
Cultural mismatch: Gibbs and Beal questioned R&R's effectiveness in different cultural contexts [source: Tong & Farrington 2008], and effects were absent in US evaluations. Localising examples to culture, age and gender is allowed, but the session sequence must stay the same [source: Pullen 1996].
Literacy limits: Keep written workbook tasks short, offer oral alternatives and read materials aloud [synthesis].
Group composition problems: Keep groups gender-homogeneous and similar in age, with 6–8 members (5–8 in R&R2MHP) [source: Pullen 1996; Rees-Jones et al. 2012]. Avoid mixing co-defendants or known rivals [synthesis].

Sources

Sources:

Further reading (not drawn on) [uncertain]:

Ross, R. R., & Fabiano, E. A. (1985). Time to Think: A Cognitive Model of Delinquency Prevention and Offender Rehabilitation.
Ross, R. R., Fabiano, E. A., & Ross, R. D. (1986). Reasoning and Rehabilitation: A Handbook for Teaching Cognitive Skills.
Ross, R. R., & Hilborn, J. (2008). Rehabilitating Rehabilitation: Neurocriminology for Treatment of Antisocial Behavior (Cognitive Centre of Canada). R&R2 handbooks, including the Short Version for Adults, are listed on the Ross Academia profile, but access to them was not obtained.
Young, S., & Ross, R. R. (2007). R&R2 for Youths and Adults with Mental Health Problems.
De Bono, E. CoRT Thinking Program (materials used in the creative thinking module).

← Previous · II-148Moral reconation therapy Next · II-150 →Aggression Replacement Training