Graduation Year

2026

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree

Ph.D.

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)

Degree Granting Department

Psychology

Major Professor

Edelyn E. Verona, Ph.D.

Committee Member

Kemesha Gabbidon, Ph.D.

Committee Member

Diana Rancourt, Ph.D.

Committee Member

Christine Ruva, Ph.D.

Committee Member

Jennifer Wolgemuth, Ph.D.

Keywords

Corrections, Evaluations, Evidence-Based Practice, Third Wave Psychotherapy

Abstract

Correctional institutions unintentionally function as one of the largest mental health providers in the country. Short-term facilities, like jails, present an opportunity to provide mental health care to those who will quickly reenter our communities. Despite this, evidence-based practices and treatments in correctional settings have been implemented at slower rates compared to community settings and mental health institutions. Regulating emotions, refraining from impulsive maladaptive behavior, and communicating effectively are considered primary treatment needs among jail inmates. Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT; Linehan, 1993) can address these deficits and is commonly implemented in a skills training group format in correctional settings; however, few studies have examined the processes that mark successful or less than successful implementation of such an intervention, such as feasibility and acceptability. To address these gaps in the literature, the current study used a convergent mixed methods design to examine the extent of feasibility and acceptability of a brief DBT skills group within a county jail setting. Multiple informant groups were used to gain a holistic understanding of both the feasibility and acceptability of the DBT skills group. Informant groups consisted of the incarcerated clients for which the DBT group was developed as well as DBT group facilitators (clinicians) and jail staff and administrators (staff). Aim 1 examined the feasibility and acceptability of the group through quantitative methods, with variable results depending on the metric and informant grouping. Client-based data including session attendance, dose, and completion rates substantiated the group’s feasibility, while fairly high noncompletion and dropout rates indicated that there were barriers to treatment completion. Low ratings of feasibility in staff survey responses reflected the burdensomeness of the implementation for the security staff. The DBT group’s acceptability was supported through client and clinician ratings of participation, attentiveness, and diary card and homework completion, although staff survey responses again suggested that they were generally dissatisfied with the implementation. Aim 2 qualitative analyses of interview data yielded three main themes: Individual Motivations and Institutional Barriers, Clinicians as Outsiders, and DBT as a Good Fit for a Correctional Intervention. Data triangulation in Aim 3 suggested that DBT is generally well-suited for a jail environment, with its feasibility and acceptability bolstered by the therapeutic alliance between clinicians and clients and hampered by institutional barriers and the brief nature and dose of the intervention. Results demonstrated that both feasibility and acceptability are nuanced and often related processes, and the evaluation of these processes benefits from including perspectives from all groups involved in its implementation. Recommendations include using clinicians not affiliated with the correctional institution when possible and increasing communication between jail staff and clinicians to reduce burdensomeness and address barriers to treatment.

Download

Share

COinS