Julia C. Babcock, Matthew W. Gallagher, Angela Richardson, D. Andrew Godfrey, Victoria E. Reeves, Johan D'Souza
{"title":"哪些殴打干预措施有效?亲密伴侣暴力治疗结果研究的最新元分析综述","authors":"Julia C. Babcock, Matthew W. Gallagher, Angela Richardson, D. Andrew Godfrey, Victoria E. Reeves, Johan D'Souza","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This meta-analytic review is an update to the first meta-analysis of battering interventions (<span>Babcock et al., 2004</span>) and includes 59 studies that evaluated treatment efficacy for domestically violent men and women. The outcome literature of controlled quasi-experimental and experimental studies was reviewed to test the relative impact of Duluth, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and novel types of treatment on subsequent recidivism of violence. The first model examines studies comparing interventions to no treatment control conditions. The second model compares novel interventions to treatment as usual (i.e., the Duluth curriculum). Study design and type of treatment were tested as moderators in both models. Consistent with previous meta-analyses, effect sizes were in the small range, smaller in true experiments as compared to quasi-experimental designs when recidivism was based on partner or police reports. However, new experiments comparing novel treatments to the Duluth curriculum reveal effect sizes comparable to when comparing novel interventions to an untreated comparison group. Novel interventions, including <em>Acceptance and Commitment Therapy</em> and <em>Circles of Pea</em>ce had the largest effect sizes when put head-to-head with Duluth control groups. Future research directions include testing moderators and mechanisms of change of the battering interventions that work. Implications for evidence-based practice in criminal justice include broader implementation and continued testing of these novel interventions with demonstrated efficacy in stopping intimate partner violence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"111 ","pages":"Article 102437"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which battering interventions work? An updated Meta-analytic review of intimate partner violence treatment outcome research\",\"authors\":\"Julia C. Babcock, Matthew W. Gallagher, Angela Richardson, D. Andrew Godfrey, Victoria E. Reeves, Johan D'Souza\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102437\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This meta-analytic review is an update to the first meta-analysis of battering interventions (<span>Babcock et al., 2004</span>) and includes 59 studies that evaluated treatment efficacy for domestically violent men and women. The outcome literature of controlled quasi-experimental and experimental studies was reviewed to test the relative impact of Duluth, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and novel types of treatment on subsequent recidivism of violence. The first model examines studies comparing interventions to no treatment control conditions. The second model compares novel interventions to treatment as usual (i.e., the Duluth curriculum). Study design and type of treatment were tested as moderators in both models. Consistent with previous meta-analyses, effect sizes were in the small range, smaller in true experiments as compared to quasi-experimental designs when recidivism was based on partner or police reports. However, new experiments comparing novel treatments to the Duluth curriculum reveal effect sizes comparable to when comparing novel interventions to an untreated comparison group. Novel interventions, including <em>Acceptance and Commitment Therapy</em> and <em>Circles of Pea</em>ce had the largest effect sizes when put head-to-head with Duluth control groups. Future research directions include testing moderators and mechanisms of change of the battering interventions that work. Implications for evidence-based practice in criminal justice include broader implementation and continued testing of these novel interventions with demonstrated efficacy in stopping intimate partner violence.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"111 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102437\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000588\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000588","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Which battering interventions work? An updated Meta-analytic review of intimate partner violence treatment outcome research
This meta-analytic review is an update to the first meta-analysis of battering interventions (Babcock et al., 2004) and includes 59 studies that evaluated treatment efficacy for domestically violent men and women. The outcome literature of controlled quasi-experimental and experimental studies was reviewed to test the relative impact of Duluth, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and novel types of treatment on subsequent recidivism of violence. The first model examines studies comparing interventions to no treatment control conditions. The second model compares novel interventions to treatment as usual (i.e., the Duluth curriculum). Study design and type of treatment were tested as moderators in both models. Consistent with previous meta-analyses, effect sizes were in the small range, smaller in true experiments as compared to quasi-experimental designs when recidivism was based on partner or police reports. However, new experiments comparing novel treatments to the Duluth curriculum reveal effect sizes comparable to when comparing novel interventions to an untreated comparison group. Novel interventions, including Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Circles of Peace had the largest effect sizes when put head-to-head with Duluth control groups. Future research directions include testing moderators and mechanisms of change of the battering interventions that work. Implications for evidence-based practice in criminal justice include broader implementation and continued testing of these novel interventions with demonstrated efficacy in stopping intimate partner violence.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.