{"title":"Are Interventions with Batterers Effective? A Meta-analytical Review","authors":"R. Arce, Esther Arias, M. Novo, Francisca Fariña","doi":"10.5093/pi2020a11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The inconsistency in the results both internally and between of previous meta-analyses on batterer intervention program efficacy, and the publication of new batterer interventions underscored the need for an up-to-date meta-analyticalreview. A total of 25 primary studies were found from literature search, obtaining 62 effect sizes, and a total sample of 20,860 intervened batterers. The results of a global meta-analysis showed a positive, significant, and of a mediummagnitude effect size for batterer interventions, but not generalizable. Nevertheless, the results exhibited a significantly higher rate of recidivism measured in couple reports (CRs) than in official records (ORs). As a consequence, intervention efficacy measuring in CRs was null, whilst in ORs was positive and significant. As for the intervention model, positive andsignificant effects were observed under the Duluth Model and cognitive-behavioural treatment programs (CBTPs), but a higher effect size was obtained with CBTPs in comparison to the Duluth Model (under this model, interventions may have negative effects, i.e., an increase in recidivism rate). In relation to intervention length, short interventions failed to reduce recidivism in ORs and may have negative effects, while long interventions were effective in reducing recidivism rate in ORs without negative effects. Efficacy evaluations in short follow-ups were invalid as artificially boosted recidivismreduction rate. Limitations of ORs and short follow-ups as measures of the intervention efficacy and implications of results for batterer intervention are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51641,"journal":{"name":"Psychosocial Intervention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"44","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychosocial Intervention","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2020a11","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44
Abstract
The inconsistency in the results both internally and between of previous meta-analyses on batterer intervention program efficacy, and the publication of new batterer interventions underscored the need for an up-to-date meta-analyticalreview. A total of 25 primary studies were found from literature search, obtaining 62 effect sizes, and a total sample of 20,860 intervened batterers. The results of a global meta-analysis showed a positive, significant, and of a mediummagnitude effect size for batterer interventions, but not generalizable. Nevertheless, the results exhibited a significantly higher rate of recidivism measured in couple reports (CRs) than in official records (ORs). As a consequence, intervention efficacy measuring in CRs was null, whilst in ORs was positive and significant. As for the intervention model, positive andsignificant effects were observed under the Duluth Model and cognitive-behavioural treatment programs (CBTPs), but a higher effect size was obtained with CBTPs in comparison to the Duluth Model (under this model, interventions may have negative effects, i.e., an increase in recidivism rate). In relation to intervention length, short interventions failed to reduce recidivism in ORs and may have negative effects, while long interventions were effective in reducing recidivism rate in ORs without negative effects. Efficacy evaluations in short follow-ups were invalid as artificially boosted recidivismreduction rate. Limitations of ORs and short follow-ups as measures of the intervention efficacy and implications of results for batterer intervention are discussed.
期刊介绍:
Psychosocial Intervention is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes papers in all areas relevant to psychosocial intervention at the individual, family, social networks, organization, community, and population levels. The Journal emphasizes an evidence-based perspective and welcomes papers reporting original basic and applied research, program evaluation, and intervention results. The journal will also feature integrative reviews, and specialized papers on theoretical advances and methodological issues. Psychosocial Intervention is committed to advance knowledge, and to provide scientific evidence informing psychosocial interventions tackling social and community problems, and promoting social welfare and quality of life. Psychosocial Intervention welcomes contributions from all areas of psychology and allied disciplines, such as sociology, social work, social epidemiology, and public health. Psychosocial Intervention aims to be international in scope, and will publish papers both in Spanish and English.