犯罪者项目结果研究质量的系统评价:走向一种新的结果测量模型。

IF 5.4 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Trauma Violence & Abuse Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-03 DOI:10.1177/15248380231203718
Berta Vall, Xavier López-I-Martín, Jaume Grané Morcillo, Marianne Hester
{"title":"犯罪者项目结果研究质量的系统评价:走向一种新的结果测量模型。","authors":"Berta Vall, Xavier López-I-Martín, Jaume Grané Morcillo, Marianne Hester","doi":"10.1177/15248380231203718","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review assessed whether studies on the outcomes of perpetrator programs comply with the model recommendations for outcome evaluation. Three databases (PsycINFO, Medline, and Scopus) were used to identify perpetrator program outcome studies from 1988 to 2021. The inclusion criteria were as follows: empirical studies with no time restriction; published in English or Spanish; evaluated interventions aimed at male perpetrators of any type of abuse toward women; evaluated the effectiveness of the intervention in a follow-up post-intervention; and provided an indicator of recidivism. The search and selection process resulted in 46 original studies. The results showed that studies did not include a thorough description of the study sample. Many approaches to psychological intervention are used, with cognitive behavioral therapy being the most widely used. Most studies did not describe the program content. Dropout rates varied greatly from one study to another (from 0% to 64%) and only eight studies provided dropout rates specified by each type of perpetrator. The follow-up period ranged from 3 months to 9 years. The recidivism rates (ranging from 5% to 72.5%), and their assessments were also very different. Only 12 of the 46 studies (26.1%) used more than one source to obtain recidivism rates. In terms of outcomes, few studies considered (ex-) partner accounts. Some studies had other measures of outcome, whereas a few included a pretest-posttest. In summary, these studies do not follow the recommendations of the model.</p>","PeriodicalId":54211,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","volume":" ","pages":"1985-1997"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review of the Quality of Perpetrator Programs' Outcome Studies: Toward A New Model of Outcome Measurement.\",\"authors\":\"Berta Vall, Xavier López-I-Martín, Jaume Grané Morcillo, Marianne Hester\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15248380231203718\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review assessed whether studies on the outcomes of perpetrator programs comply with the model recommendations for outcome evaluation. Three databases (PsycINFO, Medline, and Scopus) were used to identify perpetrator program outcome studies from 1988 to 2021. The inclusion criteria were as follows: empirical studies with no time restriction; published in English or Spanish; evaluated interventions aimed at male perpetrators of any type of abuse toward women; evaluated the effectiveness of the intervention in a follow-up post-intervention; and provided an indicator of recidivism. The search and selection process resulted in 46 original studies. The results showed that studies did not include a thorough description of the study sample. Many approaches to psychological intervention are used, with cognitive behavioral therapy being the most widely used. Most studies did not describe the program content. Dropout rates varied greatly from one study to another (from 0% to 64%) and only eight studies provided dropout rates specified by each type of perpetrator. The follow-up period ranged from 3 months to 9 years. The recidivism rates (ranging from 5% to 72.5%), and their assessments were also very different. Only 12 of the 46 studies (26.1%) used more than one source to obtain recidivism rates. In terms of outcomes, few studies considered (ex-) partner accounts. Some studies had other measures of outcome, whereas a few included a pretest-posttest. In summary, these studies do not follow the recommendations of the model.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trauma Violence & Abuse\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1985-1997\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trauma Violence & Abuse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231203718\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231203718","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项系统审查评估了对犯罪者项目结果的研究是否符合结果评估的模型建议。使用三个数据库(PsycINFO、Medline和Scopus)来确定1988年至2021年的犯罪者项目结果研究。纳入标准如下:不受时间限制的实证研究;以英语或西班牙语出版;评估了针对任何类型虐待妇女的男性施暴者的干预措施;在干预后的随访中评估干预的有效性;并提供了累犯的指标。搜索和筛选过程产生了46项原始研究。结果表明,研究没有包括对研究样本的全面描述。心理干预的方法很多,其中认知行为疗法应用最为广泛。大多数研究没有描述项目内容。不同研究的辍学率差异很大(从0%到64%),只有八项研究提供了每种犯罪者的辍学率。随访时间为3 月至9 年。累犯率(从5%到72.5%不等)和他们的评估也非常不同。在46项研究中,只有12项(26.1%)使用了一个以上的来源来获得累犯率。就结果而言,很少有研究考虑(前)合伙人账户。一些研究有其他的结果衡量标准,而少数研究包括前测后测。总之,这些研究没有遵循模型的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Systematic Review of the Quality of Perpetrator Programs' Outcome Studies: Toward A New Model of Outcome Measurement.

This systematic review assessed whether studies on the outcomes of perpetrator programs comply with the model recommendations for outcome evaluation. Three databases (PsycINFO, Medline, and Scopus) were used to identify perpetrator program outcome studies from 1988 to 2021. The inclusion criteria were as follows: empirical studies with no time restriction; published in English or Spanish; evaluated interventions aimed at male perpetrators of any type of abuse toward women; evaluated the effectiveness of the intervention in a follow-up post-intervention; and provided an indicator of recidivism. The search and selection process resulted in 46 original studies. The results showed that studies did not include a thorough description of the study sample. Many approaches to psychological intervention are used, with cognitive behavioral therapy being the most widely used. Most studies did not describe the program content. Dropout rates varied greatly from one study to another (from 0% to 64%) and only eight studies provided dropout rates specified by each type of perpetrator. The follow-up period ranged from 3 months to 9 years. The recidivism rates (ranging from 5% to 72.5%), and their assessments were also very different. Only 12 of the 46 studies (26.1%) used more than one source to obtain recidivism rates. In terms of outcomes, few studies considered (ex-) partner accounts. Some studies had other measures of outcome, whereas a few included a pretest-posttest. In summary, these studies do not follow the recommendations of the model.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
7.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is devoted to organizing, synthesizing, and expanding knowledge on all force of trauma, abuse, and violence. This peer-reviewed journal is practitioner oriented and will publish only reviews of research, conceptual or theoretical articles, and law review articles. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is dedicated to professionals and advanced students in clinical training who work with any form of trauma, abuse, and violence. It is intended to compile knowledge that clearly affects practice, policy, and research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信