Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research highlighted that a fundamental rethink of the measurement of domestic abuse was needed in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). The research reported here aimed to develop and test new questions on domestic abuse for the CSEW to improve the headline prevalence measure, including frequency of abuse, to develop a way of measuring controlling or coercive behavior within the overall prevalence measure, and to develop a measure of the impact of abuse. The research included focus groups and interviews with victims (n = 27) to assess a set of draft questions and cognitive testing of revised questions with victims and the general public (n = 42). A final set of 24 questions was developed for use with victims of both intimate partner and family abuse, with an additional question for family abuse. The new questions were found to echo victim experiences and were deemed acceptable and reliable measures by victims and the general public for domestic abuse, including controlling and/or coercive behavior and impact. An analytical approach was recommended to improve the headline prevalence measure of domestic abuse by establishing 'high' and 'low' abuse profiles using measures of both behavior and impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]