Advertisement

Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 141–150 | Cite as

Who completes batterer's treatment groups? An empirical investigation

  • Roger J. Grusznski
  • Thomas P. Carrillo
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences that could discriminate among batterers who completed a violence treatment program and batterers who dropped out after intake, but prior to or during treatment. A discriminant analysis of a variety of demographic and psychological variables showed a significant difference between the completers group and the other two groups of batterers. Men who completed treatment reported fewer indirect threats of violence, had a higher level of education, were more likely to be employed full time, witnessed abuse more often in their family of origin, were less likely to be victims of child abuse, scored higher on the FIRO-B subscale of expressed control and had more children. Further research needs to be done to assess how these variables influence the batterers during treatment and to help dropouts successfully complete treatment.

Key words

batterers family violence group treatment therapy completers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, D. C., and McCormick, A. J. (1982). Men unlearning violence: A group approach based on the collective model. In M. Roy (ed.),The Abusive Partner, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bankovics, G. (1984).A Manual for the Group Treatment of Batterers, Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  3. Caine, T. M., Wijesinghe, B., and Wood, R. R. (1973). Personality and Psychiatric Treatment Expectancies.Brit. J. Psychiat. 122: 87–88.Google Scholar
  4. Edleson, J. L., and Brygger, M. P. (1986). Gender differences in self-reporting of battering incidences.Family Relat. 35: 377–382.Google Scholar
  5. Garfield, S. L., and Bergin, A. E. (1978).Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: An Empirical Analysis, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Kotkov, B. (1958). Favorable clinical indications for group attendance.Int. J. Psychother. 8: 419–427.Google Scholar
  7. Lund, S. H., Larsen, N. E., and Schultz, S. K. (1982).Explanatory Evaluation of the Domestic Abuse Project, Program Evaluation Center, Minneapolis, Minn.Google Scholar
  8. Nash, E. H., Frank, J. D., Gliedman, L. H., Imber, S. D., and Stone, A. R. (1957). Some factors related to patients remaining in group psychotherapy.Int. J. Group Psychother. 7: 264–274.Google Scholar
  9. Pirog-Good, M., and Stets, J. (1986). Programs for abusers: Who drops out and what can be done.Response, 9(2): 17–19.Google Scholar
  10. Purdy, F., and Nickle, N. (1982). Practice principles for working with groups of men who batter.Social Work Groups 4: 111–122.Google Scholar
  11. Schutz, W. (1967).The FIRO Scales, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif.Google Scholar
  12. Spence, J. T., and Helmreich, R. L. (1978).Masculinity and Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates, and Antecedents. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  13. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., and Strapp, J. (1973). A short version of the Attitudes Toward Women Scale.Bull. Psychonomic Soc. 2: 219–220.Google Scholar
  14. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scales.J. Marr. Fam. 41: 75–88.Google Scholar
  15. Taubele, E. S. (1958). Relationship between certain personality variables and continuation in psychotherapy.J. Consult. Psychol. 22: 83–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger J. Grusznski
    • 1
  • Thomas P. Carrillo
    • 2
  1. 1.Domestic Abuse ProjectMinneapolis
  2. 2.Community University Health Care CenterMinneapolis

Personalised recommendations