Howells et al

Question 1

Aims

Answer 1

• whether anger management is more effective in producing change in aggression than no treatment
• to see if pre-treatment offender characteristics can predict any improvements - looking at the levels of need & readiness

Question 2

sample

Answer 2

• 418 male offenders
• aged 18-62
• mean age 28.8
• all from Australia
• 14% non-violent offences
• 42% violence without bodily harm
• 30% violent with bodily harm
• prison sentences ranged from 1 month - 26 years & 4 months

Question 3

proecedure

Answer 3

• study compared an experimental group on an AM programme with a control group who were on waiting list to begin programme
• both groups completed measure immediately before & after AM
• then 2 months later, then 6 months later
• control group offered programme 2 weeks after study

Question 4

Participant numbers throughout study

Answer 4

• out of 418
• 285 completed post intervention assessment
• 78 completed 2 month follow up
• 21 completed 6 month follow up
• these smaller numbers in follow ups were planned for logistical reasons & not high attrition rate

Question 5

which participants had completed AM before

Answer 5

• 20%
• 4% more than 1
• 3% had attempted but not completed
• 73% never before

Question 6

details of anger management given in study

Answer 6

• based on cognitive approach to behaviour change
• ran for 10 sessions, each 2+ hrs
• trained facilitators used to conduct programmes
• used treatment manual based on material developed in New Zealand
• included structured exercises, focusing on skills identifying provocations, relaxation, cognitive restructuring
• e.g assertion, relapse prevention
• a checklist was completed of each of the sessions conducted by facilitator & participant

Question 7

why was it important that the facilitator & participant completed a checklist of each of the sessions conducted

Answer 7

• assess integrity of program (defined as concordance between actual content of session & what would be expected from program manual)
• high program integrity found for program

Question 8

what data was collected

Answer 8

• self report data
• from both control & experiment group
• reported individually
• data from ppts aggression was collected from 2 officers for prison or staff member for those in community based programme

Question 9

questionnaires used in programme

Answer 9

• STAXI
• NAS-PI
• MOAS

Question 10

STAXI

Answer 10

• state, trait, anger expression & control
• measures types of anger & issues around anger

Question 11

NAS - PI

Answer 11

• anger intensity & reactions to situations
• measures looking at triggers

Question 12

results -

Answer 12

• no statistically significant differences between the pre & post treatment scores between 2 groups
• there was a trend for improvements over time with the treatment group showing slightly higher improvement but degree of pre/post treatment change was small
• results showed that prisoners who undertook AM showed significantly greater improvement in anger knowledge than prisoner control group
• data shows effect gained during treatment continues to 2 months after treatment from which point no further improvement occurs but gains appear to be maintained
• degree of improvement was found to be predictable from pre-treatment measure of anger & treatment readiness
• readiness scale proved to be a consistent predictor of improvement
• offenders who were motivated & ready to work on their anger problems showed greater improvements on anger measures

Question 13

STAXI - results - treatment

Answer 13

• pre treatment mean = 12.4
• post treatment mean = 11.2
• mean change = -0.3

Question 14

STAXI - control - results

Answer 14

• pre treatment mean = 11.2
• post treatment mean = 11.00
• mean change = -0.7

Question 15

MOAS - treatment - results

Answer 15

• pre treatment = 0.95
• post treatment = 0.52
• mean change = -0.41

Question 16

MOAS - control - results

Answer 16

• pre treatment = 1.12
• post treatment = 1.09
• mean change = -0.03

Question 17

conclusions

Answer 17

• overall impact of AM was small
• experimental group made changes in expected changes in expected direction = no real statistical significance
• extent of change in an individual was shown to be predictable to a modest extent from pre-treatment - readiness for treatment
• offenders who were motivated to work on anger problems showed greater improvements on a range of anger measures
• those less motivated showed less - no change

Question 18

what was shown as an important predictor in looking for change

Answer 18

readiness

Question 19

generalisability

Answer 19

• all from Australia
• 73% committed violent crimes
• ethnocentric study, mainly represented 1 type of crime = biased sample = low generalisability
• still ppts from Europe + Asia (moderately generalisability)

Question 20

reliability

Answer 20

• standardised self report measures, e.g MOAS & 6 self report measures
• standardised program delivered by trained facilitators = easy to repeat on different groups
• also checked to make sure programmes were all being delivered in exactly the same way
• documented & extensive testing = reliable
• high

Question 21

Applications

Answer 21

• treatment was most beneficial for people who were motivated to get better & showed most improvements on a range of anger measurements
• treatment can be effective for people who want to get better
• more applications BUT no statistical difference between experimental groups = less applications
• informs people on importance in encouraging readiness & control groups

Question 22

validity

Answer 22

• researchers used a range of different measures through scales & questionnaires that were objective, quantitative data
• for example, STAXI, MOAS = free from researcher bias
• increases internal validity of results
• data can be triangulated to check for accuracy
• bias = subject to socially desirable behaviour - inmates may feel ashamed or want to get out of prison so do not answer questionnaires honestly

Question 23

ethics

Answer 23

• all ppts wanted to be part of AM
• ppts in control group were still offered AM 2 weeks after study
• all benefited & not denied treatment = ethical