3.1.4 Method 2: Anger Management Evaluation

Question 1

Ireland (2000)

Answer 1

• Investigated the effectiveness for AM
  programmes
• Compared group of 50 males prisons who completed AM courses with a control group
• Control group = 37 male prisoners who did not complete A course
• Matched on age, offence and level of angry behaviour
• Assessed on 2 measures (2 weeks before, 3 weeks after AM)

Question 2

Ireland (2000) findings

Answer 2

• AM group showed reduction in angry behaviour compared to control group
• 92% AM group improvement in at least 1 measure, 42% on 2 measures

AM is effective

Question 3

Ireland (2000) eval.

Answer 3

• Low generalisation (cant generalise to females or elderly)

+ Controlled design: control group = comparison and strengthens the causal inference

+ Quantitative measurement: use of standardised measures- provides objective data

Question 4

Lipsey (2005)

Answer 4

• Meta-analysis
• Involved 528 studies to investigate the
  effectiveness of intervention programmes

Question 5

Lipsey (2005) findings

Answer 5

• Punishment and deterrence increased recidivism
• Therapeutic approach like counselling decrease recidivism
• CBT was associated with reduced recidivism

Question 6

Ethical issues

Answer 6

• no informed consent
• prisoners already deal with mental health issues
  > this could make it worse
• lack of free will
• reluctant offenders
  > lack of valid results

Question 7

Social issue

Answer 7

• costly method for nhs, prisons and judges

Question 8

Social benefits

Answer 8

• reduces violent incidents
• reduces recidivism
• Improve wellbeing of inmates and staff
• More positive relationship with inmates and
  staff