Howells (2005)

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

• To see whether anger management is more effective in producing change than no treatment.
• To see if pre-treatment offender characteristics can predict any improvement in treatment - in particular, this means looking at what level of need and readiness there is in offenders with regards to treatment.

Question 2

Sample

Answer 2

• 418 male offenders
• Sentencing ranged from 1 month to 26 years and 4 months.
• Ages ranged from 18-62
• Carried out in Australia
• Vast majority were offenders with convictions for violence.

Question 3

Procedure

Answer 3

• Compared an experimental group on an anger management programme with a control group who were on the waiting list for the programme.
• Both groups completed measures immediately before and immediately after the program then again two and six months later.
• 285 completed the post-intervention assessment, 78 completed the two-month follow up, 21 completed the six month follow up assessment ad this was the final sample.
• 20% had completed AM before, 4% had completed more than one, 3% had tried and not completed, 73% had none.

Question 4

What kind of crimes had they bee convicted of?

Answer 4

• 14% had committed a violent offence
• 42% had committed violence but without bodily harm
• 30% had committed violence with bodily harm
• 8% had committed GBH
• 6% had committed injuries causing death

Question 5

Anger management program

Answer 5

• “a cognitive approach to behaviour change”
  ‘ Ran for 10x 2-hour sessions with trained facilitators carrying it out with groups of offenders.
• Treatment was based on Novaco and included structured exercises looking at the skills of identifying provoking situations, relaxation assertion, prevention of relapse and restructuring.
• Facilitator and participant created a checklist of each part of the program to ensure a standardised procedure.

Question 6

A few ways in which it was measured were…

Answer 6

• STAXI to measure anger itself before and after treatment.
• WAKS to know how to deal with the anger which measured change from the intervention with regards to understanding how to deal with it.
• STRS measured the readiness for the treatment.

Question 7

Results

Answer 7

• No statistically significant differences between the pre and post treatment scores between both groups.
• Treatment group showed slightly higher improvements but this was small.
• However, prisoners had more anger knowledge after the treatment.
• Only continues until about two months after treatment.
• Readiness scale was accurate from pre-treatment measures of anger and treatment readiness.
• Offenders who were more motivated did better.

Question 8

Strengths

Answer 8

• High reliability because of a standardised procedure which was verified from checklist.
  -Treatment readiness reduces waiting lists and saves costs.
• Initial sample was very large so less likely to be affected by anomalies.
• Triangulation of data: STAXI, WAKS, STRS
• High ecological validity: naturally occurring treatment program
• Highly ethical - control group offered program two weeks after study.

Question 9

Weaknesses

Answer 9

• Very small sample of 21 that the full conclusions were made from.
• 24% of the sample had failed it before.
• Used a variation of CALM but only used 10 sessions whereas CALM uses 24 so only a shortened program.
• Conclusions are inaccurate as they didn’t operationalised the correct DV ( not recidivism rates )
• Low generalisability in a narrow sample as only used male offenders.
• Low validity due to self-report data as it uses questionnaires and pp’s must state their understand]subject to social desirability.