Howells et al (2005): contemporary study

Question 1

Aim (there are 2 that you can use)

Answer 1

• if prison-based “AM” programme was more effective than no treatment at all
• pre-treatment characteristics (offenders commitment to change) that determine success in anger management programmes

Question 2

sample

Answer 2

• 418 male offenders total (86% violence/14% community based correction centre)
  (285 done post-intervention assessment)
  (78 done the 2 months follow up (93% of whom was prison-based programs)
  (21 done the 6 months follow up (logistical reason / not affecting high drop out rate)
• sentence range 1 month - 26yrs and 4 months
• age range 18-62 in Australia
• experimental & control groups are compared from the waiting list to start (not randomly allocated)
• both completed measure immediately before/after AM + again after 2 months and 6 months
• control group offered a programme, 2 weeks after the study

Question 3

there are measurements for anger itself, what are they & how does it measure effectiveness?

Answer 3

STAXI (spielberger state trat anger expression inventory)

• state and trait anger
• anger expression
• anger control

NAS-PI (novaco anger scale)

• anger intensity
• how well someone reacted in a certain situation

WAKS (watt anger knowledge scale)
-understand how to deal with anger effectively

Question 4

there are measurements for knowing how to deal with anger, what are they & how does it measure effectiveness?

Answer 4

MOAS (modified overt aggression questionnaire)

• verbal aggression
• property aggression
• physical aggression
• auto aggression

Question 5

there are measurements for readiness for anger management, what are they & how does it measure effectiveness?

Answer 5

SCQ (anger stages of changes questionniare)

• motivation to change
• pre-contemplation
• contemplation
• actions

STRS (serin treatment readiness scale)
- treatment readiness

Question 6

method procedure

Answer 6

self-report data were collected from control % experimental but reported their data individually
-> can be biased as its subjective and want to be looked differently from social views

data was collected as well on P’s aggression from 2 officers for the prison or a staff member for those in the community-based programmes
-> inter-rater reliability

Question 7

results

Answer 7

• no sig stat diff between pre and post-treatment
• improvement over time was higher for the treatment group but only small
• > but those that took AM showed sig higher improvement in anger knowledge than di the prisoners in the control group
• 2 months follow up has not improved but did maintain the gains that were already in place
• readiness sale gave consistent predictor of improvements = offenders that was more motivated to work = greater improvements on the anger measures

Question 8

Conc

Answer 8

• facilitator and P’s shows programme integrity by marking the checklist
• programme was too short and used offenders that are high risk having too many problems to monitor thoroughly (anti-social personality disorder, substance abuse, verbal skills lacking, family support lacking)
• -> more intensive = more therapeutic methods, less educational, longer session (volume or frequency)