Gondolf, Bennett, and Mankowski raise many concerns about the ACTV batterers’ intervention program (BIP) and the Zarling, Bannon, and Berta evaluation of ACTV, including (a) the researchers’ and the Iowa Department of Corrections’ promotion of ACTV; (b) research design, outcome measure, and results; (c) contextual issues; and (d) the effectiveness debate surrounding BIPs. The current commentary responds to each of these concerns, as well as identifies errors and corrects misinformation in their article. It is hoped that this response will also clarify the broader context of ACTV development and research and contribute to the ongoing discussion about BIPs.
BabcockJ.GreenC.RobieC. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment outcome research. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053.
2.
BowenE.GilchristE.BeechA. R. (2008). Change in treatment has no relationship with subsequent re-offending in UK domestic violence sample: A preliminary study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 598-614.
3.
ButtellF. P.PikeC. K. (2003). Investigating the differential effectiveness of a batterer treatment program on outcomes for African American and Caucasian batterers. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 675-692.
4.
ChamblessD. L.OllendickT. H. (2001). Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 685-716.
5.
EckhardtC. I.MurphyC. M.WhitakerD. J.SprungerJ.DykstraR.WoodardK. (2013). The effectiveness of intervention programs for perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 4, 196-231.
6.
GondolfE. W. (2007). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: A reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 644-657.
7.
GondolfE. W. (2012). The future of batterer programs: Reassessing evidence-based practice. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.
8.
GondolfE. W.BennettL.MankowskiE. (2018). Lessons in program evaluation: The ACTV batterer program study and its claims. Violence Against Women. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1077801217741994
9.
HayesS. C.LevinM. E.Plumb-VilardagaJ.VillatteJ. L.PistorelloJ. (2013). Acceptance and commitment therapy and contextual behavioral science: Examining the progress of a distinctive model of behavioral and cognitive therapy. Behavior Therapy, 44, 180-198.
10.
Iowa Department of Corrections. (2012). Return on investment: Evidence-based options to improve outcomes. Iowa Department of Corrections.
11.
KleinA. R. (2009). Practical implications of current domestic violence research: For law enforcement, prosecutors and judges. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
12.
LuoH. (2010). The role for an evaluator: A fundamental issue for evaluation of education and social programs. International Education Studies, 3(2), 42-50.
13.
OllendickT. H. (2014). Advances toward evidence-based practice: Where to from here?Behavior Therapy, 45, 51-55. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2013.08.004
14.
RossiP. H.LipseyM. W.FreemanH. E. (2003). Sage Publications; CA. Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
ZarlingA.BannonS.BertaM. (2017). Evaluation of acceptance and commitment therapy for domestic violence offenders. Psychology of Violence. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/vio0000097
16.
ZarlingA.BertaM. (2017). An ACT approach to working with partner-violent individuals. Partner Abuse, 8, 89-109.
