Cited by 53

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A randomized clinical trial of acceptance and commitment therapy and the Duluth Model classes for men court-mandated to a domestic violence program.

Zarling, Amie, Russell, Dan·2022·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Objective This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) with the Duluth Model curriculum, which took place in community-based corrections for the treatment of men convicted of domestic violence. ACT is a third-wave cognitive-behavioral approach that utilizes experiential methods to foster psychological flexibility. The Duluth Model curriculum is an educational approach grounded in feminist theory that focuses on changing attitudes toward women and unlearning power and control motivations. This trial was preregistered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT03609801). Method This study included 338 men who were court-mandated to complete a domestic violence program after being convicted of assault against a female partner. Participants were randomized to complete the 24 sessions of the ACT program or the Duluth Model Men's Nonviolence Classes. Outcomes included criminal justice data (domestic violence charges, other violent charges, and nonviolent charges) incurred during the 1 year following program dropout or completion, and victim reports of intimate partner violence (IPV; aggression, controlling behaviors, and stalking/harassment). Results In intent-to-treat comparisons to Duluth, ACT participants did not show a difference in domestic assault charges at 1 year posttreatment (p = .44). ACT participants acquired significantly fewer violent charges (p = .04) and nonviolent charges (p = .02) compared to Duluth participa…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ccp0000722

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 53

Metadata

Authors
Zarling, A., & Russell, D.
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2022-04
Volume
90
Issue
4
Pages
326-338
ISSN
  • 1939-2117
  • 0022-006X
Cited by
53
References
0
Language
en
Funders
Office on Violence Against Women (2017-SI-AX-0004)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review