For which cases does domestic violence treatment make a difference? The relationship between intra-individual change and reoffending of perpetrators randomly assigned to treatment or business as usual

Traditional evaluations use between-group designs, which are flawed because they provide insufficient information on the variability of response, the mechanisms of change, or the clinical significance of change. The current study examined within-treatment change, on factors that are targeted in a domestic abuse programme.

The change in the treatment group was compared to the change in minimal intervention (business-as-usual) controls, and against the scores of a functional (non-offending) population.

We asked "do domestic abusers' psychometric profiles change in-treatment to become functional, i.e., 'recovered' and indistinguishable from profiles of the general population?"

In contrast to the business-as-usual (BAU) cases, the majority (63.6%) of the intervention cases 'recovered', i.e., demonstrated reliable and clinical change across the majority of psychometric measures. None of the BAU cases recovered across more than one measure. One-half (50%) of the BAU cases were 'unchanged' at re-assessment on all of the measures. Also, the BAU included cases that regressed or deteriorated on individual measures.

The relationship between 'recovery' and reoffending (any domestic abuse incidents) showed a non-significant relationship, although this was affected by low numbers. While recovery was seen in one-half of all non-reoffenders, it was also evident in one-quarter of the reoffenders.