Review: current therapies for men committing acts of domestic violence are of limited benefit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Babcock JC, Green CE, Robie C. Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clin Psychol Rev 2004;23:1023–53.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Does treatment of men committing domestic acts of violence prevent recurrence and, if so, what types of treatment work best? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. ### ![Graphic][6] Data sources: PsycINFO searched plus hand search of bibliographies and reference sections of five reviews. Additional information was obtained from study authors. ### ![Graphic][7] Study selection and analysis: Inclusion criteria: experimental or quasi-experimental studies with a comparison group (randomised control groups or treatment dropouts); victim reports or police records (criminal reports) used to measure recidivism. Effect sizes using Cohen’s d were calculated. A hierarchical fixed effects model was used to assess the impacts of report type, study design, and treatment type. ### ![Graphic][8] Outcomes: Recidivism rates, treatment types. Twenty two experimental (five studies) and quasi-experimental … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DClinical%2Bpsychology%2Breview%26rft.stitle%253DClin%2BPsychol%2BRev%26rft.aulast%253DBabcock%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BC.%26rft.volume%253D23%26rft.issue%253D8%26rft.spage%253D1023%26rft.epage%253D1053%26rft.atitle%253DDoes%2Bbatterers%2527%2Btreatment%2Bwork%253F%2BA%2Bmeta-analytic%2Breview%2Bof%2Bdomestic%2Bviolence%2Btreatment.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.cpr.2002.07.001%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14729422%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=14729422&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F7%2F3%2F79.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000188607200002&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".