Teresa Quezada October 16, 2010 Research and Methods Dr.

Erika Critical Review This paper critically reviews the article, Engaging Abusive Men in Seeking Community Intervention: A Critical Research & Practice Priority (Campbell, Neil, Jaffe & Kelly, 2010). Abstract A strength of this article is that the abstract section addressed the majority of the questions a researcher should consider when publishing an article (Kazdin, chapter 18). More specifically, the abstract addressed that this was an exploratory design study and as a result, it attempted to search for effective methods that could engage perpetrators of domestic abuse and to provide support to these male batters with the intent to prevent reoccurrence of their abusive behavior (Campbell, Neil, Jaffe & Kelly, 2010). In addition, the abstract mentioned that 73 males were recruited to participate in the study from a community program for male batters. Moreover, the abstract described that the participants were expose to a brief questionnaire regarding help-seeking behaviors and to a focus group discussion with the purpose of discovering effective methods of providing support for male batters. Finally, the abstract discussed the main findings and some of the conclusions from these findings. A finding from this study was that, two-thirds of the participants had tried to look for help for their intimate relationship problems; yet only about half of the participants received help; and of these participants that received help, one quarter found such help effective. Another finding from the study was that after reviewing the questionnaire responses and the recorded transcripts of the

focus groups, some help-seeking themes emerged. One of the themes that emerged was the missed opportunities to intervene. This theme dealt with how most of the male batters wanted a counselor, a friend, a family member, or a doctor to offer their help when they dealt with intimate relationship problems. Since, most male batters want help from a counselor, a friend, a family member; it would be helpful to provide these people with the appropriate knowledge and skill on how to intervene (discussed in results section).A second theme that emerged was the mens perspective of masculinity in relation to help-seeking behaviors. This theme dealt with how most of the male batters do not seek help for their abusive behavior because of the traditional attitudes of the masculine role and also because they lack knowledge or were not sure who to ask for help (discussed in results section). A final theme that emerge dealt with how men batters feel more comfortable talking to someone who is trustworthy, knowledgeable about the topic of domestic violence, could hold their information confidential, and who are nonjudgmental. Thus, in order for male batters to open up about their abusive behavior, they need their counselors, friends, family member, or doctors to have the above characteristics. Introduction The authors of the study nicely addressed that the reason for conducting this study was because there is limited resources and public education campaigns that address how to effectively engage perpetrators of domestic abuse and that these campaigns are limited by the fact that they are based in small amount of research. So, the authors hypothesize that through their measures (questionnaire and focus groups) they could better inform the public, these campaigns, and professionals about how to effectively engage perpetrators of domestic abuse. However, a weakness in this study is that they do not perform an extensive literature review of these campaigns or resources (research/treatments for dealing with male batters) that have not

effectively engage perpetrators of domestic abuse. It makes the reader wonder why their review is not extensive, is it because the literature does not support their hypothesis or because it does not exist, giving the high prevalence rates of domestic abuse, is unlikely that there is no research in this topic. Methods Participants A weakness in the methods section is that it does not answer the basic questions of the participants. It only provides the reader with a small sample size of 73 males, who were recruited when attending an information session in a community program for male batters in London, Ontario. Out of those 73 males, 57 were court order and 16were voluntary clients (why include these clients, could it be because they want to make their results more generalizable?). The demographic characteristics of the participants are pretty much absent. They do not provide the age range, ethnicity, education, or socioeconomic status (SES) of the participants and their rationale for not providing this information is because of the exploratory nature of their study (not convincing). However, it would benefit the reader to know this information because this could possibly affect the help seeking themes/findings/results that emerged in this study. For instance, the finding about how the authors hypnotized that most of the male batters will not seek help for their abusive behaviors is because they hold traditional attitudes of the masculine role and because they lack knowledge or are not sure who to ask for help. Would this finding still apply, if the participants are educated or have a high SES? It seems reasonable to suspect that educated and well-to-do individuals would hold less traditional values of the masculine role and would know who to ask for help in case if they are having intimate relationship problems. In

other words, the absence of demographics limits the extent to which the results can be generalized to others who vary in education, SES, or race, or threatens the external validity. Stated differently, is possible that the unspecified sample characteristics pose a threat to external validity, since so much is not known about the participants. Another weakness in the methods section is that it states the inclusion criteria for screening participants (only English speaking males, who are 18 years or older, and who are currently involved and attend a counseling group at the agency); however, it does not provide the rationale for this inclusion criteria. Procedure The procedure session was stronger than the participants session in that it provided where the study was conducted (London, Ontario) and the chronological sequence of events that the participants were exposed. In the initial meeting, participants were informed that participation was voluntary and that their information was confidential; they also provided informed consent and the 73 participants completed the Help seeking Questionnaire. Even thought, by completing the questionnaire, the participants had also agreed to participate in the focus group discussion, 61 out of the 73 declined to participate in the focus group, which was held 10 weeks later. This makes the reader wonder, what was the driving force that made this participants refuse to be part of the focus group. Of course, the authors stated that the reason most participants declined was because of scheduling conflicts, change in personal situation (back in jail), or lack of interest. The reasons sound legitimate, yet the researchers could have anticipated that they were going to have scheduling conflicts and could have made

accommodations for these individuals. Moreover, how is it possible, that there was a change in personal situations, since the focus groups took place 10 weeks later? Measures A major weakness in this study is that the researchers assume that their measures (questionnaire and focus group) would better inform the public, the public education campaigns, and professionals about effective methods that could engage perpetrators of domestic abuse and provide support to male batters. However, is problematic to assume that these measures would inform better the public for two reasons. First, the first measure, the Help seeking Questionnaire, is a 13 item questionnaire that the authors designed for this experiment, meaning that this is a novel measure. As a result of this, the authors should explicate this measure in detail and provide information about the validity and reliability of this measure. Despite that the authors provide this measure in appendix 1; they do not provide information regarding the validity and reliability of this measure. Also, another weakness with this measure is the briefness of the measure. Can this brief measure really collect categorical data related to male batter help-seeking behaviors in the general population of perpetrators of domestic abuse? More specifically, can this measure account for the finding about how most male batters would want a counselor, a friend, a family member, or a doctor to offer their help when they are having intimate relationship problems. Or can this measure, account for the finding that most male batters would feel more comfortable talking to someone who is trustworthy, knowledgeable about the topic of domestic violence, could hold their information confidential, and who are non-judgmental. In other words, the briefness and lack of validity and reliability of this measure, threatens the internal validity of these findings or that there could other factors that could explain the results.

The other measure (focus group) that the researchers used is in the study is even more problematic in better informing the public about the effective methods that could engage perpetrators of domestic abuse and provide support to male batters. The reason is that only 12 out of the 73 subjects participated in this focus groups. This tremendous loss of participants or attrition (thread to internal validity) could have influence the findings or account for the results. Usually, what happens with attrition is that a researcher tends to lose the most severe clients (male batters) in his/her studies (personal communications, Erika, 10/3/2011). It could also be that the participants that are lost are unique in some ways (differential attrition) and this could affect the internal validity of the study and introduce bias (personal communication, Erika, 10/3/2011). For instance, is possible that the information collected by the researcher in the focus group is biased to a population of perpetrators of domestic abuse who are ready to communicate their help-seeking behaviors for their abusive conduct (addressed in discussion section). In addition, an instrumentation error (another thread to internal validity) could influence or account for the findings (personal communication, Erika, 10/3/2001). The instrumentation error occurred in that the researchers used groups. Even though, the participants were informed that the information share in these focus groups was confidential, is still possible that some of the participants in the group could have filtered their responses because they fear that others in the group would break their confidentiality. Is also possible that some of the group participants did not express their true feelings about the questions the researcher asked because some participants might have felt the need to align their responses with other members in the group (address in the discussion session. The above measure (focus group) could also threaten the external validity of the study. Since these participants knew that they were being study (reactivity of experimental arrangement), is possible that the court- mandated male batters felt the need to provide desirable

response so the researcher would not provide negative evaluations about them to the court system. (Even though, they were told that this was not going to happen) (Kazdin, chapter 2). Moreover, the external validity could be threatened by the fact that these measures were innovative. Finally, another weakness in the study relies in that this study is not an experimental study. So, it does not provide two or more groups (treatment vs. no treatment), in which participants are randomly assign to either group (Kazdin, chapter 18). However, this might not be a major weakness in the study since this study is exploring effective methods for engaging male perpetrators of domestic abuse. Results A weakness in the results section is that the measures the researchers used (questionnaire and focus group) were new/ novel measures and for these kinds of measures the researcher needs to provide information regarding the validity and reliability of the measure (article). However, the researchers failed to provide this information. To complicate matters worse, their hypothesis about better informing the public and professionals in regards to finding methods that engage male perpetrators of domestic abuse depended entirely in these two measures. So, as a reader/reviewer, one could question the construct validity of the study (Kazdin, chapter 3). In other words, it would be difficult to interpret what is the source for the underlying effects/findings (Kazdin, chapter 3). Are the findings real or are they due to these new novelty measures. In addition, is also possible that these novelty measures pose a threat to statistical conclusion validity. More specifically, the statistical conclusion validity could be threatened by the fact that these measure might not be reliable (unreliability of the measures = the measures

do not asses the characteristics of interest [effective methods to engage male perpetrators of domestic abuse]). In addition, the statistical conclusion could be threatened by the small sample size. Discussion This section has more strengths than weakness because the researcher addressed the major findings of the study (1.most perpetrators of domestic abuse will not seek help for their abusive behavior s because they hold traditional attitudes and lack knowledge about where to look for help and 2.male batters would feel more comfortable about talking to someone who is trustworthy, knowledgeable about the topic of domestic violence, and who are non-judgmental) (study). However, this study is weak in that it does not provide alternative explanations for the findings. The findings could be explained by other threads of internal validity such as attrition, selection bias, and instrumentation error. The other strength of this session is that it provides three limitations of the study (1. low retention rate and sample size, 2.the group measured could have filter the responses of the participants in these groups if the participants felt that their confidentially was going to breach 3. Some participants might have felt inclined to align themselves with other participants in the groups, so the participants responses are not independent of each other. Furthermore, the study addressed how to overcome some of these limitations (find a larger sample size of male batters and find ways to make the focus groups more appealing and accommodate those participants, who experience scheduling conflicts).