Do Batterer Subtypes Actually Matter? Treatment Completion, Treatment Response, and Recidivism Across a Batterer Typology

By M. Huss, Anthony Ralston. 2008

119 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Health, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/11146f088cec47fcf8a01c28589f155002c2a397

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. J. McGarry
2. P. Ali
3. K. Dhingra
4. E. Gondolf
5. J. Wormith

In Health

1. L. Jewell
2. J. McGarry
3. P. Ali
4. K. Dhingra
5. E. Gondolf
6. J. Wormith

In Sociology and Political Science

1. L. Jewell
2. J. McGarry
3. P. Ali
4. K. Dhingra
5. E. Gondolf
6. J. Wormith

Citations in the corpus

• A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications (2016, background): “Some studies have supported the batter typology proposed (Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, & Tolin, 1996; Waltz, Babcock, Jacobson, & Gottman, 2000), while other research has not (Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004; Ziegler, 2005), and Huss and Ralston (2008) questioned whether subtypes actually matter.”
• The weak evidence for batterer program alternatives (2011, result): “Moreover, a study conforming more to the Holtzworth-Munroe typology found inconsistent results across batterer types in terms of batterer program completion, treatment response, and recidivism (n=175; Huss & Ralston 2008).”
• Variables Associated With Attrition From Domestic Violence Treatment Programs Targeting Male Batterers (2010, background): “Four studies (DeHart et al., 1999; Gondolf, 2008; Huss & Ralston, 2008; Stalans & Seng, 2007) were excluded on the basis of this criterion.”