Asignación sintética

3.5.7.1 CJCEST TPVs and program attendance. Correlation analyses explored the relationship between early- and mid-treatment CJCEST TPVs and program attendance (i.e., attrition and the number of sessions attended). Semipartial correlations were also used to examine the relationship between early- to- mid-treatment changes in CJCEST TPVs and program attendance. It was hypothesized that early- and -mid-treatment group cohesiveness, therapeutic alliance, treatment satisfaction would be positively correlated with the number of sessions attended and negatively correlated with attrition. There was limited power for mid-

106

treatment and change score analyses given that only 10 participants left treatment following its midpoint.

As displayed in Table 3.43, no early- or mid-treatment CJCEST TPVs were significantly correlated with the number of sessions attended or attrition, although the relationship between mid-treatment therapeutic alliance and the number of sessions attended approached significance (p = .060). In line with this finding, increases in the therapeutic alliance were significantly positively correlated with the number of sessions attended (p = .023).

Table 3.43

Correlations between CJCEST TPVs and Attrition and Attendance

Early-treatment . Mid-treatment . Early-Mid Δ b .

Measure TS TA GC TS TA GC TS TA GC

Attrition a .060 .053 .041 .031 -.042 .089 -.074 -.076 .023 Sessions .007 -.046 .033 .097 .22† .053 .20 .27* .12 Note. TS = Treatment Satisfaction. TA = Therapeutic Alliance. GC = Group Cohesiveness. Early-mid Δ = early- to mid-treatment change.

a _{Point-Biserial Correlations.} b _{Semi-partial correlations controlling for each respective early-treatment score.}

*p < .05. † p < .10

3.5.7.2 CJCEST TPVs and short-term treatment targets. Analyses tested the hypothesis that mid-treatment CJCEST TPVs and increases in CJCEST TPVs would predict reductions in risk/treatment targets (i.e., distorted attitudes about IPV and relationship problems).

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses examined the extent to which mid-treatment CJCEST TPVs predicted changes in distorted attitudes about IPV while controlling for pre- treatment distorted attitudes about IPV. The degree to which changes in CJCEST TPVs

predicted changes in distorted attitudes about IPV were also explored using hierarchical multiple regression, controlling for pre-treatment distorted attitudes about IPV and the respective early- or mid-treatment CJCEST TPV. All assumptions were met. As shown in Table 3.44, higher mid- treatment therapeutic alliance and increases in the therapeutic alliance from early- to mid- treatment significantly predicted reductions in distorted attitudes about IPV. No other findings were significant.

107 Table 3.44

Hierarchical Regression Analyses of CJCEST TPVs Predicting Changes in Treatment Targets

Distorted Attitudes about IPV c_{. Relationship Problems} d _.

Predictor ΔF β ΔR2 p df B SE Wald eB 95% CI e p n Mid TS 1.91 -.12 .014 .17 1,57 -.15 .089 2.72 0.86 0.73, 1.03 .10 47 TA 4.01 -.18 .029 .05 1,57 -.81 .089 0.82 0.92 0.77, 1.10 .36 47 GC 0.009 -.009 <.001 .93 1,57 .010 .072 0.18 1.01 0.88, 1.16 .89 47 Early-Mid Δ a TS 2.22 -.14 .017 .14 1,56 -.11 .099 1.33 0.89 0.74, 1.08 .25 47 TA 7.56 -.25 .052 .008 1,56 -.15 .12 1.58 0.87 0.69, 1.09 .21 47 GC 0.020 .014 <.001 .89 1,56 .040 .082 0.23 1.04 0.89, 1.22 .63 47 Mid-PostΔ b TS 0.005 .007 <.001 .95 1,46 -.019 .10 0.038 0.98 0.81, 1.19 .85 46 TA 0.18 .041 .001 .67 1,45 .21 .16 1.72 1.23 0.90, 1.68 .19 45 GC 0.010 .010 <.001 .92 1,45 -.083 .11 .17 0.92 0.74, 1.14 .45 45 Early-Post Δ a TS 0.001 -.003 <.001 .98 1,49 -.079 .076 1.09 0.92 0.80, 1.07 .30 48 TA 0.96 -.090 .007 .33 1,48 -.018 .091 0.038 0.98 0.82, 1.18 .85 47 GC 0.098 .029 .001 .76 1,47 -.028 .10 0.074 0.97 0.80, 1.19 .79 47 Note. Each IV represents a different hierarchical regression analysis. TS =Treatment Satisfaction. TA = Therapeutic Alliance. GC = Group Cohesiveness. Early-Mid Δ = Changes from early- to mid-treatment. Mid-Post Δ = Changes from mid- to post-treatment. Early-Post Δ = Changes from early- to post-treatment.

a _{Controlling for each respective early-treatment CJCEST TPV.} b _{Controlling for each respective mid-}

treatment CJCEST TPV. c _{Hierarchical multiple regression controlling for pre-treatment distorted attitudes.} d _{Hierarchical logistic regression controlling for pre-treatment relationship problems.} e _{95% CI for e}b_.

Since the relationship problems variable was coded dichotomously, there was very little variance in its change scores. As such, change was examined using hierarchical logistic

regression; pre-treatment relationship problems was controlled in the first block, the predictor variable (i.e., the CJCEST TPV) was entered into the second block, and post-treatment relationship problems (yes/no) was entered as the dependent variable. When CJCEST TPV change scores were used as the predictor variable, the respective CJCEST TPV early- or mid-

108

treatment score was also controlled in the first block. There were no significant findings, as shown in Table 3.44. Appendix V shows the degree to which the pre-treatment CJCEST TPVs predicted changes in short-term treatment targets.

3.5.7.3 CJCEST TPVs and risk. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses tested the hypothesis mid-treatment CJCEST TPVs and increases in CJCEST TPVs would predict

reductions in risk, while controlling for pre-treatment risk. For analyses that used CJCEST TPV change scores as the predictor variable, the respective early- or mid-treatment CJCEST TPV was also controlled in the first block. All assumptions were met. The only significant findings were in the direction opposite to what was hypothesized, as shown in Table 3.45.

Table 3.45

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses of TPVs Predicting Changes on the SARA-V3

Predictor ΔF β ΔR2 _{p df} Mid-treatment TS 1.89 .17 .029 .18 1, 57 TA 1.40 .15 .022 .24 1, 57 GC 6.25 .30 .090 .015 1, 57 Early-Mid Δ TS 1.62 .17 .025 .21 1, 56 TA 0.11 .045 .002 .74 1, 56 GC 7.55 .34 .11 .008 1, 56 Mid-Post Δ TS 1.22 .16 .021 .28 1, 47 TA 4.09 .29 .069 .049 1, 46 GC 0.39 .086 .006 .54 1, 46 Early-Post Δ TS 4.28 .29 .067 .044 1, 50 TA 3.49 .26 .056 .068 1, 49 GC 7.14 .36 .11 .010 1, 48

Note. Each IV represents a different hierarchical multiple regression analysis with pre-treatment risk controlled in Block 1. TS = Treatment Satisfaction. TA = Therapeutic Alliance. GC = Group Cohesiveness. Early-Mid Δ = Early- to mid- treatment change. Early-Post Δ = Early- to post-treatment change.

109

Namely, decreased risk on the SARA-V3 was associated with lower mid-treatment group cohesiveness, decreases in group cohesiveness from early- to mid-treatment and early- to post- treatment, decreases in the therapeutic alliance from mid- to post-treatment, and decreases in treatment satisfaction from early- to post-treatment.

Appendix V shows the degree to which the early-treatment CJCEST TPVs predicted reductions in risk on the SARA-V3.

3.5.7.4 CJCEST TPVs and program-phase recidivism. Point-biserial correlations were conducted to examine the relationship between early-treatment CJCEST TPVs and

program-phase recidivism. Early-treatment treatment satisfaction rpb = -.12, p = .27, therapeutic alliance rpb = .006, p = .96, and group cohesiveness rpb = -.13, p = .25 were not significantly correlated with program-phase recidivism.

3.5.7.5 CJCEST TPVs and recidivism. It was hypothesized the CJCEST TPVs (early- treatment, mid-treatment, and positive change scores) would be associated with less recidivism. Correlations were used to analyze relationships between recidivism and CJCEST TPVs at mid- and post-treatment. Semipartial correlations were used to analyze CJCEST TPV change scores while controlling for the relationship between early- or mid-treatment scores and recidivism. The findings are summarized below and detailed in Table 3.46.

Higher mid-treatment treatment satisfaction was associated with fewer charges (p = .030) and fewer violent charges (p = .019) with small to medium effects. Similarly, increases in treatment satisfaction from early-to mid-treatment were associated with fewer charges (p = .026) and fewer violent charges (p = .051), although the latter only approached significance. In

contrast, increases in treatment satisfaction from mid- to post-treatment were associated with more charges (p =.002) and more violent charges (p = .006) with medium to large effects.

Table 3.46 shows that a better therapeutic alliance at mid-treatment was associated fewer charges (p = .045) and fewer violent charges (p = .047) with small to medium effects. Similarly, increases in the therapeutic alliance from early- to mid-treatment were associated with fewer charges (p = .059), although this relationship only approached significance.

110 Table 3.46

Correlations between CJCEST TPVs and General and Violent Recidivism

Measure No. of charges No. of violent Any recidivism c Any violent c Early-treatment TS -.029 -.040 .034 -.052 TA .070 -.025 .091 .029 GC .008 -.15 .048 -.16 Mid-treatment TS -.26* -.28* .073 -.18 TA -.24* -.24* -.030 -.15 GC .045 .017 .083 -.038 Post-treatment TS .025 .054 -.045 .023 TA .14 .17 .030 .093 GC .14 .14 .11 .12 Early-Mid Δ a TS -.27* -.23† -.008 -.14 TA -.23† -.18 -.095 -.11 GC .11 .11 .017 .046 Early-Post Δ a TS .073 .10 -.026 .090 TA .25† .26† .10 .17 GC .22 .24 .18 .22 Mid-Post Δ a TS .42** .37** .085 .23 TA .58*** .54*** .34* .39** GC .13 .14 .15 .11

Note. TS =Treatment Satisfaction. TA = Therapeutic Alliance. GC = Group Cohesiveness. Early-Mid Δ = Changes from early- to mid-treatment. Early-Post Δ = Changes from early- to post-treatment. Mid-Post Δ = Changes from mid- to post-treatment. No. of Charges = Number of new charges. No. of Violent = Number of new violent charges. Any Violent = Any violent charges.

a _{Semipartial correlations controlling for the respective early-treatment CJCEST TPV.} b _Semipartial

correlations controlling for the respective mid-treatment CJCEST TPV. c _{Point-biserial correlations.}

111

Contrary to hypotheses, increases in the therapeutic alliance from mid- to post-treatment was significantly correlated with general recidivism (p = .014), more charges (p < .001), violent recidivism (p = .005), and more violent charges (p < .001). This unanticipated trend was also observed in that increases in the therapeutic alliance from early- to post-treatment was associated with more charges (p = .060) and more violent charges (p = .053). No early- or post-treatment CJCEST TPV was significantly correlated with any measure of recidivism.