Comisiones y gastos

3.5.6.1 DRFs and program attendance. A series of correlations and a chi-square analysis were conducted to test the hypothesis that pre-treatment DRFs would be positively related to the number of sessions attended and negatively related to attrition. Given that self- efficacy was not normally distributed, analyses were conducted with self-efficacy as both a continuous and binary variable.

Contrary to hypotheses, attrition and the number of sessions attended were not

significantly related to motivation (p = .95, p = .94) confidence in treatment effectiveness (p = .47, p = .75), or self-efficacy (p = .10, p = .50)28 as shown in Table 3.39. Furthermore, attrition

Table 3.39

Correlations between Pre-treatment DRFs and Program Attendance

Measure Readi. Motiv. Conf. Effic. Attrition a .27* .008 -.079 .18 Sessions -.32** -.008 .035 .074 Note. Sessions = Number of sessions attended. Readi. = Readiness to change. Motiv. = Motivation. Conf. =

Confidence in Treatment Effectiveness. Effic. = Self-efficacy.

a _{Point-biserial correlations.}

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

and attendance were significantly correlated with pre-treatment readiness to change in the directions opposite to what was hypothesized. Specifically, participants with higher pre-

treatment readiness to change had higher attrition rates (p = .016) and attended fewer sessions (p = .004). Because readiness to change was positively correlated with risk, partial correlations were conducted to control for pre-treatment risk. The relationship between pre-treatment readiness to change and attendance was of a similar but lesser magnitude when controlling for the ODARA r = -.25, p = .027, but it was not significant when controlling for the SARA-V3 r = -

28 _{When measured as a binary variable, self-efficacy was not significantly related to the number of sessions attended} rpb = .072, p = .51 or attrition 2(1, n = 85) = 0.57, OR = 1.44, 95% CI [0.56, 3.72], p = .45.

102

.17, p = 13. This is consistent with the finding (reported below) that the SARA-V3 was more strongly correlated with attrition than the ODARA.

3.5.6.2 DRFs and short-term treatment targets. Analyses tested the hypothesis that increases in DRFs would predict reductions in risk/the achievement of treatment targets (i.e., distorted attitudes about IPV and relationship problems).

Hierarchical multiple regressions examined the degree to which DRF change scores predicted changes in distorted attitudes; pre-treatment DRFs and pre-treatment distorted attitudes about IPV were controlled by entering them in the first block, whereas DRF change scores were entered in the second block to predict changes in distorted attitudes about IPV. All assumptions were met. Increases in motivation and confidence in treatment effectiveness approached

significance (p = .078, p = .064) in predicting decreases in distorted attitudes about IPV (see Table 3.40).

Table 3.40

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses of Changes in DRFs Predicting Changes in Treatment Targets (Distorted Attitudes about IPV and Relationship Problems)

Distorted Attitudes about IPV a. Relationship Problems b .

Predictor ΔF β ΔR2 p df B SE Wald eb 95% CI c p n

Readi. 2.20 -.16 .019 .15 1,43 .097 .31 0.094 1.10 0.60, 2.04 .76 47 Motiv. 3.24 -.19 .023 .078 1,51 .14 .10 1.81 1.15 0.94, 1.41 .18 48 Confid. 3.59 -.18 .023 .064 1,51 .064 .094 0.46 1.07 0.89, 1.28 .50 48 Effic. 0.002 .006 <.001 .96 1,44 -0.98 -.88 .48 0.41 0.16, 1.05 .064 44 Note. Each IV represents a different hierarchical regression analysis with each respective pre-treatment DRF controlled in Block 1. Readi. = Readiness to change. Motiv. = Motivation. Confid. = Confidence in treatment effectiveness. Effic. = Self-efficacy.

a _{Hierarchical multiple regression with pre-treatment distorted attitudes controlled in Block 1.} b _Hierarchical

logistic regression with pre-treatment relationship problems controlled in Block 1. Positive B coefficients denote reductions in relationship problems (i.e., positive changes) associated with less recidivism. c _{for e}b_.

Since relationship problems was coded as a binary variable, there was very little variance in its change scores. As such, change in relationship problems was analyzed using hierarchical logistic regression with post-treatment relationship problems as the dependent variable, pre- treatment relationship problems and the respective pre-treatment DRF in the first block, and the DRF change score as the predictor (see Table 3.40). No DRF change score significantly

103

predicted changes in relationship problems. However, increases in self-efficacy approached significance (p = .064) in predicting decreases in relationship problems. For every one-point increase in self-efficacy, the likelihood of reported relationship problems decreased by 59%.

No pre-treatment DRF predicted significant changes in short-term treatment targets; these findings are detailed in Appendix V.

3.5.6.3 DRFs and risk change. As shown in Table 3.41, hierarchical multiple regressions were used to examine how pre-treatment DRFs and changes in DRFs predicted reductions in risk on the SARA-V3, while controlling pre-treatment risk. For analyses that examined DRF change scores, pre-treatment DRFs were also controlled in the first block. All assumptions were met, except pre-treatment self-efficacy was negatively skewed (thus not fully meeting the assumption of normality). Contrary to hypotheses, lower pre-treatment confidence in treatment effectiveness significantly predicted reductions in risk on the SARA-V3.

Table 3.41

Hierarchical Multiple Regressions of DRFs Predicting Changes in Risk on the SARA-V3

Predictor ΔF β ΔR2 p df Pre-treatment Readi. 0.004 .009 .001 .95 1, 55 Motiv. 2.69 .20 .038 .11 1, 60 Confid. 9.10 .34 .12 .004 1, 60 Effic. 0.45 .081 .007 .51 1, 58 Pre-Post Δ a Readi. 0.027 -.027 .001 .87 1, 43 Motiv. 0.040 -.033 .001 .84 1, 52 Confid. 0.025 -.022 .001 .88 1, 53 Effic. 2.40 -.28 .043 .13 1, 44 Note. Each IV represents a different hierarchical regression analysis. Readi. = Readiness to change. Motiv. = Motivation. Confid. = Confidence in treatment effectiveness. Effic. = Self-efficacy.

a _{Semipartial correlations controlling pre-treatment risk and each}

104

3.5.6.4 DRFs and program-phase recidivism. Point-biserial correlations were conducted to examine the relationships between pre-treatment DRFs and program-phase

recidivism. Motivation (rpb = .79, p = .47), confidence in treatment effectiveness (rpb = .13, p = .25), and self-efficacy (rpb = -.067, p = .55) were not significantly associated with program-phase recidivism. However, readiness to change was significantly positively correlated with program- phase recidivism (rpb = .29, p = .009). Given that this relationship is in the direction opposite to what would be expected, a follow-up semipartial point-biserial correlation was conducted to control for the relationship between pre-treatment risk on the ODARA and SARA-V3. When controlling for pre-treatment risk, readiness to change was not significantly related to program- phase recidivism (rpb = .18, p = .13).

3.5.6.5 DRFs and recidivism. Correlations and semipartial correlations were used to examine how pre- and post-treatment DRFs and DRF change scores related to general and violent recidivism. It was hypothesized that recidivism would be negatively correlated with 1) post-treatment DRF scores, and 2) increases in DRFs. A summary of the findings is presented in Table 3.42 and the significant findings are described below.

Consistent with hypotheses, lower self-efficacy at post-treatment was significantly related to more charges overall (p = .021), more violent charges (p = .008), and violent recidivism (p =.003). Similarly, decreases in self-efficacy were significantly related to more charges overall (p = .003), more violent charges (p = .008), and violent recidivism (p =.003; see Table 3.42).

Contrary to hypotheses, more violent charges were associated with higher pre-treatment confidence in treatment effectiveness (p = 0.29) and higher post-treatment readiness to change (p = .040). The relationship between post-treatment readiness to change and violent charges only approached significance when controlling for pre-treatment risk on the ODARA and SARA-V3 using a semipartial correlation (sr = .26, p = .063). As well, higher post-treatment motivation was significantly related to general recidivism (p = .009; see Table 3.42).

105 Table 3.42

Correlations between DRFs and General and Violent Recidivism

Measure No. Charges No. Violent Any Recid. Any Violent Pre-treatment Readi. .22† .16 .073 .062 Motiv. .034 .20† .16 .18† Conf. .15 .23* .12 .16 Effic. -.017 -.046 -.057 -.058 Post-treatment Readi. .22 .29* .074 .21 Motiv. .17 .22† .34** .22† Conf. .072 .16 .11 .17 Effic. -.32* -.36** -.20 -.40** Pre-Post Δ a Readi. .098 .20 .023 .19 Motiv. .097 .091 .17 .048 Conf. -.052 .019 .016 .048 Effic. -.41** -.43** -.18 -.41**

Note. Readi. = Readiness to change. Motiv. = Motivation. Confid. = Confidence in treatment effectiveness. Effic. = Self-efficacy. No. of Charges = Number of new charges incurred in the follow-up period. No. of Violent = Number of new violent charges incurred in the follow-up period. Any Recidivism = Any new charges (binary). Any Violent = Any violent charges (binary).

a _{Semipartial correlations, controlling for each respective pre-treatment DRF.}

*p < .05. **p < .01. † p < .10