Psychosocial In e en ion
Psychosocial In e en ion (2020) 29(3) 153-164
ISSN:1132-0559/© 2020 Colegio O icial de la Psicología de Mad id. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A e In e en ions wi h Ba e e s E ec i e? A Me a-analy ical Re iew
Ramón A ce, Es he A ias, Me cedes No o, and F ancisca Fa iña
Uni e sidad de San iago de Compos ela, Spain
h ps://jou nals.copmad id.o g/pi
Funding: This esea ch has been sponso ed by a g an o he Spanish Minis y o Economy, Indus y and Compe i i eness (PSI2017-87278-R).
Co espondence: [email p o ec ed] (R. A ce).
In e en ion p og ams o ba e e s ha e been he subjec o con-
o e sy e e since hei concep ion. These in e en ions ha e been
open o c i icism om bo h a es o a i e pe spec i e and a eminis
pe spec i e demanding esou ces should be alloca ed o ic ims, no
o ba e e s. Such c i icism, howe e , comes in o di ec con lic wi h
he legal and judicial manda e o p ison ins i u ions ha a e obliged
ARTICLE INFO
Recei ed 5 Decembe 2019
Accep ed 13 Ap il 2020
A ailable online 26 May 2020
Keywo ds:
Ba e e
In e en ion assessmen
Dulu h model
Cogni i e-beha iou al ea men
p og ams
O icial eco ds
Couple epo s
ABSTRACT
The inconsis ency in he esul s bo h in e nally and be ween o p e ious me a-analyses on ba e e in e en ion p og am
e icacy, and he publica ion o new ba e e in e en ions unde sco ed he need o an up- o-da e me a-analy ical
e iew. A o al o 25 p ima y s udies we e ound om li e a u e sea ch, ob aining 62 e ec sizes, and a o al sample
o 20,860 in e ened ba e e s. The esul s o a global me a-analysis showed a posi i e, signi ican , and o a medium
magni ude e ec size o ba e e in e en ions, bu no gene alizable. Ne e heless, he esul s exhibi ed a signi ican ly
highe a e o ecidi ism measu ed in couple epo s (CRs) han in o icial eco ds (ORs). As a consequence, in e en ion
e icacy measu ing in CRs was null, whils in ORs was posi i e and signi ican . As o he in e en ion model, posi i e and
signi ican e ec s we e obse ed unde he Dulu h Model and cogni i e-beha iou al ea men p og ams (CBTPs), bu a
highe e ec size was ob ained wi h CBTPs in compa ison o he Dulu h Model (unde his model, in e en ions may ha e
nega i e e ec s, i.e., an inc ease in ecidi ism a e). In ela ion o in e en ion leng h, sho in e en ions ailed o educe
ecidi ism in ORs and may ha e nega i e e ec s, while long in e en ions we e e ec i e in educing ecidi ism a e
in ORs wi hou nega i e e ec s. E icacy e alua ions in sho ollow-ups we e in alid as a i icially boos ed ecidi ism
educ ion a e. Limi a ions o ORs and sho ollow-ups as measu es o he in e en ion e icacy and implica ions o
esul s o ba e e in e en ion a e discussed.
¿Son e ec i as las in e enciones con los mal a ado es? Una e isión
me aanalí ica
RESUMEN
La inconsis encia in e na y en e las e isiones me aanalí icas en los esul ados sob e la e icacia de los p og amas de
in e ención con mal a ado es, así como la publicación de nue os es udios, pone de mani ies o la necesidad de lle a a
cabo una e isión me aanalí ica ac ualizada. Se encon ó un o al de 25 es udios p ima ios, de los que se ob u ie on 62
amaños del e ec o pa a una mues a o al de 20,860 mal a ado es in e enidos. Los esul ados del me aanálisis global
mos a on un amaño del e ec o p omedio posi i o, signi ica i o y de una magni ud mode ada pa a la in e ención
con mal a ado es, pe o no gene alizable. Sin emba go, los esul ados e ela on una asa de eincidencia mayo
medida en los in o mes de las pa ejas (IPs) que en los egis os o iciales (ROs). Como consecuencia, la e icacia de la
in e ención medida en los IPs esul ó nula, mien as que en los ROs ue posi i a y signi ica i a. En elación al modelo
de in e ención, se encon a on amaños del e ec o posi i os y signi ica i os con el Modelo Dulu h y los p og amas de
a amien o cogni i o-conduc uales (PTC-Cs), pe o el amaño del e ec o ob enido con los PTC-Cs e a signi ica i amen e
mayo que con el Modelo Dulu h (con es e modelo las in e enciones pueden ene e ec os nega i os, es deci , un
inc emen o en la asa de eincidencia). En elación a la longi ud de la in e ención, las in e enciones b e es alla on
en la educción de la eincidencia en los ROs y pueden ene e ec os nega i os, en an o que las in e enciones la gas
ue on e icaces en la educción de la asa de eincidencia en los ROs y no dan luga a e ec os nega i os. Las e aluaciones
de la e icacia de la in e ención en pe íodos co os de seguimien o esul a on no álidas al inc emen a a i icialmen e
la asa de educción de la eincidencia. Se discu en las limi aciones de la medida de la e icacia de la in e ención en los
ROs y en pe íodos co os de seguimien o, así como las implicaciones pa a la in e ención con mal a ado es.
Palab as cla e:
Mal a ado
E aluación de la in e ención
Modelo Dulu h
P og amas de a amien o
cogni i o-conduc uales
Regis os o iciales
In o mes de las pa ejas
Ci e his a icle as: A ce, R., A ias, E., No o, M., & Fa iña, F. (2020). A e in e en ions wi h ba e e s e ec i e? A me a-analy ical e iew.
Psychosocial In e en ion, 29
(3), 153-164.
h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/pi2020a11
154
R. A ce e al. / Psychosocial In e en ion (2020) 29(3) 153-164
o emba k on he esocializa ion and ehabili a ion o inma es. A u -
he bone o con en ion conce ns he e icacy o in e en ions, ha is,
i he in e en ion lacks e icacy, i is un ounded. Ini ially, in e en-
ions we e designed o iolen physical o sexual o ende s, bu in e-
cen yea s hey ha e been gene alized o less se ious o ences, mainly
mino o ences and misdemeanou s wi h non-cus odial communi y
sen encing. Claims ha in e en ions wi h ba e e s we e no e ec-
i e (Rosen eld, 1992) ha e been e u ed by me a-analy ical e iews
ha ha e ound in e en ions o be e ec i e. Ne e heless, in se e al
e iews he mean e ec size was signi ican , bu modes (Babcock
e al., 2004), whe eas in o he s he mean e ec size was impo an ,
bu no gene alizable o all in e en ions (A ias e al., 2013). No wi h-
s anding, es ima es on he bene i s o ba e e in e en ions ange
om 5% (Babcock e al., 2004) o 20% (A ias e al., 2013). Mo eo e ,
he compa ison o he mean e ec size o he e icacy o in e en ions
(BESD; Rosnow & Rosen hal, 1988) in he mos ecen me a-analysis
(A ias e al., 2013),
= .20, wi h he esul s o he ea men o delin-
quency in gene al (Redondo e al., 2002), and he esul s o sexual
o ende s in pa icula ,
= .13 (Schmucke & Lösel, 2015), showed ba -
e e in e en ions we e simila o mo e e ec i e. Mode a o s o he
in e en ion we e analysed as he e ec s we e subjec o he e ogene-
i y. The a iable measu ing e ec s has been inconsis en , in compa -
ison o he sys ema ic posi i e and signi ican , bu no gene alizable
e ec epo ed in o icial eco ds (ORs) (A ias e al., 2013; Babcock e
al., 2004; Fede & Wilson, 2005; Rosen eld, 1992), he esul s o cou-
ple epo s (CRs) we e inconsis en . In ac , Fede and Wilson (2005)
and A ias e al. (2013) ound a null e ec in CRs, whils Rosen eld
(1992) encoun e ed a no able decline in he ecidi ism a e (33% in
ea ed ba e e s s. 47.3% in d opou s), and Babcock e al. (2004) he
same e ec as in ORs,
d
= 0.18. Likewise, he disc epancies obse ed in
he esul s o he ype o in e en ion. Thus, in e ms o in e en ion
p og ams based on he Dulu h Model, a eminis psychoeduca ional
app oach, Babcock e al. obse ed a signi ican e ec on he educ ion
o ecidi ism in ORs,
d
= 0.25 (12.4%) and CRs,
d
= 0.24 (11.9%), bu no
signi ican e ec was obse ed in Cogni i e-Beha iou al T ea men
P og ams (CBTPs). Mo eo e , A ias e al. ound a mode a e e ec size,
bu no gene alizable o all s udies (i.e., wi h ad e se-nega i e-ou -
comes) in ORs bo h in he Dulu h Model,
d
= 0.41, and in CBTPs,
d
=
0.47, which was insigni ican in CRs wi h ei he ype o ea men .
As o he leng h o he in e en ion, Babcock e al. (2004) de e -
mined sho and long in e en ions we e as equally e ec i e in ORs,
(
d
= 0.16 and
d
= 0.20, espec i ely), and A ias e al. (2013) no iced
long in e en ions had a signi ican and gene alizable e ec ,
d
= 0.49,
bu sho ones did no . In CRs, Babcock e al. ob ained small signi i-
can e ec s in bo h sho and long in e en ions. In con as , A ias e
al. a ained bo h sho and long in e en ions could inc ease ecidi-
ism. Du ing long- e m ollow-up, Babcock e al. obse ed a signi i-
can e ec in he decline o ecidi ism in ROs,
d
= 0.25, which A ias e
al. claimed was no gene alizable, and could po en ially inc ease he
ecidi ism a e by 17.7%. In sho - e m ollow-ups, he me a-analysis
by Babcock e al. e ealed (unexpec edly gi en ha he de ec ed a e
o ecidi ism is ob iously smalle in sho e han in longe pe iods) a
smalle e ec o he in e en ion,
d
= 0.13, bu signi ican , han in he
wo k by A ias e al., who ob ained a null e ec ,
d
= 0.04, which could
e en ually ha e an ad e se e ec in he ange o 22%. In CRs, Babcock
e al. ob ained a simila pa e n o esul s: signi ican e ec s in bo h
sho and long ollow-ups, and pa adoxically la ge in long ollow-ups
ha p o ide a b oade measu e o ecidi ism han sho pe iods. In
compa ison, A ias e al. ound a null e ec in sho ollow-ups,
d
=
0.03, wi h a nega i e e ec o up o 28.3%, and negligible,
d
= 0.12,
wi h ad e se e ec s o up o 18.2% in long ollow-ups.
The inconsis ency in he esul s bo h in e nally and be ween
me a-analysis, and he ac ha ini ially hey measu ed physical
iolence, which was ecen ly ex ended o encompass psychologi-
cal iolence, as well as he p oli e a ion o new ba e e in e en-
ion p og ams unde sco e he need o a me a-analy ical e iew o
es ablish he ac ual s a e-o - he-a o ba e e in e en ions, and
o elucida e he in e - and in a-analysis inconsis encies.
Me hod
S udy Sea ch
The sea ch o s udies was designed o upda e he 2012 me a-
analysis by A ias e al. (2013). Thus, he ollowing sea ch s a egies
we e employed: a) sea ch in b oad da abases PsycIn o, ERIC, EBSCO,
and Google Schola ; b) sea ch in gende iolence obse a o ies ( .g .,
www.wo k-wi h-pe pe a o s.eu; www.VAWne .o g; www.minca a.
umn.edu; www.cou inno a ion.o g; www.cienciaspenales.ne ;
www.i esweb.o g); c) con ac ing p ominen esea che s in he ield
( ha is, esea che s who we e he co esponding au ho s o all he
pape s ound, bo h he included and excluded pape s); and d) e iew
o all he bibliog aphy in he e e ences lis s o all he pape s ound,
and p e ious me a-analy ical e iews. The mos p oduc i e keywo ds
we e: “ba e e ”, “in e en ion p og am”, “e alua ion”, “assessmen ”,
“e ec i eness”, “in ima e pa ne iolence”, “pa ne - iolen men”,
“ ecidi ism”, “ eo ending”, “a i ion”, “domes ic iolence”, “cou
manda es ba e e in e en ion”, and “p ison in e en ion”.
The ela ion o keywo ds was gene a ed by a sys em o succes-
si e app oxima ions whe eby he ini ial keywo ds o p e ious me-
a-analyses de e mined he inclusion o ele an keywo ds om all
he pape s ound.
Inclusion and Exclusion C i e ia
Bea ing in mind he objec i es o he me a-analysis, he
ollowing inclusion c i e ia we e applied o he pape s eligible
in he sea ch: a) hey epo ed he numbe o pa icipan s; b)
hey p o ided he ecidi ism a e o he sample o subjec s who
comple ed he in e en ion; c) hey applied an expe imen al o
quasi-expe imen al design (wi h o wi hou con ol g oup); d)
hey indica ed heo e ical app oach, con en s, and du a ion o he
in e en ion p og am; and e) hey s ipula ed he ollow-up pe iod
o measu ing ecidi ism. S udies in ol ing a 6-mon h ollow-up
pe iod o sho e we e excluded owing o he lack o alidi y in he
measu es. A o al o 25 pape s we e included unde hese c i e ia,
wi h 62 e ec sizes, and a sample o al o 20,860 in e ened
ba e e s. The s udy sea ch lowcha is shown in Figu e 1.
Da a Analysis
A me a-analysis o expe imen s was pe o med by co ec ing
he e ec sizes acco ding o he dis ibu ion o a i ac s (Schmid &
Hun e , 2015). As he measu e o ecidi ism was no mally exp essed
in pe cen ages, o when his was no he case hey could be compu ed,
in his analysis he measu e o ecidi ism was de ined as he
pe cen age o ba e e s who had eo ended in gende iolence (da a
on ecidi ism in o he o ences we e excluded) du ing he ollow-up
pe iod. Two indices ha e been p oposed o calcula ing he e ec size
in p opo ions: Cohen’s h and Hedges and Olkin’s (1985) δ, leading o
sligh ly highe , bu quali a i ely simila esul s o h (A ias e al., 2013).
In his me a-analysis, Hedges and Olkin’s δ was employed. None heless,
all o he analyses wi h h we e eplica ed and ob ained quali a i ely
simila esul s. In e ms o in e p e a ion, δ and h a e in e changeable
wi h Cohen’s
d
, and an e ec size o 0.20, 0.50, 0.80 is conside ed o
be small, medium, and la ge, espec i ely. Howe e , his classi ica ion
has gene a ed disc epan in e p e a ions, whe e small e ec sizes
we e classi ied as negligible by ce ain au ho s bu ele an by o he s.
Hence, he e ec size was ans o med in o pe cen iles (Mon ei o e
al., 2018) and he magni ude was in e p e ed in e ms o pe cen age
supe io i y o e all possibili ies (Vila iño e al., 2018).
155
A e In e en ions wi h Ba e e s E ec i e? A Me a-analy ical Re iew
As o he e ec s o he calculus o δ, in p e ious e iews i has
been calcula ed wi h con ol g oups bo h in expe imen al and
quasi-expe imen al designs. The esul s showed he ype o design
media ed di e ences in e ec sizes. Howe e , he ype o analysis
design is no an e ec o he in e en ion. Tha is, he di e ences
in esul s we e due o he es alue, no he in e en ion. Fo his
eason, and in o de o homogenize he in e -s udies con as
alue, o con ol he bias o con ol g oups in p ima y s udies and
o include in e en ions wi hou con ol g oups, he con as alue
o ecidi ism was calcula ed as eo ending wi hou in e en ion
and he ecidi ism a e weigh ed by he sample e o o he con ol
g oup o al (Schmid & Hun e , 2015), which was .22 in ORs and .28
in CRs. Compu ed e ec sizes om p ima y s udies (see Appendix),
he ollowing s a is ics we e calcula ed: sample size weigh ed mean
e ec size (
d
), s anda d de ia ion o
d
(
SD
d
), s anda d de ia ion
p edic ed o sampling e o alone (
SD
p e
), s anda d de ia ion o
d
a e emo ing sampling e o a iance (
SD
es
), mean ue e ec size
(δ), s anda d de ia ion o δ (
SD
δ
), pe cen age o a iance a ibu able
o s a is ical a i ac s (%Va ), 95% con idence in e al o
d
(95% CI
d
),
and 80% c edibili y in e al o δ (80% CI
δ
).
Though esul s opened he doo o u he me a-analyses ( he
a iance explained by a i ac ual e o s was below 75%, i.e., 75% ule;
Schmid & Hun e , 1981), u he me a-analyses we e impossible as
numbe o sizes (
k
≤ 3) o sample sizes (
N
< 400) we e insu icien , o
no o he mode a o s had been de ined in he p ima y s udies.
When me a-analyses a e calcula ed o he s udy o mode a-
o s o he g ouping o a iables acco ding o le els, he esul s
do no include he compa ison be ween me a-analyses. Thus, he
esul s we e insu icien , as is he case o he analysis o in e en-
ion models whe e signi ican e ec s we e obse ed in ORs, bu
i hey we e he same o highe in one condi ion o ano he was
no epo ed. The same occu ed wi h he du a ion o he in e -
en ion, and he ollow-up pe iod. To o e come his con ingency,
he solu ion p oposed by Amado e al. (2015) was adop ed, whe e
he s a is ic
q
s was calcula ed o compa e wo e ec sizes by con-
e ing
, and hen compa ing he
s. Fu he mo e, he esul s o
he me a-analysis we e also qui e limi ed in disce ning he impli-
ca ions o p ac ice, in his case, he in e en ion. Rega ding he
implica ions o he me a-analysis on p o essional p ac ice, Fa iña e
al. (2017) ecommend, acco ding o he speci ic objec i es a hand,
sensi i i y es ima ion (s a is ical
U
), e ec quan i ying (in p esen
me a-analy ical analysis, he e icacy o he in e en ion, BESD),
and he p obabili y o supe io i y.
C i e ion Reliabili y
As CRs we e ga he ed wi h di e en measu emen ins umen s,
he co ec ion o he c i e ion un eliabili y was compu ed wi h
Mosie ’s (1943) composi e eliabili y coe icien ,
= .87.
Coding
Fo he analysis o mode a o s, he ollowing ecidi ism a iables
we e encoded (ORs,
N
= 19,429 and
k
= 46, and CRs,
N
= 1,351 and
k
= 16); ollow-up ime (≤ 12 mon hs,
N
= 3,509 and
k
= 21, and > 12
Reco ds iden i ied h ough
da abase sea ching (
n
= 1,910)
Addi ional eco ds iden i ied
h ough o he sou ces (
n
= 23)
Reco ds a e duplica es emo ed
(
n
= 1,547)
Reco ds sc eened
(
n
= 374)
Full- ex a icles assessed
o eligibili y
(
n
= 76)
S udies included in quan i a i e
syn hesis (me a-analysis)
(
n
= 25)
Full- ex a icles assessed
wi h easons
(
n
= 51)
Reco ds excluded
(
n
= 1,173)
Iden i ica ion
Sc eening
Eligibili yIncluded
Figu e 1. Flow Diag am o he Me a-analysis.
156
R. A ce e al. / Psychosocial In e en ion (2020) 29(3) 153-164
mon hs,
N
= 16,050 and
k
= 26); ea men du a ion (< 16 sessions/
weeks,
N
= 3,631 and
k
= 14; and >16 sessions/weeks,
N
= 15,878 and
k
= 32); in e en ion le el (indi idual s. mul i-le el); ype o sessions
(indi idual sessions, g oup sessions o combined sessions); and ype
o ea men (Dulu h Model:
N
= 15,027 and
k
= 25; CBTPs:
N
= 1,629
and
k
= 9, and OTIs:
N
= 2,853 and
k
= 12).
The encoding was ca ied ou by an encode who no ed he le els
o each o he ca ego ies c ea ed and desc ibed by esea che s,
and ma ked exac ly whe e hey we e e e ed o in he ex . In
he encoding o he ype o in e en ion, he c i e ion s a ed by
he au ho s o he p ima y s udies was applied, bu i should be
no ed ha inc easingly in e en ions based on he Dulu h Model
also include cogni i e-beha iou al aining echniques o ange
managemen , and CBTPs a gende pe spec i e (e.g., pa ia chal
a i udes and alues). No wi hs anding, he app oach asc ibed o
he in e en ion was in line wi h he models p oposed. A second
encode e iewed all o he s udies using he same encoding
sys em. The ea e , bo h he egis e ed ca ego ies, and he exac
co espondence in he encodings we e checked o es ima e he
ue conco dance ( ) wi h he kappa s a is ic (A ce e al., 2000).
Kappa co ec s he andom e ec in conco dance, bu no he
co espondence in encodings. Thus, he egis a ion o a ca ego y
by wo encode s in wo di e en places a e wo encoding e o s in
he ue kappa (lack o co espondence), whe eas i is encoded as
co ec wi h Cohen’s kappa. Mo eo e , consis ency be ween wo
encode s is no su icien o es ima ing he ideli y o encodings (i.e.,
coding co ec ness in ela ion o he con en o he ca ego y), which
would equi e o he encoding o emain s able h ough ime, in a-
encode , and in o he e alua ion con ex s (code s in o he s udies).
The ue conco dance in e - and in a-encode s was e y good
( > .81). Mo eo e , he encode s we e consis en in o he con ex s
i.e., e alua ions (A ias e al., 2013; Gallego e al., 2019). Bea ing in
mind he in e - and in a-e alua o and in e -con ex consis ency o
code s, encodings we e eliable, ha is, e lec ed he o iginal da a.
Resul s
Con as o In e -c i e ia Consis ency o he Recidi ism
Measu emen
The esul s showed a signi ican ly highe a e (+.1540),
Z
= 12.32,
p
< .001, o ecidi ism measu ed in CRs, han in ORs. Thus, ORs
masked a signi ican amoun o ecidi ism (no su p isingly, be-
cause many couples e use o collabo a e, a p edic able beha iou
associa ed o e ic imiza ion; B ame e al., 2015; and concealmen
o inju ies; A ce, Fa iña, Seijo, e al., 2015). Mo eo e , he con idence
ma gin o he mean a e o ecidi ism, highe in CRs han in ORs, CI
95% [.1491, .1589], e ealed i was s able a ound 15%.
Analysis o Ou lie s
Taking in o accoun ha he e icacy o a ea men a ies
acco ding o he a iable measu ed, an analysis o ou lie s was
ca ied ou o each measu e, ORs and CRs. Da a showed ha one
o he s udies, S i h e al. (2004) wi h CRs, was an ex eme alue
(± 3 * IQR). As o he e ec sizes o s udies measu ing ecidi ism
in ORs, no ex eme cases we e obse ed no ou lie s wi h he
c i e ion ± 1.5 * IQR, bu ex eme cases we e obse ed wi h a
much mo e conse a i e c i e ion ± 2
SD
(Chau ene ’s c i e ion).
This c i e ion equi es ha each me a-analysis should e i y he
co ec classi ica ion o ou lie s and incon enien s udies (con a y
Table 1. Me a-Analyses o he E ec i eness o Ba e e In e en ion P og ams
k N d SD
d
SD
p e
SD
es δ
SD
δ% Va 95% CI
d
80% CIδ
Gene al Me a-Analysis
162 20,860 0.43 0.4485 0.1114 0.4345 0.44 0.4300 6.17 0.40, 0.46 -0.13, 1.00
259 20,215 0.48 0.3278 0.1108 0.3275 0.49 0.3332 10.28 0.45, 0.51 0.06, 0.91
Me a-Analysis o In e en ion E ec i eness Measu ed in CRs
116 1,351 0.004 0.2218 0.2194 0.0321 0.005 0.0344 97.90 -0.10, 0.11 -0.03, 0.05
215 1,340 -0.008 0.0000 0.2131 0.0000 -0.009 0.0000 100.00 -0.11, 0.09 -0.009
Me a-Analysis o In e en ion E ec i eness Measu ed in ORs
146 19,509 0.45 0.4490 0.0988 0.4338 0.45 0.4338 4.93 0.42, 0.48 -0.10, 1.01
244 18,875 0.51 0.3279 0.0984 0.3129 0.51 0.31298 99.00 0.48, 0.54 0.11, 0.91
Me a-Analysis o In e en ion E ec i eness Measu ed in ORs on Sho Follow-up Pe iods
121 3,509 0.35 0.8191 0.1563 0.8041 0.35 0.8041 3.64 0.28, 0.42 -0.68, 1.37
219 2,875 0.69 0.4004 0.1679 0.3635 0.69 0.3635 17.58 0.61, 0.77 0.23, 1.15
Me a-Analysis o In e en ion E ec i eness Measu ed in ORs on Long Follow-up Pe iods
26 16,050 0.48 0.3026 0.0818 0.2914 0.48 0.2914 7.31 0.45, 0.51 0.11, 0.85
Me a-Analysis o In e en ion E ec i eness o Dulu h Model Measu ed in ORs
125 15,027 0.37 0.4627 0.0824 0.4553 0.37 0.4553 3.17 0.34, 0.40 -0.20, 0.96
223 14,393 0.44 0.3168 0.0811 0.3168 0.44 0.3168 6.15 0.41, 0.47 0.04, 0.85
Me a-Analysis o E ec i eness o CBTPs Measu ed in ORs
91,629 0.88 0.1382 0.1562 0.0000 0.88 0.0000 100.00 0.78, 0.98 0.88
Me a-Analysis o E ec i eness o OTIs Measu ed in ORs
12 2,853 0.63 0.2155 0.1333 0.1693 0.63 0.1693 38.26 0.55, 0.71 0.41, 0.85
Me a-Analysis o E ec i eness o B ie In e en ions Measu ed in ORs
114 3,631 0.03 0.7064 0.1244 0.6953 0.03 0.6953 3.10 -0.03, 0.09 -0.86, 0.92
212 2,997 0.29 0.4379 0.1274 0.4379 0.29 0.4379 7.81 0.22, 0.36 -0.27, 0.85
Me a-Analysis o E ec i eness o Long In e en ions Measu ed in ORs
32 15,878 0.55 0.2785 0.0917 0.2630 0.55 0.2630 10.84 0.52, 0.58 0.21, 0.89
No e. k
= numbe o e ec sizes;
N
= o al sample size;
d
= sample size weigh ed mean e ec size;
SD
d = s anda d de ia ion o
d
;
SD
p e = s anda d de ia ion p edic ed o sampling
e o alone;
SD
es = s anda d de ia ion o
d
a e emo ing sampling e o a iance; δ = mean ue e ec size;
SD
δ = he s anda d de ia ion o δ; % a = pe cen o obse ed a iance
accoun ed by a i ac ual e o s; 95% CId = 95% con idence in e al o d; 80% CIδ = 80% c edibili y in e al o δ; 1me a-analysis including all e ec sizes om p ima y s udies;
2me a-analysis emo ing ex eme and/o ou lie s e ec sizes.
157
A e In e en ions wi h Ba e e s E ec i e? A Me a-analy ical Re iew
o he hypo hesis o analysis), o mode a o s (Tukey, 1960). Thus,
a me a-analysis was pe o med wi h and wi hou hese s udies o
de e mine hei impac and hei e ec s on es ima o s. Mo eo e ,
a me a-analysis wi h and wi hou ex eme alues was pe o med.
Analysis o he Gene al E icacy o Ba e e In e en ion
P og ams
The me a-analysis o he o al e ec size o he s udies on he e icacy
o ba e e in e en ions (see Table 1) showed, o 62 e ec sizes and
o a sample o 20,860 ba e e s, a posi i e, signi ican (con idence
in e al o
d
does no include ze o), and medium-mode a e mean
ue e ec size, δ = 0.44, o ba e e in e en ions. Howe e , hese
esul s we e no gene alizable (c edibili y in e al o δ includes ze o)
o all s udies on ba e e in e en ions, since in e en ions may ha e
nega i e e ec s. Likewise, he esul s wi hou ou lie s (
N
= 20,215 and
k
= 59) showed a posi i e, signi ican (con idence in e al o
d
does
no include ze o), medium magni ude, and gene alizable (c edibili y
in e al o δ does no include ze o), i.e., ba e e in e en ions had
no nega i e e ec s (on ecidi ism) mean ue e ec size, δ ≈ 0.50.
Compa a i ely, he e ec sizes wi h and wi hou a ypical alues we e
equi alen ,
q
s = .024,
ns
. Thus, he elimina ion o ou lie s excluded
incon enien esul s ha had no e ec s on global esul s. In e ms
o ne in e en ion, e icacy ( educ ion in ecidi ism a e) would be
app oxima ely 21.49% (
= .2149), bu wi h a nega i e lowe limi , i.e.,
an inc ease in ecidi ism o 6.49% (80% LCV [lowe c edibili y alue]
con e ed o
= -.0649). The magni ude o he e ec size was g ea e
han 62.17% o all possibili ies, and 24.34% o all he posi i e e ec
sizes o he in e en ions.
Ne e heless, he pe cen age o a iance explained by a i ac ual
e o s was below 75% in bo h me a-analyses, so hese esul s we e
media ed by mode a o s o e ec .
The mos ex ensi ely esea ched mode a o is he a iable me-
asu ing e ec s (c i e ion), i.e., ecidi ism, which has been assessed
in p ima y s udies in bo h ORs (i.e., police, cou s, co ec ional ins-
i u ions), and CRs.
Analysis o he E ec s o Ba e e In e en ions on he
Va iable Measu ing Recidi ism
The me a-analysis on he s udies measu ing in e en ion e icacy
on he ecidi ism a e in CRs (see Table 1), wi h a sample o 1,351
ba e e s and 16 e ec sizes, e ealed ha in e en ions had no e ec
on ecidi ism, wi h a null (δ = 0.005) mean ue e ec size (
U
1 = 0.007,
i.e., he independence o he dis ibu ions o ea ed and non- ea ed
ba e e s was only 0.7%), and could be nega i e by up o -0.10 o , in
o he wo ds, he in e en ion could ha e a nega i e e ec inc easing
ecidi ism a e by up o 4.99% (
= -.0499). The lack o e ec s o he
in e en ion measu ed in he ecidi ism a e in CRs was no media ed
by mode a o s (% VAR > 75). Thus, he esul s we e conclusi e. The
esul s we e eplica ed (see Table 1) including he ex eme case (
N
=
1,340 and
k
= 15), which unde pins hei s abili y.
The me a-analysis on s udies es ima ing in e en ion e icacy
on ecidi ism in ORs, wi h a sample o 19,509 ba e e s and 46
e ec sizes, showed (see Table 1) a posi i e, signi ican (con idence
in e al o
d
does no include ze o), small-medium (δ = 0.45) and
non-gene alizable (c edibili y in e al o δ includes ze o) mean
ue e ec size in he in e en ion, wi h possible nega i e e ec s
o up o 4.99% (80% LCV con e ed o
= -.0499), which we e
media ed by mode a o s o he ela ionship be ween ea men
and ecidi ism (% VAR > 75%). Wi hou ou lie s (
N
= 18,875
and
k
= 44), he esul s we e eplica ed: a posi i e, signi ican ,
medium, and media ed by mode a o s mean ue e ec size, bu
gene alizable (c edibili y in e al o δ does no include ze o) o
all he s udies. Compa a i ely, he e ec size o he me a-analysis
wi h and wi hou ou lie s we e simila ,
q
s = .029,
ns
. In sho , he
e ec s o ou lie s we e cons ained o he lack o gene aliza ion o
he esul s o all o he s udies, so by elimina ing hem we would be
disca ding incon enien esul s, no eal ou lie s. Thus, he mean
ecidi ism educ ion a e in ORs due o he in e en ion ( e sus
non-in e ened o ende s) was 21.95%, bu wi h a lowe nega i e
limi , ha is, an inc ease in ecidi ism o up o 4.99%. Succinc ly, on
a e age, in e en ions educed ecidi ism in ORs, bu hey could
also ha e ad e se e ec s by inc easing ecidi ism a e by mo e
han 50% (Taylo & Maxwell, 2009). The magni ude o he e ec was
highe han 62.55% o all possibili ies, and highe han 25.1% o all
he posi i e e ec sizes o ba e e in e en ions. Thus, he posi i e
in e en ion e ec is explained by he measu emen me hod, ROs,
a he han he measu ed cons uc , ecidi ism (Podsako e al.,
2003). Howe e , he pe cen age o a iance explained by a i ac ual
e o s was lowe han 75%. So, he esul s we e media ed by
mode a o s.
Analysis o he E ec s o Follow-up Time on Recidi ism in
ORs
The ecidi ism ollow-up pe iod is a c i ical ac o o c i e ion
alidi y. In ac , sho ollow-up pe iods can a i icially inc ease he
e icacy a e, gi en ha app oxima ely 2/3 o eo ending occu s in
he i s wo yea s (Redondo e al., 2001). Acco ding o Gondol , 2000
and Jones and Gondol (2002), eo ending occu s in ba e e s in hal
he ime, and he e is widesp ead ag eemen ha mos ba e y goes
un epo ed, and no documen ed in ORs (Eu opean Union Agency
o Fundamen al Righ s, 2014). Fo his eason, he ollow-up pe iod
was aken as a mode a o o he esul s o he in e en ion and we e
subdi ided in o sho ollow-up pe iods o 6 o 12 mon hs, and long
ollow-up pe iods o mo e han 12 mon hs, a classi ica ion a es ed o
be alid (A ias e al., 2013; Gondol , 2000).
The me a-analysis on he e icacy o ba e e in e en ions in
sho ollow-up pe iods, i.e., 12-mon h o less in ORs (see Table
1), wi h a sample o 3,509 ba e e s and a o al o 21 e ec sizes,
ound a posi i e and signi ican (con idence in e al o
d
does no
include ze o) mean ue e ec size (δ = 0.35), bu no gene alizable
o o he s udies (c edibili y in e al o δ includes ze o), and o a
small magni ude. These esul s we e eplica ed in he me a-analysis
wi hou ou lie s (
N
= 2,875,
k
= 19), wi h a posi i e, and signi ican
(con idence in e al o
d
does no include ze o) mean ue e ec
size o mode a e magni ude (δ = 0.69), which was gene alizable
o o he s udies (c edibili y in e al o δ does no include ze o).
Compa a i ely, he e ec size o he in e en ion in he me a-analysis
wi hou ou lie s was signi ican ly highe han wi h ou lie s,
q
s = .164,
p
< .01, which was an unexpec ed and incong uous esul (ou lie s
diminished he e icacy o he in e en ion). The e o e, he esul s
should be analysed wi hou ou lie s. In p ac ical e ms, ba e e
in e en ions educed he ecidi ism a e in ORs by an a e age
32.61%, wi hou in e en ions wi h ad e se e ec s, (80% LCV = .23),
and he e ec size was highe han 68.79% o all possibili ies and
37.58% o all posi i e in e en ion e ec sizes. Howe e , hese esul s
we e media ed by mode a o s, bo h in he me a-analysis wi h all o
he e ec sizes, and wi hou ou lie s (% VAR < 75).
The me a-analysis on he e icacy o ba e e in e en ions on
12-mon h ollow-up pe iods longe in ORs (see Table 1), wi h 26 e -
ec sizes and a sample o 16,050 ba e e s, e ealed a posi i e and
signi ican (con idence in e al o
d
does no include ze o) mean
ue e ec size o mode a e magni ude (δ ≈ 0.50). Mo eo e , his e-
sul was gene alizable o o he s udies (c edibili y in e al o δ does
no include ze o), bu was media ed by mode a o s (% VAR < 75). As
o he educ ion in he ecidi ism a e in ORs, ba e e in e en ions
educed he ecidi ism a e by 23.34% (
= .2334) and, once again,
wi hou de ec ing nega i e in e en ion e ec s (80% LCV = .11). The

158
R. A ce e al. / Psychosocial In e en ion (2020) 29(3) 153-164
magni ude o he e ec size was abo e he 63.31% o all possibili ies
and 26.62% o all he posi i e in e en ion e ec sizes.
The mean ue e ec size o he in e en ion in ORs wi h a sho
ollow-up pe iod o up o 12 mon hs (δ = 0.69) o less was signi ican ly
la ge ,
q
s = .101,
p
< .05, han ha ob ained o he long ollow-up
pe iod o mo e han 12 mon hs (δ = 0.48).
Mode a o s could no be analysed as
N
s (< 400) o e ec sizes
we e insu icien (
k
≤ 3).
Analysis o he E ec s o he Modali y o he In e en ion on
Recidi ism in ORs
Ano he mode a o epo ed in he li e a u e as ha ing e ec s on he
in e en ion is he modali y o he in e en ion, ca ego ized as in e -
en ions based on he Dulu h Model, Cogni i e-Beha iou al T ea men
in e en ions, and O he Type o In e en ions (A ias e al., 2013; Bab-
cock e al. 2004; Fede & Wilson, 2005; Le esque & Gelles, 1998).
Me a-analysis o he e ec s on ecidi ism in ORs o in e en-
ions based on he Dulu h Model wi h a sample o 15,027 ba e e s,
and 25 e ec sizes e ealed (see Table 1) a posi i e and signi ican
(con idence in e al o
d
does no include ze o) mean ue e ec
size o small magni ude (
d
= 0.37). Mo eo e , hese esul s we e no
gene alizable (c edibili y in e al o δ includes ze o) o all s udies
wi h in e en ions based on he Dulu h Model. These esul s we e
eplica ed wi hou ou lie s (
N
= 14,393,
k
= 23), wi h he excep ion
ha hey we e gene alizable o all he s udies (c edibili y in e al
o δ does no include ze o). Compa a i ely, he e ec sizes o all he
s udies, and hose wi hou ou lie s we e simila ,
q
s = .034,
ns
. Thus,
he ou lie s we e no such, bu incon enien s udies wi h nega i e
e ec s. In p ac ical e ms, in e en ions based on he Dulu h Model
educed on a e age ecidi ism by 18.19% (
= .1819), wi h po en ial
nega i e e ec s o up o 9.95% (80% LCV con e ed o
= -.0995), and
an e ec size abo e 60.25% o all possibili ies, and 20.50% o all he
posi i e in e en ion e ec sizes. Howe e , he esul s we e media ed
by mode a o s (% VAR < 75).
The me a-analysis o he e ec s o ba e e in e en ions wi h
CBTPs on ecidi ism in ORs (see Table 1), wi h a o al o 9 e ec sizes
and a sample o 1,629 ba e e s, exhibi ed a posi i e, signi ican o
he in e en ion (con idence in e al o
d
does no include ze o),
and o a la ge magni ude (δ = 0.88) mean ue e ec size, implying
an a e age educ ion in he ecidi ism a e o 40.27% (
= .4027).
The gene aliza ion o he ue e ec size could no be s udied as
he a iance was ze o (i.e., he s udies o his me a-analysis we e
no andomly dis ibu ed); hus, i was analysed wi h he e ec
size weigh ed by sampling e o (conse a i e es ima e e sus he
ue size), and was gene alizable (c edibili y in e al o
d
does no
include ze o) o o he s udies, and wi hou nega i e e ec s, 80% CI
[0.70, 1.06]. Addi ionally, he lowe limi o he e ec (90% o he
in e en ions su passed his limi ) was 33.40% (80% LCV con e ed
o
= .3340). The magni ude o he e ec size was highe han 73.24%
o all possibili ies, and 46.48% o all he posi i e in e en ion e ec
sizes.
The me a-analysis o he e ec s o O he Types o In e en ion
(OTIs) on ecidi ism in ORs (see Table 1), wi h a o al o 12 e ec
sizes, and a sample o 2,853 ba e e s, ound a posi i e, mode a e,
and signi ican (con idence in e al o
d
does no include ze o) mean
ue e ec size (δ = 0.63), gene alizable o all he s udies (c edibili y
in e al o δ does no include ze o). The educ ion in he ecidi ism
a e wi h OTIs ( e sus he a e o non-in e ened ba e e s) was on
a e age 30.04% (
= .3004), and wi hou in e en ions wi h nega i e
e ec s, and a minimum h eshold in he educ ion o he ecidi ism
a e o 20.08% (80% LCV con e ed o
= .2008). The educ ion in he
ecidi ism a e by OTIs ( e sus he a e o non-in e ened ba e e s)
was on a e age 30.48%, wi hou nega i e e ec s, and wi h a minimum
h eshold in he educ ion o ecidi ism o 20.55%. The magni ude o
he e ec size was highe han 67.36% o all possibili ies, and 34.72%
o all he posi i e in e en ion e ec sizes. Ne e heless, he e ec
o hese in e en ion modali ies on ecidi ism was media ed by
mode a o s (% VAR < 75). Once again, he analysis o mode a o s in he
di e en ypes o in e en ions was no possible due o insu icien
N
s and
k
s.
Compa a i ely, he e ec o he in e en ion on he educ ion o
ecidi ism was signi ican ly highe in he CBTPs han in he Dulu h
Model,
q
s = .243,
p
< .01 and in he OTIs,
q
s = .117,
p
< .01, and in he
OTIs han in he Dulu h Model,
q
s = .126,
p
< .01.
Analysis o E ec s o Du a ion o he In e en ion on
Recidi ism in ORs
A u he mode a o o he e ec s ha is sys ema ically e iewed
conce ns he du a ion o he in e en ion (A ias e al., 2013; Babcock
e al., 2004). In acco dance wi h Babcock e al. (2004), wo ca ego ies
we e c ea ed: sho du a ion o p og ams unde 16 sessions/weeks
(4 mon hs) and long du a ion o p og ams o mo e han 16 weeks/
sessions.
The esul s o he me a-analysis o sho in e en ions (< 16
sessions), wi h a o al o 14 e ec sizes and 3,631 ba e e s (see Table
1), showed a non-signi ican (con idence in e al o
d
includes ze o)
mean ue e ec size and, consequen ly, i was no gene alizable o
o he s udies. The me a-analysis eplica ed wi hou ou lie s (
N
=
2,997,
k
= 12) ound a posi i e and signi ican (c edibili y in e al o
δ does no include ze o) mean ue e ec size o small magni ude
(δ = 0.29), no gene alizable (c edibili y in e al o δ includes ze o),
and media ed by mode a o s (% VAR < 75) ha could no be analysed
owing o he insu icien
N
s and
k
s. The compa ison o e ec sizes wi h
all o he s udies wi h he exclusion o ou lie s e ealed signi ican
di e ences,
q
s = .129,
p
< .01, anging om a non-signi ican (all o
he s udies) o a signi ican (wi hou ou lie s) mean ue e ec size.
Thus, he ou lie s we e no such, bu incon enien s udies wi h e y
nega i e e ec s. In ac , b ie p og ams can inc ease he ecidi ism
a e by 39.5% (80% LCV con e ed o
= .3950).
Rega ding long in e en ion p og ams (> 16 sessions), he esul s
o he me a-analysis wi h a o al o 32 e ec sizes and a sample o
15,878 ba e e s (see Table 1) displayed a posi i e and signi ican
(con idence in e al o
d
does no include ze o) mean ue e ec
size o mode a e magni ude (δ = 0.55), gene alizable o o he s udies
(c edibili y in e al o δ does no include ze o). As o he e icacy o
he in e en ion, long in e en ions educed he ecidi ism a e in
ORs by 26.52% (
= .2652), and wi hou in e en ions wi h nega i e
e ec s, and a minimum h eshold in he educ ion o ecidi ism o
10.44% (80% LCV con e ed o
= .1044). The magni ude o he e ec
size was highe han 65.17% o all possibili ies and 30.34% o all he
posi i e in e en ion e ec sizes. Howe e , he a e age e ec size
was media ed by mode a o s (% VAR < 75) ha we e no s udied
owing o insu icien
N
s and
k
s.
Compa a i ely, long p og ams we e mo e e ec i e in educing
ecidi ism in compa ison o sho in e en ions,
q
s= .257,
p
< .01.
Discussion
The p esen me a-analyses ha e se e al limi a ions ha should be
bo ne in mind in he gene aliza ion o esul s. Fi s , he classi ica ion
o s udies aken om p ima y s udies ou lined he cha ac e is ics o
de ining hem (e.g., an in e en ion was ca ego ized unde a pa icula
model, bu he desc ip ion also encompassed o he models; he leng h
o he ollow-up was di e en ly measu ed); hus, i was ca ego ically
assumed in he me a-analysis, when he e may be subs an ial
a iabili y in ca ego ies o o e lapping ca ego ies. Second, no all
s udies consis en ly epo ed mode a o s (e.g., ea men ype), wi h
he subsequen exclusion o hem. Thi d, he alidi y o he measu e o
159
A e In e en ions wi h Ba e e s E ec i e? A Me a-analy ical Re iew
e icacy o in e en ions on ecidi ism ailed o be a good es ima o , as
i may no e en be he eal objec i e o in e en ions unde Spanish law
ea men in co ec ional ins i u ions is olun a y, and he manda e
o co ec ional ins i u ions is o de elop ap i udes o o e come
de iciencies and o modi y un a ou able and nega i e a i udes; Ley
O gánica 1/1979, de 26 de sep iemb e, Gene al Peni encia ia). Fou h,
he e alua ion o he e icacy o he in e en ion on ecidi ism based
on o icial eco ds was a c i e ion o limi ed alidi y (a s ong posi i e
biased app oxima ion o ecidi ism; in o he wo ds, in compa ison o
CRs, i ailed o cap u e app oxima ely hal o he ecidi ism). Fi h,
ollow-up ime, as a measu e o he e icacy o in e en ions on
ecidi ism, had a di ec and big e ec on he alidi y o he measu e.
In gene al, an es ima ed 50 o 60% o ecidi ism occu ed du ing he
i s yea (Redondo e al., 2001), wi h a o al con i med ecidi ism a e
anging om 40% o mo e han 80%, which a ied acco ding o he
measu e and he ollow-up ime (S o e , 2005). Six h, he measu e
o he e icacy o in e en ions in CRs was also p obably posi i ely
biased (o e es ima ion o he esul s o he in e en ions) bo h in
he measu e i sel (e.g., no all o he ba e e s who had a pa ne
a e ea men epo ed i ; he exposu e imes o couples wi h
di ec e ec s on ecidi ism we e no epo ed; a signi ican numbe
o women ailed o espond o encode s) and due o esponse bias
(e.g., bias o leniency, i.e., endency o minimize o conceal assaul s).
In ac , one o he dis inc i e cha ac e is ics o ic ims o gende
iolence (inju y) is he ailu e o epo o ences and he concealmen
o assaul s in epo s (Hol e al., 2003), concealing o ences (A ce,
2017), minimizing inju ies (A ce, Fa iña, & Vila iño, 2015; Vila iño e
al., 2009), and ailing o epo he ecidi ism o in e ened ba e e s
(B ame e al., 2015), in pa icula du ing cohabi a ion wi h he ba e e .
Se en h, e alua ions o e icacy we e aken om he au ho s o he
in e en ions, who ely on e icacy o p og am con inui y. Thus, he
numbe o unpublished s udies wi h no e ec s o nega i e e ec s may
be high. Eigh h, es alues we e also subjec o simila measu emen
e o s. Nin h, he d opou s linked o ecidi ism we e no gene ally
encoded as such, which would a i icially inc ease he e icacy a e
(Ta e al., 2001). Ten h, o he mode a o s (no s udied as
N
s o
k
s
we e insu icien ) may modi y he magni ude o di ec ion o he
ea men e icacy (Ma ín & Mo al, 2019; Ma ín e al., 2019). Thus,
u he esea ch wi h addi ional mode a o s should be designed. In
sho , he esul s had a ce ain deg ee o alidi y o measu ing he
e icacy o in e en ions e sus non-in e en ion, bu no su icien
o de e mine he eal a es o ecidi ism, which we e p esumably
signi ican ly highe han egis e ed.
These limi a ions, in e ms o alidi y o conclusions, can be classi-
ied as sys ema ic measu emen e o s (when hey gene a e an al e -
na i e explana ion o he esul s), o a biased measu emen me hod
(i.e., a iance a ibu ed o me hod and no o measu ed cons uc )
(Podsako e al., 2003). Bea ing in mind he implica ions o hese
limi a ions on he alidi y o he conclusions o his me a-analysis,
hey a e discussed u he below:
a) The con ol and analysis o he e ec s in he esul s o ex eme
alues and ou lie s was open o wo di e en in e p e a ions.
The ex eme alue e e ed o a ze o ecidi ism a e, an
impossible esul ha also dis o s esul s. Mo eo e , ou lie s
( he classi ica ion c i e ion was he s a is ical signi icance,
wi h a p obabili y o occu ence o 5%, e sus he common
c i e ion ± 1.5 * IQR, much mo e s ingen and ha would no
classi y any as an ou lie ) we e gene ally (wi h he excep ion
o sho ollow-up pe iods) incon enien s udies (con a y
o he hypo hesis o he e icacy o in e en ions pos ula ed
in he analysis i sel ), which we e no p ecisely ou lie s,
bu mode a o s (Tukey, 1960). The e o e, hey a e alid
cases whe e in e en ions a e obse ed o ha e no esul s
o ad e se e ec s, a possibili y ha has been alida ed in
p e ious e iews (A ias e al., 2013; Babcock e al., 2004;
Fede & Wilson, 2005; Le esque y Gelles, 1998).
b) The ecidi ism a e was almos 14% in in e ened ba e e s,
nea ly 13% (.1295) in ORs, and 26.13% (.2613) in CRs. Thus,
hal o ecidi ism wen un epo ed in ORs. Ne e heless,
his was s ill a om he ue a e, gi en ha , as p e i-
ously s a ed, sou ces o measu emen e o we e inhe en
o he me hod i sel (measu e o in e en ion e icacy), no
he cons uc unde assessmen ( ecidi ism), and ended o
maximize he e icacy o in e en ions ( a iance a ibu ed
o he me hod, no o he cons uc ). Hence, e alua ion was
a sou ce o sys ema ic e o : maximizing he e ec s o in e -
en ions.
c) The esul s o he gene al me a-analysis e ealed ha
in e ened ba e e s bene i ed om in e en ions compa ed
o non-in e ened ba e e s. Acco ding o his me a-analysis,
he gene al e icacy in he educ ion o he ecidi ism a e
was app oxima ely 21%. Though he e icacy o in e en ions
was es ima ed o be as negligible in e iews on he issue
(Babcock e al., 2004), his would no be so in ela ion o he
o al po en ial in e en ion e ec s, whe e e icacy ob ained
would be abo e 62.17%, P62.17, and 24.34% o posi i es
( educ ion in ecidi ism a e). Fu he mo e, e icacy was
highe han ha ob ained o delinquency in gene al
(Redondo e al., 2002), and highe han ha ob ained o
sexual ba e e s (Schmucke & Lösel, 2015). Ne e heless,
in e en ions can ha e no e ec on ecidi ism, o e en
nega i e e ec s (inc ease ecidi ism). In sho , in gene al
in e en ions, educed measu ed ecidi ism a es, bu no
all in e en ions, we e e icacious.
d) Mos o he e ec s o in e en ions (93.5%) we e measu ed
in ecidi ism in ORs. Me a-analysis on he e icacy o
in e en ions wi h his measu e showed a signi ican
educ ion in ecidi ism a e (a smalle p obabili y o being
accused o sen enced o in ima e pa ne iolence han
non-in e ened ba e e s), es ima ed o be a ound 22%,
an e icacy a e abo e 62.55%, P62.55, o all possibili ies, and
25.1% o posi i e e ec s. Once again, no all in e en ions
had he e ec o educing ecidi ism, and some may e en
ha e nega i e e ec s (inc ease ecidi ism), implying no all
in e en ions we e alid.
e) The ollow-up pe iod on e icacy o in e en ions media ed
di e ences in ecidi ism in ORs. Whils ecidi ism a e in
sho ollow-ups ell o a ound 33%, educ ion in long ollow-
ups was 23%, which was a s a is ically signi ican educ ion.
Thus, sho ollow-up pe iods a i icially boos ed ecidi ism
educ ion a e by 10%. Mo eo e , hese esul s co obo a ed
ha 2/3 o all ecidi ism, in acco dance wi h esul s by
Redondo e al. (2001), occu ed du ing he i s wo yea s, o
in hal ha ime o ba e e s acco ding o Gondol , 2000 and
Jones and Gondol , 2002. Thus, e alua ions in sho ollow-
up pe iods we e in alid.
) In e en ion con en s had a di ec impac on he educ ion
o ba e e ecidi ism in ORs. As o in e en ion model,
he highes e ec s we e ob ained wi h CBTPs, a esul
ha has been sys ema ically subs an ia ed in li e a u e
e iews (A ias e al., 2013; Babcock e al., 2004; Fede &
Wilson, 2005; Le esque & Gelles, 1998), and suppo s he
iew ha in e en ions should be mul imodal: cogni ion
and beha iou (Lila e al., 2019). A small, and signi ican ly
lowe e ec , was ob ained wi h in e en ions based on he
Dulu h Model, which could e en ha e ad e se e ec s (mo e
ecidi ism). The small e ec size, in addi ion o he high
numbe o d opou s du ing hese in e en ions, has led Ta
e al. (2001) o he conclusion ha hese ypes o in e en ion
we e possibly no e ec i e. This claim was no co obo a ed
by he esul s, as e ec size was signi ican and associa ed o
a mean ecidi ism educ ion a e o app oxima ely o 18%.
160
R. A ce e al. / Psychosocial In e en ion (2020) 29(3) 153-164
No wi hs anding, he high a iabili y obse ed could ha e
nega i e e ec s. I we ake in o accoun ha p og ams based
on he Dulu h Model we e ini ially aimed a educa ing in a
gende pe spec i e, bu we e subsequen ly ans o med in o
cogni i e-beha iou al models wi h a gende pe spec i e,
addi ion o gende pe spec i e may be he cause o he
decline in e icacy e sus exclusi ely cogni i e-beha iou al
in e en ions. Tha is, gende pe spec i e o in e en ion
may ail o e-educa e ba e e s, o e en ha e ad e se e ec s
( eac ance o ea men o a eigning adhe ence o ea men
could explain his con ingency).
g) OTIs (gene ally ocused on cogni ion and beha iou , bu
supplemen ed and guided by o he in e en ion models,
such as ecological, he apeu ic, o mul ile el models)
had he e ec o signi ican ly educing ecidi ism in ORs,
and in e media e be ween Dulu h Model and CBTPs.
Ne e heless, hese esul s we e limi ed o he me a-
analysis s udies and we e no gene alizable o models o he
han hose examined ( his ca ego y includes any model
ha was no s ic ly cogni i e-beha iou al o Dulu h). A
close inspec ion o esul s indica es cogni i e-beha iou al
in e en ions in addi ion o an ecological o mul ile el
in e en ion models imp o ed he e icacy o in e en ions,
he eby he need o u he s udies o e alua e bo h o hese
combined models.
h) Sho in e en ions ailed o educe ecidi ism in ORs and
could ha e nega i e e ec s (inc ease ecidi ism as compa ed
o no in e en ion) by almos 40%. In compa ison, long in e -
en ions we e e ec i e in educing ecidi ism a e in ORs (≈
26%), wi hou nega i e e ec s. This unde sco es ba e e in e -
en ions should be long- e m o be e ec i e. Ba e e s ha bou
oxic cogni ions (Ma una, 2004), which a e highly esis an
o in e en ions (No o e al., 2012), in pa icula sho in e -
en ions ha may be ine ec i e o e en coun e p oduc i e.
i) Howe e , in e ms o ecidi ism in CRs, he e icacy o
in e en ions e sus non-in e en ion was o ally null,
wi h a de ini e esul (i.e., gene alizable and no media ed
by mode a o s). Hence, in e en ions we e e ec i e in
educing he a e o accusa ions and guil y e dic s, bu
no he a e o eal, di ec in ima e pa ne iolence. This
esul unde sco ed he limi a ions o ORs as a measu e
o he e icacy o in e en ions, ha is, ORs we e a poo
alid measu e as a subs an ial amoun o ecidi ism wen
unde ec ed. Se e al causes may be esponsible o his
limi a ion in alidi y: un epo ed ecidi ism, ejec ed
complain s by he police, no all gende iolence eco ded
in CRs cons i u es gende iolence ac oss all coun ies, and
i may be eco ded as sexis iolence which alls ou o he
scope o ba e e in e en ions.
In conclusion, he e is a co pus o li e a u e on he e icacy o in-
e en ions, showing signi ican e ec s in educing ecidi ism in o -
icial eco ds. In o he wo ds, in e ened ba e e s we e less likely o
be accused/sen enced again in (ORs) o he same o ence. No wi h-
s anding, no all o he in e en ions we e e ec i e in ORs. Thus, sho
in e en ions we e comple ely ine ec i e and could ha e nega i e
e ec s o up o 40%, and ce ain in e en ions based on he Dulu h
Model may ha e nega i e e ec s o up o 10%. In con as , long in e -
en ions based on CBTPs o OTIs ( he esul s may no be gene alised
o o he echniques han hose e ised) we e on a e age e ec i e and
wi hou nega i e e ec s on ecidi ism in ORs. The e alua ion o he
e icacy o he in e en ion in ORs was no a alid measu e as i was
subjec o a sys ema ic measu emen e o (i minimized he a e),
which could each o e 80% (S o e , 2005). Howe e , ega dless he
ac ha ORs we e no a alid measu e o ecidi ism, we may d aw
om he me a-analysis wi h ORs he conclusion ha in e en ion
p og ams should be based on a long cogni i e-beha iou al app oach.
Howe e , his does no imply ha in e en ions had a signi ican
e ec on educing ecidi ism in all measu es o iolence. The e
was a null e ec in couple epo s. Fu he esea ch should be
unde aken o e alua e he e icacy o in e en ions in bo h ypes
o measu e o iden i y he ype o ecidi ism los in ORs and
o iden i y mode a o s o he e icacy o in e en ions on his
measu e. Mo eo e , s udies a e equi ed o assess he e icacy o
in e en ions on o he c i e ia such as he in e nal mechanisms
unde lying gende iolence (A ce e al., 2014), and acquisi ion o
skills and abili ies ha enable ba e e s o success ully manage isk
si ua ions o in ima e pa ne iolence (A ce & Fa iña, 2010; Lila
e al., 2018; Ma ín-Fe nández, G acia, Ma co, e al., 2018; Ma ín-
Fe nández, G acia, & Lila, 2018).
Con lic o In e es
The au ho s o his a icle decla e no con lic o in e es .
Re e ences
Re e ences ma ked wi h an as e isk indica e s udies included in he me a-
analysis
Amado, B. G., A ce, R., & He aiz, A. (2015). Psychological inju y in ic ims o
child sexual abuse: A me a-analy ic e iew.
Psychosocial In e en ion,
24
(1), 49-62. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.psi.2015.03.002
A ce, R. (2017). Análisis de con enido de las decla aciones de es igos:
e aluación de la alidez cien í ica y judicial de la hipó esis y la p ueba
o ense [Con en analysis o he wi ness s a emen s: E alua ion o
he scien i ic and judicial alidi y o he hypo hesis and he o ensic
p oo ].
Acción Psicológica, 14
(2), 171-190. h ps://doi.o g/10.5944/
ap.14.2.21347
A ce, R., & Fa iña, F. (2010). Diseño e implemen ación del p og ama Galicia
de eeducación de mal a ado es: una espues a psicosocial a una
necesidad social y peni encia ia [Design and implemen a ion o he
Galicia p og am o ba e e e-educa ion: A psychosocial answe o
a social and peni en ia y need]
Psychosocial In e en ion, 19
(2), 153-
166. h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/in2010 19n2a7
A ce, R., Fa iña, F., & F aga, A. I. (2000). Géne o y o mación de juicios en un
caso de iolación [Gende and ju o judgmen making in a case o ape].
Psico hema, 12
(4), 623-628. h p://www.psico hema.com/pd /381.pd
A ce, R., Fa iña, F., & No o, M. (2014). Compe encia cogni i a en penados
p ima ios y einciden es: implicaciones pa a la eeducación
[Cogni i e compe ence among ecidi is and non- ecidi is p isone s:
Implica ions o he ehabili a ion].
Anales de Psicología, 30
(1). 259-
266. h ps://doi.o g/10.6018/analesps.30.1.158201
A ce, R., Fa iña, F., Seijo, D., & No o, M. (2015). Assessing imp ession
managemen wi h he MMPI-2 in child cus ody li iga ion.
Assessmen ,
22
(6), 769-777. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1073191114558111
A ce, R., Fa iña, F., & Vila iño, M. (2015). Daño psicológico en casos de
íc imas de iolencia de géne o: un es udio compa a i o de las
e aluaciones o enses [Psychological inju y in in ima e pa ne
iolence cases: A con as i e analysis o o ensic measu es].
Re is a
Ibe oame icana de Psicología y Salud, 6
(2), 72–80. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1016/j. ips.2015.04.002
A ias, E., A ce, R., & Vila iño, M. (2013). Ba e e in e en ion p og ammes:
A me a-analy ic e iew o e ec i eness.
Psychosocial In e en ion,
22
(2), 153-160. h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/in2013a18
Babcock, J. C., G een, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does ba e e s’ ea men
wo k? A me a-analy ic e iew o domes ic iolence ea men .
Clinical
Psychology Re iew, 23
(8), 1023-1053. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
cp .2002.07.001
*Babcock, J. C., & S eine , R. (1999). The ela ionship be ween ea men ,
inca ce a ion and ecidi ism o ba e ing: A p og am e alua ion
o Sea le’s coo dina ed communi y esponse o domes ic
iolence.
Jou nal o Family Psychology, 13
(1), 46-59. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1037//0893-3200.13.1.46
*Benne , L., Call, C., Fle , H., & S oops, C. (2005).
P og am comple ion,
beha io al change and e-a es o he ba e e in e en ion
sys em o Cook Coun y, Illinois.
Illinois C iminal Jus ice In o ma ion
Au ho i y. Chicago, IL. h p://ci esee x.is .psu.edu/ iewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.589.9366& ep= ep1& ype=pd
*Bowen, E., Gilch is , E. A., & Beech, A. R. (2005). An examina ion o he
impac o communi y-based ehabili a ion on he o ending beha iou
o male domes ic iolence o ende s and he cha ac e is ics associa ed
wi h ecidi ism. Legal and
C iminological Psychology, 10
(2), 189-209.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1348/135532505x36778
B ame, R., Kaukinen, C., Go e , A. R., & La imo e, P. K. (2015). No-con ac
o de s, ic im sa e y, and o ende ecidi ism in cases o misdemeano
c iminal domes ic iolence: A andomized expe imen .
Ame ican
161
A e In e en ions wi h Ba e e s E ec i e? A Me a-analy ical Re iew
Jou nal o C iminal Jus ice, 40
(2), 225-249. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/
s12103-014-9242-x
*Coul e , M., & VandeWee d, C. (2009). Reducing domes ic iolence and
o he c iminal ecidi ism: E ec i eness o a mul ile el ba e e s
in e en ion p og am.
Violence and Vic ims, 24
(2), 139-152. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1891/0886-6708.24.2.139
*Da is, R. C., Taylo , B. G., & Maxwell, C. D. (1998). Does ba e e ea men
educe iolence? A andomized expe imen in B ooklyn.
Jus ice
Qua e ly, 18
(1), 171-201. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/07418820100094861
*Dobash, R., Dobash, R. E., Ca anagh, K., & Lewis, R. (1996).
Reeduca ion
p og ams o iolen men: An e alua ion
(Resea ch Findings, No. 46).
h p://weba chi e.na ionala chi es.go .uk/20110314171826/h p://
ds.homeo ice.go .uk/ ds/pd s/ 46.pd
*Dun o d, F. W. (2000). The San Diego Na y expe imen : An assessmen o
in e en ions o men who assaul hei wi es.
Jou nal o Consul ing
and Clinical Psychology, 68
(3), 468-476. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037//0022-
006x.68.3.468
Eu opean Union Agency o Fundamen al Righ s. (2014).
Violence agains
women: An EU-wide su ey. Resul s a a glance.
h ps:// a.eu opa.eu/
si es/de aul / iles/ a-2014- aw-su ey-a -a-glance-oc 14_en.pd
Fa iña, F., Redondo, L., Seijo, D., No o, M., & A ce, R. (2017). A me a-analy ic
e iew o he MMPI alidi y scales and indexes o de ec de ensi eness
in cus ody e alua ions.
In e na ional Jou nal o Clinical and Heal h
Psychology, 17
, 128-138. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ijchp.2017.02.002
*Fede , L. R., & Dugan, L. (2004).
Tes ing a cou -manda ed ea men
p og am o domes ic iolence o ende s: The B owa d expe imen .
Na ional Ins i u e o Jus ice. Washing on, DC. h ps://www.ncj s.go /
pd iles1/nij/199729.pd
Fede , L., & Wilson, D. B. (2005). A me a-analy ic e iew o cou -manda ed
ba e e in e en ion p og ams: Can cou s a ec abuse s’ beha io ?
Jou nal o Expe imen al C iminology, 1
(2), 239-262. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1007/s11292-005-1179-0
Gallego, R., No o, M., Fa iña, F., & A ce, R. (2019). Child- o-pa en iolence
and pa en - o-child- iolence: A me a-analy ic e iew.
Eu opean
Jou nal o Psychology Applied o legal Con ex .
Ad ance online
publica ion. h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/ejpalc2019a4
Gondol , E. W. (2000). Reassaul a 30-mon hs a e ba e e p og am in ake.
In e na ional Jou nal o O ende The apy and Compa a i e C iminology,
44
(1), 111-128. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0306624x00441010
*G aña, J. L., Redondo, N., Muñoz-Ri as, M. J., & Cuenca, M. L. (2017). Sho -
e m ea men esponse, a i ion and ecidi ism in a pa ne iolen
men ypology compa ed wi h a con ol g oup.
Psicología Conduc ual,
25
(3), 465-482.
*Haggå d, U., F eij, I., Danielsson, M., Wenande , D., & Långs öm, N. (2017).
E ec i eness o he IDAP ea men p og am o male pe pe a o s o
in ima e pa ne iolence: A con olled s udy o c iminal ecidi ism.
Jou nal o In e pe sonal Violence, 32
(7), 1027-1043. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/0886260515586377
*Hasisi, B., Shoham, E., Weisbu d, D., Ha i , N., & Zelig, A. (2016). The “ca e
package” p ison domes ic iolence p og ams and ecidi ism: A quasi-
expe imen al s udy.
Jou nal o Expe imen al C iminology, 12
(4), 563-
586. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11292-016-9266-y
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985).
S a is ical me hods o me a-analysis.
Academic P ess.
*He man, K., Ro unda, R., Williamson, G., & Vodano ich, S. (2014). Ou comes
om a Dulu h model ba e e in e en ion p og am a comple ion and
long e m ollow-up.
Jou nal o O ende Rehabili a ion, 53
(1), 1-18.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10509674.2013.861316
Hol , V. L., Ke nic, M. A., Wol , M. E., & Ri a a, F. P. (2003). Do p o ec ion
o de s a ec he likelihood o u u e pa ne iolence and inju y?
Ame ican Jou nal o P e en i e Medicine, 24
, 16-21. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00576-7
*Jenkins, J. A., & Men on, C. (2003). The ela ionship be ween inca ce a ed
ba e e s’ cogni i e cha ac e is ics and he e ec i eness o beha io al
ea men .
Co ec ions Compendium, 28
(3), 1-27. h p://wheels o jus ice.
wu.edu/publica ions/Co ec ionsCompendium-Ma 2003.pd
*Jones, A. S., & Gondol , E. W. (2002). Assessing he e ec o ba e e
p og am comple ion on eassaul : An ins umen al a iables analysis.
Jou nal o Quan i a i e C iminology, 18
(1), 71-98. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1023/a:1013244929733
*Lab iola, M., Rempel, M., & Da is, R. C. (2005).
Tes ing he e ec i eness o
ba e e p og ams and judicial moni o ing. Resul s om a andomized
ial a he B onx Misdemeano Domes ic Violence Cou .
Cen e o
Cou Inno a ion. Nue a Yo k, NY. h p://www.cou inno a ion.o g/
si es/de aul / iles/ba e e p og amse ec i eness.pd
Le esque, D. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1998, July).
Does ea men educe ecidi ism
in men who ba e ? A me a-analy ic e alua ion o ea men ou come.
Pape p esen ed a he P og am E alua ion and Family Violence
Resea ch: An In e na ional Con e ence, Du ham, NH.
Ley O gánica 1/1979, de 26 de sep iemb e, Gene al Peni encia ia. (1979).
Bole ín O icial del Es ado, 281
, 33987-34058. h ps://www.boe.es/
busca /pd /1995/BOE-A-1995-25444-consolidado.pd
*Lila, M., G acia, E., & Ca alá-Miñana, A. (2018). Indi idualized mo i a ional
plans in ba e e in e en ion p og ams: A andomized clinical ial.
Jou nal o Consul ing and Clinical Psychology, 86
(4), 309-320. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1037/ccp0000291
Lila, M., Ma ín-Fe nández, M., G acia, E., López-Osso io, J. J., & González,
J. L. (2019). Iden i ying key p edic o s o ecidi ism among o ende s
a ending a ba e e in e en ion p og am: A su i al analysis.
Psychosocial In e en ion, 28
(3), 157-167. h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/
pi2019a19
*Lin, S., Su, C., Chou, F. H., Chen, S., Huang, J., Wu, G. T., Chen, W. J., Chao,
S. S., & Chen, C. (2009). Domes ic iolence ecidi ism in high- isk
Taiwanese o ende s a e he comple ion o iolence ea men
p og ams.
Jou nal o Fo ensic Psychia y & Psychology, 20
(3), 458-472.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/14789940802638341
Ma ín, A. M., Pad ón, F., & Redondo, S. (2019). Ea ly na a i es o
desis ance om c ime in di e en p ison egimes.
Eu opean Jou nal
o Psychology Applied o Legal Con ex , 11
(2), 71-79. h ps://doi.
o g/10.5093/ejpalc2019a2
Ma ín, B., & Mo al, M. V. (2019). Relación en e dependencia emocional y
mal a o psicológico en o ma de ic imización y ag esión en jó enes
[Rela ionship be ween emo ional dependence and psychological
abuse in he o m o ic imiza ion and agg ession in young people].
Re is a Ibe oame icana de Psicología y Salud, 10
(2), 75-89. h ps://doi.
o g/10.23923/j. ips.2019.02.027
Ma ín-Fe nández, M., G acia, E., & Lila, M. (2018). Assessing ic im-
blaming a i udes in cases o in ima e pa ne iolence agains women:
De elopmen and alida ion o he VB-IPVAW scale.
Psychosocial
In e en ion, 27
(3), 133-143. h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/pi2018a18
Ma ín-Fe nández, M., G acia, E., Ma co, M., Va gas, V., San i so, F. A., &
Lila, M. (2018). Measu ing accep abili y o in ima e pa ne iolence
agains women: De elopmen and alida ion o he A-IPVAW scale.
Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Applied o Legal Con ex , 10
(1), 26-34.
h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/ejpalc2018a3
Ma una, S. (2004). Desis ance and explana o y s yle: A new di ec ion in he
psychology o e o m.
Jou nal o Con empo a y C iminal Jus ice, 20
,
184-200. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1043986204263778
Mon ei o, A., Vázquez, M. J., Seijo, D., & A ce, R. (2018). ¿Son los c i e ios de
ealidad álidos pa a clasi ica y disce ni en e memo ias de hechos
au o-expe imen ados y de e en os is os en ídeo? [A e he eali y
c i e ia alid o classi y and o disc imina e be ween memo ies o
sel -expe ienced e en s and memo ies o ideo-obse ed e en s?].
Re is a Ibe oame icana de Psicología y Salud, 9
(2), 149-160. h ps://
doi.o g/10.23923/j. ips.2018.02.020
Mosie , C. I. (1943). On he eliabili y o a weigh ed composi e.
Psychome ika, 8
(3), 161-168. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/BF02288700
*Mu phy, C. M., Musse , P. H., & Ma on, K. I. (1998). Coo dina ed communi y
in e en ion o domes ic abuse s: In e en ion sys em in ol emen
and c iminal ecidi ism.
Jou nal o Family Violence, 13
(3), 263-284.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1023/a:1022841022524
No o, M., Fa iña, F., Seijo, D., & A ce, R. (2012). Assessmen o a communi y
ehabili a ion p og amme in con ic ed male in ima e-pa ne iolen
o ende s.
In e na ional Jou nal o Clinical and Heal h Psychology,
12
(2), 219-234. h p://www.aepc.es/ijchp/a iculos_pd /ijchp-408.pd
*Pé ez, M. Giménez-Salinas A., & Juan, M. (2012).
E aluación del p og ama
“Violencia de géne o: p og ama de in e ención pa a ag eso es”, en
medidas al e na i as.
Ins i u o de Ciencias Fo enses y de la Segu idad
y Sec e a ía Gene al de Ins i uciones Peni encia ias. Mad id, Spain.
h p://www.ins i ucionpeni encia ia.es/web/expo /si es/de aul /
da os/desca gables/desca gas/VDG_EVALUACION_AUTONOMA_NIPO.
pd
Podsako , P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsako , N. P. (2003).
Common me hod bias in beha io al esea ch: A c i ical e iew o he
li e a u e and ecommended emedies.
Jou nal o Applied Psychology,
88
(5), 879-903. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Redondo, S., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Ga ido, V. (2001). T ea men o o ende s
and ecidi ism: Assessmen o he e ec i eness o p og ammes
applied in Eu ope.
Psychology in Spain, 5
(1), 47-62. h p://www.
psychologyinspain.com/con en / ep in s/2001/6.pd
Redondo, S., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Ga ido, V. (2002). Los p og amas
psicológicos con delincuen es y su e ec i idad: la si uación eu opea
[Psychological p og ammes wi h o ende s and hei e ec i eness:
The Eu opean si ua ion].
Psico hema, 14
(Supl.), 164-173. h p://www.
psico hema.com/pd /3487.pd
Rosen eld, B. D. (1992). Cou o de ed ea men o spouse abuse.
Clinical
Psychology Re iew, 12
(2), 205-226. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/0272-
7358(92)90115-o
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosen hal, R. (1988). Focused es s o signi icance and
e ec size es ima ion in counseling psychology.
Jou nal o Counseling
Psychology, 35
, 203-208. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0022-0167.35.2.203
*Saunde s, D. G. (1996). Feminis -cogni i e-beha io al and p ocess-
psychodynamic ea men s o men who ba e : In e ac ion o abuse
ai s and ea men models.
Violence and Vic ims, 11
(4), 393-414.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1891/0886-6708.11.4.393
Schmid F. L., & Hun e , J. E. (1981). Employmen es ing: Old heo ies
and new esea ch indings.
Ame ican Psychologis , 36
(10), 1128-1137.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0003-066X.36.10.1128
Schmid , F. L., & Hun e , J. E. (2015).
Me hods o me a-analysis: Co ec ing
e o s and bias in esea ch indings
(3 h ed.). Sage.
Schmucke , M., & Lösel, F. (2015). The e ec s o sexual o ende ea men
on ecidi ism: An in e na ional me a-analysis o sound quali y