Abstract
Gondolf, Bennett, and Mankowski raise many concerns about the ACTV batterers' intervention program (BIP) and the Zarling, Bannon, and Berta evaluation of ACTV, including (a) the researchers' and the Iowa Department of Corrections' promotion of ACTV; (b) research design, outcome measure, and results; (c) contextual issues; and (d) the effectiveness debate surrounding BIPs. The current commentary responds to each of these concerns, as well as identifies errors and corrects misinformation in their article. It is hoped that this response will also clarify the broader context of ACTV development and research and contribute to the ongoing discussion about BIPs.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
