Couples Counseling and
Offender-Treatment Programs
Domestic Violence
ELIZABETH A. TOMSICH, ASHLEY M.
TUNSTALL, and ANGELA R. GOVER
Domestic violence occurs when an individual
exerts power and control over his or her intimate
partner through repeated coercive and abu-
sive behaviors. The intimacy of the relationship
between the victim and the offender distinguishes
domestic violence from other crime. Domestic
violence consists of physical, psychological, sex-
ual, and financial abuse and stalking. Breiding,
Black, and Ryan (2008) estimate that 20% of
women and 11% of men experience domestic
violence throughout their lifetime. The Cen-
ters for Disease Control and Prevention (2003)
appraise the financial costs of interpersonal
violence in the United States at US$67 billion
yearly. Ramifications of domestic violence for
survivors include depression, eating disorders,
sleep problems, risky or self-harming behaviors,
substance abuse, and homelessness.
One criminal justice system approach to
domestic violence has been the development
of batterer intervention programs for offenders
who are court-ordered to attend treatment. The
women’s rights movement in the late 1960s and
1970s raised unprecedented public recognition
of the depth of the domestic violence problem
in the United States. In response, policy-makers
created mandatory/pro/presumptive arrest and
no-drop prosecution policies, sharply increasing
the presence of domestic violence perpetrators
in the criminal justice system. For a multitude
of reasons, including potential offender–victim
reunification, judges typically deferred to sen-
tencing offenders to domestic violence treatment
rather than incarceration. Surges in the num-
bers of domestic violence offenders ordered to
attend treatment in the 1980s compelled states
to develop treatment-program rules and guide-
lines. To do this most states formed oversight
boards to create and implement standards for
batterer-intervention treatment.
The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, First Edition. Edited by Wesley G. Jennings.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx137
Couples Counseling in
Currently, most states’ offender-treatment pro-
gram standards do not permit couples counseling
(Maiuro & Eberle, 2008). Opposition to couples
counseling for court-ordered domestic violence
emanates from several contentions: (1) violent
relationship dynamics negate effective counsel-
ing processes; (2) offenders should concentrate
on their own treatment; and (3) couples coun-
seling can communicate conflicting messages
and goals to the offender. Additionally, critics
of couples counseling in offender-treatment
programs assert that mandating therapy would
suggest that relationship problems cause partner
abuse, rather than offender criminality. How-
ever, some states such as Colorado have begun
to question a uniform ban on couples counsel-
ing in offender-treatment programs (Domestic
Violence Offender Management Board, 2004).
Proponents of couples counseling for domestic
violence cases argue that in cases of lower-level
perpetrator violence, with victim permission
and imposed safety measures, couples coun-
seling should be a treatment option. Likewise,
some domestic-violence researchers emphasize
the heterogeneous nature of domestic-violence
offenders and suggest couples counseling may at
times result in successful outcomes, such as cases
characterized by minimal offender violence and
controlling behaviors. Those opposed to couples
counseling for court-ordered domestic-violence
offenders argue that it is not possible for victims
to make an independent decision about attending
couples counseling when they are being con-
trolled by the offender, not to mention that many
may agree to attend out of fear of retaliation.
Currently the criminal justice system faces a
great deal of pressure from the state and federal
government to implement evidence-informed
practices. The body of research on offender-
treatment program effectiveness documents weak
effect sizes of treatment on recidivism regardless
of treatment type, legitimizing consideration of
revisions to these interventions (Babcock, Green,
& Robie, 2004). State standards commonly have a
2 COUPLES COUNSELING
“one-size-fits-all” approach to offender-treatment
program standards, leading proponents of pol-
icy revision to suggest individualized treatment
based on victim safety and offender need and risk
levels, such as couples counseling for low-risk
offenders. However, those opposed to the use
of couples counseling in offender-treatment
programs maintain treatment should focus on
the offender and that any offender access to
victims endangers victims’ lives. In the interest of
contributing to this debate we review the body
of literature on the use of general couples coun-
seling and couples counseling for court-ordered
domestic-violence offenders.
Couples Counseling
Couples pursue counseling in order to improve
relationship satisfaction and modify problematic
behavioral patterns. Successful therapy involves
achieving desired changes and unsuccessful cou-
ples counseling results in clients who feel that no
relationship changes have occurred, or who are
unsatisfied with the changes. Couples counseling
distinguishes itself from other psychotherapies
due to its focus on problems in a dyad, rather
than the problems of one specific individual.
Early forms of family and couple therapy shared a
systems philosophy where families were assessed
as a “system.” Problems in systems therapy are
evaluated through examining member inter-
actions rather than focusing on the individual
behavior of one family member. Regardless of
whether emotional-behavioral problems manifest
in one individual member, the communication
and relationship patterns of the entire system are
“treated.” Currently, theoretical approaches to
couples counseling include emotionally focused
couples counseling, cognitive behavior therapy,
and solution-focused therapy. Clinicians guided
by these theories assist clients in reinterpreting
their partners’ upsetting behaviors and modifying
their own destructive cognitions or behaviors.
Research documents that couples counseling
generally has positive outcomes, irrespective of
theoretical perspective. Jacobson, Follette, and
Revenstorf (2000) found success rates range
between 39% and 72% for couples in behav-
ioral couples counseling. Despite these generally
beneficial outcomes, closer examination of the
AND DOMESTIC V IOLENCE
evidence reveals less consistent findings, and that
effects diminish over time. One meta-analysis
concluded that only about 54% of couples on
average maintain the benefits of behavioral and
emotion-focused couples therapies over time
periods varying between two months and four
years following counseling (Byrne, Carr, & Clark,
2004). The remaining 46% reported returns of
relationship distress, discord, conflict, and dimin-
ished relationship satisfaction and quality. Such
findings have focused researchers on determining
the common factors predicting effectiveness in
couples counseling that influence outcome more
strongly than theory type. Scholars report one
of the strongest predictors of couples counseling
success is the client (Gottman & Notarius, 2002).
Research on counseling efficacy investigates
client and clinician factors related to therapeutic
success for individuals, but few studies exam-
ine the influence of client factors on couples
or family counseling outcomes (Gottman &
Notarius, 2002). Among the limited literature,
researchers document several relationship and
individual characteristics variables relevant to
couples counseling success.
Relationship factors such as severity of prob-
lems at the beginning of therapy and fewer years
invested in the relationship predict negative
outcomes for couples counseling (Atkins et al.,
2005). Younger couples who adhere to nontra-
ditional or egalitarian gender roles are more
likely to be successful in couples counseling, and
higher emotional engagement, or frequent sexual
and emotional intimacy, likewise predicts positive
therapeutic outcomes (Jacobson & Addis, 1993).
Gender may influence motivation, as women
tend to approach therapy out of a desire for
change, whereas men lean toward maintaining
the relationship in its present state (Jacobson &
Addis, 1993). Individuals unwilling to change and
lacking accountability benefit less from couples
counseling (Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997).
Lastly, negative life events and level of partner
supportiveness throughout these events influence
success of couples counseling (Blow et al., 2009).
Findings predicting negative therapeutic out-
comes from a couple’s severity of problems,
resistance to change, and lack of accountability
suggest dyads in abusive relationships diverge
from ideal candidates for couples counseling.
Clinicians developed couples counseling to treat
 COUPLES COUNSELING
couple conflict rather than couple violence,
and before extending couples counseling to
relationships characterized by violence, one
must consider the major variable differentiating
nonviolent and violent couples: the presence
of an offender. Given the relative newness of
the body of literature investigating the role of
client factors on couples-counseling outcomes,
uncertainty constrains conclusions regarding
which characteristics predict responsiveness to
couples counseling. However, extant evidence
indicates that client and relationship character-
istics may strongly or almost entirely predict
couples-counseling treatment success.
Use and Effectiveness of Couples
Counseling in Treating Domestic Violence
The role of client factors in counseling efficacy
discourages researchers from extending findings
on couples in conflict to couples where one part-
ner employs violence and/or abuse to control
the other. Consequently, this section isolates
and assesses research specific to the efficacy of
couples counseling for couples with a history
of domestic violence, reviewing evidence sup-
porting and contraindicating couples counseling
in offender-treatment programs.
The case for couples counseling
Arguments for the use of couples counseling
in offender-treatment programs emphasize the
diversity of needs among violent offenders. Brown
and O’Leary (1997) reviewed research on cou-
ples counseling and found episodes of violence
ceased in 56% to 90% of the cases, supporting the
use for some, albeit not all, offenders. However,
Brown and O’Leary (1997) noted that the bulk
of research studies self-referred couples and is
characterized by high attrition rates. Corroborat-
ing the concept that not all individuals need the
same type of treatment, Johnson (1995) identified
two types of intimate partner violence that vary
considerably in dangerousness and lethality:
intimate terrorism and common couple violence.
Generally found in shelter samples, intimate ter-
rorism involves escalating male violence, power,
and control, whereas general population samples
more likely document common couple violence,
AND DOMESTIC V IOLENCE 3
consisting of low-level mutual violence (Johnson,
1995).
Some researchers advocate for couples coun-
seling in situations of domestic violence when
counseling integrates multiple therapeutic per-
spectives such as feminist, behavioral, systemic,
psychodynamic, and ecological. Proponents of
multi-theory couples counseling argue singular
theoretical perspectives cannot effectively treat
the varied profiles of violent couples. Others
support couples counseling with intact couples
who desire to stay together when the violence
has been mild to moderate. Another alternative
combines individual and couples counseling,
which initially separately treats individuals and
then proceeds to joint relationship counseling
sessions. Conversely, Almeida and Durkin (1999)
contend that individual therapy protects batterers
from the public accountability necessary to their
recovery. Almeida and Durkin (1999) propose a
culturally sensitive multi-phase approach, where
the victim and offender are placed in separate
“culture circles,” which address sexism, priv-
ilege, and oppression. Once the offender has
demonstrated evidence of change, such as non-
threatening behavior, accountability for violent
crimes, open and honest communication, and
fair negotiation tactics, conjoint therapy may be
implemented.
Arguments supporting the use of couples coun-
seling in offender-treatment programs present
studies on the heterogeneity of domestic-violence
offenders and propose varied counseling program
tactics and limitations on offender eligibility.
However, the rationale behind the use of couples
counseling remains theoretical, as most evi-
dence demonstrating successful outcomes for
relationships featuring violence does not exam-
ine court-ordered domestic violence offenders
(Brown & O’Leary, 1997).
The case against couples counseling
Feminist theory forms the case against couples
counseling for violent relationships and contends
the risks of therapy supersede the benefits regard-
less of the wishes of those seeking treatment.
Feminist theorists view family systems theory as
problematic; as such a therapeutic perspective
emphasizes treating violent “couples” rather than
violent offenders, and interprets violence as an
4 COUPLES COUNSELING
outcome of the relationship system, instead of a
criminal choice made by one partner. In contrast
to systems theory, feminist recommendations
for couples counseling include a consideration
of gender and sociopolitical systems within a
discussion of problems within the relationship.
Therapists are encouraged to promote egalitar-
ianism between partners, to deconstruct how
work is conceptualized and money resultantly
controlled, and to consider the distribution of
labor within the home, such as housework and
caring for children or the elderly. Feminist per-
spectives on couples counseling support the use
of counseling to address relationship problems
with the understanding that an appropriate
therapeutic perspective integrates awareness of
gender power differentials. However, the feminist
philosophy of couples counseling indicates that
both partners in a couple must be willing to assess
and potentially radically change the distribution
of power within their relationship – a challenge
that may be particularly difficult for an offender
desiring to coercively control their partner. More-
over, feminist theory understands perpetration of
violence as emerging out of a desire for control,
rather than an inability to regulate anger. Due to
the perspective that social, cultural, and political
dynamics are the origins of domestic violence,
feminist theory contends that families cannot
combat this problem alone, and call for a policy
response to end domestic violence.
Consistent with the assumptions of feminist
philosophy, opponents of couples counseling in
offender-treatment programs view counseling
as appropriate for addressing marital conflict,
not violence, as violence comprises a distinct and
criminal act, rather than one end of a contin-
uum of conflict. Cooper-White (1996) proposes
separate treatment for victims and offenders,
with victims’ interests prioritized above those of
offenders. Similarly, Frank and Houghton (1987)
argue that couples counseling for domestic vio-
lence endangers the victim, promotes victim
blaming, ignores offender deflection and defense
mechanisms, reinforces stereotypical sex roles,
and may isolate the victim. The authors propose
that if the violence ends and both parties desire to
remain in a relationship, couples counseling may
happen only in the absence of violence for approx-
imately one year after offender treatment ceases
(Frank & Houghton, 1987). Some researchers
AND DOMESTIC V IOLENCE
protest that a preference for court-ordered
relationship counseling over individual therapy
circumscribes the victim’s ability to be treated
for and recover from trauma. In addition, critics
view couples counseling as a singular approach
to domestic violence treatment, similar to anger
management treatment, which is considered
insufficient to multiple intervention tactics such
as state supervision and court-ordered treatment.
Those challenging couples counseling in
offender-treatment programs view offender dan-
gerousness as the primary barrier to effective
couples counseling for court-ordered domestic-
violence offenders. Accurate screening and
assessment of risk levels by therapists would be
essential to the safe implementation of couples
counseling in offender-treatment programs.
Given the importance of the task, the role of
therapists would increase in importance signifi-
cantly. However, critics of couples counseling in
offender-treatment programs point to research
demonstrating inconsistencies in therapists’
capacities as “gatekeepers” in identifying vio-
lence. Harway and Hansen (1993) found that
40% of North American therapists who read a
vignette of a couple’s therapy session that pre-
sented indicators of relationship violence failed
to identify dangerous conflict and none predicted
lethality. The study then informed therapists
that subsequent to the therapy session the male
raped and murdered his partner and permitted
respondents to revise their initial therapeutic
recommendations. Even with the knowledge of
the couple’s outcome, 46% of therapists suggested
ineffective or risk-increasing interventions, such
as couples counseling rather than crisis inter-
vention for the victim. Dudley, McCloskey, and
Kustron (2008) replicated the study, hypothesiz-
ing that 2008 therapists’ assessments for domestic
violence and lethality would surpass that of the
early 1990s based on improved professional
training and heightened awareness of domestic
violence as a social problem. Although identifica-
tion of domestic violence substantially improved,
only one therapist accurately recognized the
potential for lethality (Dudley et al., 2008).
Therapists’ belief systems and internalized
stereotypes may limit accurate identification of
domestic violence. For example, some thera-
pists misperceive physical violence as the sole
form of abuse that constitutes domestic violence.
 COUPLES COUNSELING
Additionally, understandings of “prototypical”
victims and perpetrators may interfere with iden-
tifying relationship violence in couples diverging
from these stereotypes. Blasko, Winek, and
Bieschke (2007) found that initial assessments
of domestic violence made by therapists varied
based on the couples’ sexual orientation, such
that in same-sex conditions, therapists often
identified both partners as both victims and
perpetrators. Conversely, therapists typically
identified males as perpetrators, and females as
victims, in heterosexual couples. In addition to
shortcomings in violence identification skills,
after 40 years professionals still do not agree on
the most effective treatment approach in work-
ing with couples when domestic violence is a
presenting issue. Even though guidelines exist
for addressing domestic violence with couples,
it is unclear if therapists know of or follow these
guidelines (Schacht, Dimidjian, George, & Berns
2009).
Even if couples-counseling programs in
offender-treatment programs could ensure
victim safety, other factors such as substance
misuse complicate the risk for domestic vio-
lence. Substance abuse commonly co-occurs
with domestic violence, yet few studies address
the impact of couples counseling in relation-
ships characterized by both substance abuse and
domestic violence. Critics of couples counseling
in offender-treatment programs express concerns
that substance abuse may become the focal point
in couples counseling and “excuse” the abuse,
diminishing offender responsibility.
In addition to victim safety, criminal justice
responses to domestic violence require a con-
sideration of survivor needs and trauma. Miller
and Veltcamp’s (1998) trauma accommodation
syndrome describes stages of post-victimization
recovery, including feelings of helplessness and
fear, confusion, cognitive disorganization, denial,
reevaluation, and subsequent coping. Different
types of interventions may correspond to different
points in the trauma cycle, but research has not
yet delineated phase-appropriate interventions.
Needs for legal support, translators, housing,
welfare, and culturally competent services may
also vary among victims.
Lastly, methodological issues limit the ability
to extrapolate conclusions from existing studies.
The literature on couples counseling in cases
AND DOMESTIC V IOLENCE 5
of violence relies on the use of case studies
and survey and interview data, with self-report
the most common method of data collection.
Experimental research has rarely compared dif-
ferent modalities in treating domestic violence,
and low response rates compromise external
validity. Most importantly, research infrequently
studies court-ordered offender populations with
respect to couples counseling. In general, samples
comprise those voluntarily seeking treatment
or specialized populations such as veterans.
When court-ordered offender populations have
participated in studies, high attrition rates limit
conclusions.
Proponents of integrating couples counsel-
ing into batterer-treatment programs offer a
range of counseling programs and conditions
for treatment that would prioritize victim safety.
Nevertheless, limited empirical data on the
actual implementation of couples counseling
for court-ordered domestic violence offenders
leaves conclusions regarding the use of couples
counseling tentative. Furthermore, in hypothet-
ical implementations of couples counseling in
offender-treatment programs, screening respon-
sibilities would lie with clinicians, a task research
indicates they may not capably fulfill. Addition-
ally, research suggests any violent relationship
intervention should address the needs of sur-
vivors above and beyond relationship repair,
including trauma recovery support and access
to legal, housing, childcare, and employment
support.
Conclusion
The arguments in the literature regarding cou-
ples counseling pit the assumptions of feminist
theory against family systems perspectives. Each
argument has implications to support or reject
couples counseling. Modalities influenced by
feminist theory forbid techniques that could
be construed as victim blaming, while those
influenced by family systems theory promote
the use of couples techniques that prevent the
offender from escaping accountability. Consen-
sus exists in the literature that when risk is too
high, or when the violent episodes have been
too severe, couples counseling should not
be utilized. Moreover, the effectiveness of
6 COUPLES COUNSELING
offender-treatment programs underwhelms
many researchers and practitioners, opening
the field to suggested treatment-program revi-
sions such as integrating couples counseling
into batterer treatment. Research documenting
offender heterogeneity supports the proponents’
argument that offenders have diversified treat-
ment needs. However, in reality, scholars have
not yet separately researched couples counseling
among domestic violence community samples
versus domestic violence court-ordered samples.
Furthermore, the limited extant research on
therapist screening indicates therapists do not
accurately or consistently assess for domestic vio-
lence and subsequent threat of harm – potentially
due to a lack of validated screening tools and
training. Concerning the general effectiveness
of couples counseling with or without domestic
violence present, research indicates that couples
counseling has wide variability of effectiveness,
and that relationship factors shown to increase
effectiveness in the general population are often
not present in domestic-violence relationships
(e.g., openness, accountability, and nontraditional
gender roles).
Not surprisingly, methodological issues may
have contributed to divergent perspectives
on couples counseling for domestic violence
offender treatment. The literature utilizes sam-
ples where there has been court involvement,
but few studies have addressed the issue of
court-ordered couples counseling. Treatment
approaches often do not differentiate between
the two, while research has indicated there are
differences between low-level community sample
violence and violence from samples drawn from
courts or shelters. Small sample sizes that were
drawn from various sources, self-selection, and
self-report are the largest threats to the validity of
the research findings. Until researchers conduct
further assessment on couples counseling and
court-ordered domestic-violence offenders, client
factors, therapist factors influencing assessment,
and the training and use of standardized instru-
mentation, concurrent individual counseling for
victims and offenders and programs providing
victims trauma recovery support and resources
are a safe alternative. These interventions would
consider victim needs without endangering the
victim or permitting the offender to control
how the victim makes use of or benefits from
AND DOMESTIC V IOLENCE
these services. Further, concurrent therapy and
support acknowledges the individualized and
distinct needs of victims and offenders.
SEE ALSO: Family Violence; Feminist Theory;
Intimate Partner Violence; Victim Advocates.
References
Almeida, R. V., & Durkin, T. (1999). The cultural con-
text model: Therapy for couples with domestic vio-
lence. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 5,
313–324. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1999.tb00250.x.
Atkins, D. C., Berns, S. B., George, W. H., Doss, B.
D., Gattis, K., & Christensen, A. (2005). Predic-
tion of response to treatment in a randomized clin-
ical trial of marital therapy. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 73(5), 893–903. doi:10.1037/
0022-006X.73.5.893.
Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004).
Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic
review of domestic violence treatment outcome
research. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023–1053.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001.
Blasko, K. A., Winek, J. L., & Bieschke, K. J. (2007).
Therapists’ prototypical assessment of domestic vio-
lence situations. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 33, 258–269. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.
00020.x.
Blow, A. J., Morrison, N. C., Tamaren, K., Wright, K.,
Schaafsma, M., & Nadaud, A. (2009). Change pro-
cesses in couple therapy: An intensive case analysis
of one couple using a common factors lens. Journal
of Marital & Family Therapy, 35(3), 350–368.
Breiding, M. J., Black, M. C., & Ryan, G. W. (2008).
Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner
violence in eighteen U.S. states/territories, 2005.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34,
112–118. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.10.001.
Brown, P. D., & O’Leary, D. K. (1997). Wife abuse in
intact couples: A review of couples treatment pro-
grams. In G. Kantor & J. Jasinki (Eds.), Out of the
darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family vio-
lence (pp. 194–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Byrne, M., Carr, A., & Clark, M. (2004). The effi-
cacy of behavioral couples therapy and emotion-
ally focused therapy for couple distress. Contem-
porary Family Therapy, 26, 361–387. doi:10.1007/
s10591-004-0642-9.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
(2003). Costs of intimate partner violence against
women in the United States. Atlanta: GA: CDC,
National Center for Injury Prevention and Con-
trol. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from: http://www.
cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipvbook-a.pdf
 COUPLES COUNSELING
Cooper-White, P. (1996). An emperor without
clothes: The church’s views about treatment of
domestic violence. Pastoral Psychology, 45, 3–20.
doi:10.1007/BF02251405.
Domestic Violence Offender Management Board.
(2004). Meeting minutes: September 10, 2004.
Lakewood, CO: Colorado Department of Pub-
lic Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, Office of
Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Manage-
ment. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from http://dcj.
state.co.us/odvsom/Domestic_Violence/DV_Pdfs/
minutes09.10.04.pdf
Dudley, D. R., McCloskey, K., & Kustron, D. A.
(2008). Therapist perceptions of intimate partner
violence: A replication of Harway and Hansen’s
study after more than a decade. Journal of Aggres-
sion, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17(1), 80–102.
doi:10.1080/10926770802251031.
Frank, P. B., & Houghton, B. D. (1987). Policy statement
on domestic violence couples counseling. Confronting
the batterer: A guide to creating the spouse abuse edu-
cational workshop. New York: New York Volunteer
Counseling Service.
Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2002). Marital
research in the 20th century and a research agenda
for the 21st century. Family Process, 41, 159–197.
doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41203.x.
Harway, M., & Hansen, M. (1993). Therapist percep-
tions of family violence. In M. Harway & M. Hansen
(Eds.), Battering and family therapy: A feminist per-
spective (pp. 42–53). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jacobson, N. S., & Addis, M. E. (1993). Research on
couples and couple therapy: What do we know?
Where are we going?. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 85–93. doi:10.1037/
0022-006X.61.1.85.
Jacobson, N. S., Follette, W. C., & Revenstorf, D. (2000).
Variability in outcome and clinical significance of
behavioral marital therapy: A reanalysis of out-
come data. Prevention and Treatment, 3(1), 221–239.
doi:10.1037/1522-3736.3.1.315a.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and com-
mon couple violence: Two forms of violence against
women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57,
283–294.
Maiuro, R. D., & Eberle, J. A. (2008). State stan-
dards for domestic violence perpetrator treatment:
Current status, trends, and recommendations. Vio-
lence and Victims, 23, 133–155. doi:10.1891/0886-
6708.23.2.133.
Miller, T. W., & Veltkamp, L. J. (1998). Clinical hand-
book of adult abuse and exploitation. Madison, CT:
International Universities Press.
Schacht, R. L., Dimidjian, S., George, W. H., & Berns,
S. B. (2009). Domestic violence assessment proce-
dures among couple therapists. Journal of Marital and
AND DOMESTIC V IOLENCE 7
Family Therapy, 35(1), 47–59. doi:10.1111/j.1752-
0606.2008.00095.x.
Whisman, M., Dixon, A., & Johnson, B. (1997). Thera-
pists’ perspectives of couple problems and treatment
issues in couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology,
11, 361–366. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.11.3.361.
Further Readings
Baker, C. K., Billhardt, K. A., Warren, J., Rollins, C., &
Glass, N. E. (2010). Domestic violence, housing insta-
bility, and homelessness: A review of housing policies
and program practices for meeting the needs of sur-
vivors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 430–439.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2010.07.005.
Baucom, D. H., & Hoffman, J. A. (1986). The effective-
ness of marital therapy: Current status and applica-
tion to the clinical setting. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S.
Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marital therapy
(pp. 597–620). New York: Guilford.
Bograd, M. (1999). Strengthening domestic violence
theories: Intersections of race, class, sexual orien-
tation, and gender. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 25, 275–289. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1999.
tb00248.x.
Carr, A. (2011). Ten research questions for fam-
ily therapy. The Australian and New Zealand Jour-
nal of Family Therapy, 31(2), 119–132. doi:10.1375/
anft.31.2.119.
Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sander-
son, M., Brandt, H. M., et al. (2002). “Physical and
Mental Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence
for Men and Women.” American Journal of Pre-
ventive Medicine, 23: 260–268. doi:10.1016/S0749-
3797(02)00514-7.
Crethar, H. C., Torres Rivera, E., & Nash, S. (2008). In
search of common threads: Linking multicultural,
feminists, and social justice counseling paradigms.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 86(3),
269–278. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00509.x.
Davis, S. D., Lebow, J. L., & Sprenkle, D. H. (2012).
Common factors of change in couple therapy. Behav-
ior Therapy, 43(1): 36–48. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2011.
01.009.
Gauthier, L. M., & Levendosky, A. A. (1996). Assess-
ment and treatment of couples with abusive male
partners: Guidelines for therapists. Psychotherapy, 33,
403–415. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.33.3.403.
Greenspun, W. (2000). Embracing the controversy: A
metasystemic approach to the treatment of domestic
violence. In P. Papp (Ed.), Couples on the fault line:
New directions of the therapists (pp. 152–177). New
York: Guilford.
8 COUPLES COUNSELING
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron,
K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. (2000). Testing the
Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer
typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 68, 1000–1019. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.
6.1000.
Oka, M., & Whiting, J. B. (2011). Contemporary
MFT theories and intimate partner violence: A
review of systemic treatments. Journal of Couple
& Relationship Therapy, 10(1), 34–35. doi:10.1080/
15332691.2011.539173.
AND DOMESTIC V IOLENCE
Shadish, W. R., & Baldwin, S. A. (2002). Meta-analysis
of MFT interventions. In D. H. Sprenkle (Ed.), Effec-
tiveness research in marriage and family therapy (pp.
339–379). Alexandria, VA: American Association of
Marriage and Family Therapy.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E., & Thom-
sen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner vio-
lence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of
multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Jour-
nal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30(3), 305–318.
doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2004.tb01242.x.