Woodin 2010.
| Methods | RCT. Couples allocated randomly to treatment or control | |
| Participants | 50 college dating couples (aged 18‐26 years, female mean 19.64 years (SD 1.26), male mean 20.28 years (SD 1.42)) who had reported at least 1 act of male to female physical aggression in their current relationship (who may be at higher risk of violence) at a state university in New York, USA (secondary prevention) | |
| Interventions | Intervention: 2‐hour screening interview followed by 45 minutes of motivational feedback (targeting physical aggression and its risk factors) to individuals and 15 minutes of motivational feedback to couples. The feedback was provided by advanced graduate students in clinical psychology with 20 hours of training who followed a manual. 25 couples Control: minimal, non‐motivational feedback after their screening interview. 25 couples |
|
| Outcomes | Rate of partner aggression, as measured by the Conflict Tactics Scale 2, AUDIT, Justification of Verbal/Coercive Tactics Scale, Attitudes About Aggression in Dating Situations, Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Investment Model Scale and Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories | |
| Follow‐up | 3, 6 and 9 months post‐test | |
| Notes | ‐ | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Couples were "randomly assigned" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not stated |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Low attrition rates: 88% of couples completed 3 months' follow‐up; 90% completed 6 months' follow‐up; and 62% completed 9 months' follow‐up |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Summary statistics reported (β, SE and t‐values) but no absolute values |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Blinding not possible. Training given to facilitators and manual, but as intervention is heavily driven by facilitator and no mention of monitoring to ensure adherence to protocol, performance bias is possible |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not stated |