Aggression Control Therapy for violent forensic psychiatric patients: First results

Abstract

Aggression Control Therapy (ACT), a treatment programme developed in the Netherlands for violent forensic psychiatric patients with a conduct disorder or antisocial personality disorder, was investigated in two studies. In the first study, the personality traits and problem behaviours of these patients and a normative Dutch population were compared, and then the traits and behaviours of patients who completed the ACT were compared with those who dropped out. In the second study, the ACT was evaluated by comparing pre-treatment, post-treatment, and follow-up data. Two control conditions were added: a waiting-list period for outpatients and a control group for inpatients. The patients who received ACT were psychologically unstable, egoistic, and prone to anger. They reported little social anxiety when exhibiting limit-setting behaviour (e.g. giving criticism) but tended to avoid approaching behaviour (e.g. giving a compliment). Results suggested that ACT diminished aggressive behaviour but did not change socially competent behaviour. The limitations of the two studies are mentioned and suggestions for further research into the effects of ACT are presented.

Evaluating the Violence Prevention Program: group and individual changes in aggression, anger, self-control, and empathy

“…Participants reported to have better capacity to control their impulses at the end of program as well. Previous research has shown that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was effective in reducing anger and aggression in various populations, such as incarcerated offenders (Blacker et al, 2008), forensic outpatients (Hornsveld et al, 2008), and individuals with mental illnesses or mild mental disabilities (Reiss, Quayle, Brett, & Meux, 1998;Taylor, Novaco, Gillmer, Robertson, & Thorne, 2005). Our research extends these findings by demonstrating that CBT can be effective in reducing anger and aggression for youth offenders as well.…”

“…Criminogenic needs that have been identified as being relevant to youth aggression include: (i) anger (Bryan & Day, 2006;Howells, 2004), (ii) impulsivity (Henry, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva, 1996;Piquero, MacDonald, Dobrin, Daigle, & Cullen, 2005), and (iii) empathy deficits (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004;Lauterbach & Hosser, 2007). Empirical findings suggest a promising effect of interventions on reducing the aggression and anger of violent offenders (Blacker, Watson, & Beech, 2008;Davidson et al, 2009;Hornsveld, Nijman, & Kraaimaat, 2008). However, less is known about the effects of treatments on self-control and empathy (Day, Casey, & Gerace, 2010;Mann & Barnett, 2013).…”

Preventing aggressive incidents and seclusions in forensic care by means of the ‘Early Recognition Method’

“…For instance, Hornsveld and Nijman (2005) reported a dropout rate of 36% from a cognitive behavioural treatment programme for psychotic forensic patients. In antisocial violent patients Hornsveld et al. (2008a) found a lower drop‐out rate of 13% withdrawal rate of forensic inpatients from an Aggression Control Therapy (which was derived from Aggression Replacement Therapy).…”

Alexithymia in Dutch violent forensic psychiatric outpatients

“…A standard set of questionnaires was submitted individually to the patients prior to a cognitive-behavioural group therapy (Hornsveld et al, 2008). In this study the scores on these questionnaires were used to determine the concurrent and discriminant validity of the BVAQ.…”