Aggression replacement training (ART) for reducing antisocial behavior in adolescents and adults: A systematic review

Abstract

Objective: Aggression Replacement Training (ART) is a multimodal program aiming at replacing antisocial behaviors by actively teaching desirable behaviors. The program is frequently used and has been provided within a wide variety of settings, but its effectiveness in its own right has not been addressed in previous reviews. This systematic review examines the effect of ART on antisocial behavior in young people and adults. Methods: Published and unpublished literature was searched to identify randomized and non-randomized studies comparing ART for adults and youth with usual care, other interventions, or no intervention. Primary outcomes included recidivism in antisocial behavior, while secondary outcomes were related to social skills, anger management and moral reasoning. Findings: This review identified 16 studies with considerable clinical and methodological diversity. The methodological quality and the post-intervention follow-up of the studies were limited. Almost half of the studies were conducted by researchers who have vested interests in the intervention. Conclusions: There is an insufficient evidence-base to substantiate the hypothesis that ART has a positive impact on recidivism, self-control, social skills or moral development in adolescents and adults. Further research is warranted by independent investigators exploring the effects of ART on clearly-defined target groups using high standard evaluation designs.

Effectiveness of aggression replacement training in reducing criminal recidivism among convicted adult offenders

“…Apart from the previous, preliminary Swedish SPPS report, the remaining three studies in theBrännström et al (2016) review altogether included 244 "treated" offenders. Apart from the previous, preliminary Swedish SPPS report, the remaining three studies in theBrännström et al (2016) review altogether included 244 "treated" offenders.…”

“…Although initial evaluation suggested encouraging results for ART (Goldstein & Glick, 1987), later reports indicated mixed effectiveness in reducing recidivism, self-control, social skills, or moral development for children and adolescents (Brännström et al, 2016;Hornsveld, Kraaimaat, Muris, Zwets, & Kanters, 2014). To our knowledge, there are very few informative outcome evaluations of ART for adult offenders.…”

Program Evaluation Challenges: Is Aggression Replacement Training (ART) Effective?

“…Therefore, Goldstein et al's analyses and subsequent conclusions may not be representative of ART effectiveness in real-world settings. In a meta-analysis of all ART programs reported in the literature between 1987 and 2014, Brannstrom et al (2016) could only find 16 studies of ART as a stand-alone program and the methodological quality was limited. Half of these studies were reported by researchers with vested interest in the outcomes.…”

“…Further, as there were no consistencies in evaluation measures used (recidivism was primary outcome measure and change in any of the three domains-anger control, social skill and moral reasoning-were secondary outcomes) or timing of assessments, a statistical meta-analysis was not possible. Brannstrom et al (2016) concluded that ART only seems successful in that it is wide-spread and frequently used for offender populations and recommended that more reliable and valid research methodology be used to explore the specific components of ART with clearly defined target groups and well established protocols.…”

“…Although the available literature strongly suggests that ART is effective in teaching social skills, improving anger management skills, and reducing self-reported anger and recidivism rates among juvenile delinquents (Goldstein et al, 2004), a recent meta-analysis of ART interventions for adults and adolescents concluded something different. Brannstrom, Kaunitz, Andershed, South & Smedslund (2016) conducted a systematic review of ART programs for adults and adolescents and initially identified 749 research reports of ART evaluations with adolescents and adults. However, only 16 studies were included in their review and they had considerable clinical and methodological diversity.…”