Journal of Family Social Work

ISSN: 1052-2158 (Print) 1540-4072 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfsw20

Individual relationship education program as a

prevention method for intimate partner violence

Jesse Owen, Becky Antle & Kelley Quirk

To cite this article: Jesse Owen, Becky Antle & Kelley Quirk (2017) Individual relationship
education program as a prevention method for intimate partner violence, Journal of Family Social
Work, 20:5, 457-469, DOI: 10.1080/10522158.2017.1300112

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2017.1300112

Published online: 07 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 89

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wfsw20
JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
2017, VOL. 20, NO. 5, 457–469
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2017.1300112

Individual relationship education program as a prevention

method for intimate partner violence
Jesse Owena, Becky Antleb, and Kelley Quirkc
a
University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA; bUniversity of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky USA;
c
Department Human Development and Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Colorado, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Intimate partner violence (IPV) can have detrimental effects on Received 28 February 2016
the lives of partners and children. The authors examined the Revised 15 September 2016
effectiveness of a relationship education program, titled Within Accepted 3 November 2016
My Reach (WMR), to prevent IPV in a naturalistic nonrando- KEYWORDS
mized adult sample. The sample included participants who Controlling behaviors;
endorsed no physical violence in their relationship and no to domestic violence; intimate
very low controlling behaviors at pretest. At 6-month follow-up partner violence; PREP;
the participants in the WMR group reported statistically sig- relationship education
nificant fewer controlling behaviors than the comparison
group (d = .45). Although there were no statistically significant
differences between the WMR and comparison group in phy-
sical violence at 6-month follow-up, the findings were in still
favor of the WMR group (d = .15).

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pandemic that can leave individuals

physically and emotionally affected for decades with the impact reaching to
nearly every facet of the human experience, such as physical injuries, psy-
chological health, social connectedness, occupational opportunities, and aca-
demic functioning (e.g., Ackard et al., 2007; Black et al., 2011; Leone,
Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004). For example, physical injuries occur in
9% to 15% of cases of IPV, with more than one half of those cases ending up
in the emergency room (e.g., Black et al., 2011; Foshee et al., 1996; Straus,
Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). There are many psychological
conditions associated with being exposed to or the victim of IPV such as
substance dependency, problems with self-esteem, acting out (e.g., fights,
risky sexual activity), depression, and suicidality (Ackard, Eisenberg, &
Neumark-Sztainer, 2007; Ackard & Neumark-Sztainer, 2002; National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence [NCADV], 2015; Silverman et al.,
2001). To make matters worse, the effects of IPV can be transmitted through
the generations affecting children immediately and in subsequent years as
their primary role models of relationship functioning are marred with

CONTACT Jesse Owen jesse.owen@du.edu University of Denver, 1999 E Evans, Denver, CO 80208 USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wfsw.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
458 J. OWEN ET AL.

violence and hatred (e.g., Knickerbocker, Heyman, Slep, Jouriles, &

McDonald, 2007; Smith et al., 2003).
IPV is relatively common with estimates ranging from 25% to 40% of
romantic relationships experience some kind of IPV (e.g., Lawrence &
Bradbury, 2001; NCADV, 2015; Rhoades, Stanley, Kelmer, & Markman,
2010); however, not all IPV experiences are similar as the acts range in
severity. Johnson (1995, 2008) differentiated between three types of IPV:
(1) situation couple violence, (2) violent resistance, and (4) intimate terror-
ism. Situational couple violence typically includes mutual violence that arises
from arguments and lack of conflict management abilities. Violent resistance
occurs when one is attempting to defend from offensive attacks. Lastly,
intimate terrorism typically stems from pathological characterological
motives. More specifically, intimate terrorism reflects controlling behaviors,
fear tactics, and intimidation that commonly include physical abuse
(Johnson, 1995, 2008). Clearly, any of these types of IPV are not healthy;
however, there is a need to examine the diversity in the range of psycholo-
gical, relational, and physical aspects of these terrible experiences (see, e.g.,
Hardesty et al., 2015).
Given the deleterious effects of IPV on individuals, children, and families
it is clear interventions are needed to assist those affected by such actions. At
the same time, prevention efforts may be helpful to assist individuals in
identifying risk factors or warning signs that could be a prelude to IPV
(Campbell, 2004). To date, most prevention efforts have focused on adoles-
cents or young adults (e.g., Foshee et al., 2000; Wolfe et al., 2003; Whitaker
et al., 2006) or have been secondary prevention or intervention efforts (e.g.,
Bradley, Friend, & Gottman, 2011; McFarlane, Groff, O’Brien, & Watson,
2006). Although these efforts are laudable, there is a gap in our understand-
ing of how to prevent IPV.
In this spirit, relationship education programs (REPs) have been utilized as
preventative approaches to ward off relationship distress and conflict as well as
instill positive cycles of trust and commitment. Empirically, REPs with couples
have at times shown lower levels of IPV as compared to control groups
(Markman et al., 1993); however, other studies have shown no effect or a negative
effect (Wood, McConnell, Moore, Clarkwest, & Hsueh, 2010). Recently, there has
been an emergence of REPs that target individuals as compared to couples (e.g.,
Owen & Rhoades, 2012; Pearson, Stanley, & Rhoades, 2008). These programs
might be better suited to confront difficult relational issues, especially for those
who are questioning the safety of their relationships. For example, Within My
Reach (WMR) was created, in concert with leading IPV experts, to address several
deficits in current REPs (Pearson et al., 2008). In particular, WMR addresses
multiple aspects of IPV, including how to address controlling behaviors as well as
physical aggressions via lessons on understanding family patterns of relationship
functioning, making relationship decisions (including when to have a bottom
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 459

line), and developing better communication and problem solving skills (see
Rhoades & Stanley, 2011 for review).
Empirically, Antle, Karam, Christensen, Barbee, and Sar (2011) examined the
effects of WMR with 419 individuals (163 at 6-month follow-up) and found a
decline in physical aggression and controlling behaviors from pretest to 6-
month follow-up (ds ranged from 0.19 – 0.21; also see Antle et al., 2013).
Similarly, Visvanathan, Richmond, Winder, and Koenck (2015) examined the
effects of WMR with 706 individuals. They found for those in relationships
relationship functioning was improved on a range of outcomes, such as rela-
tionship quality, communication, and confidence (ds ranged from 0.13 – 0.38).
Despite the positive effects demonstrated here, the small-sized effects could be
masking the preventative effects of the program. That is, if some individuals
started the program with little to no IPV and continued to not experience IPV,
then the change from pretest to 6-month follow-up would be inconsequential,
reducing the positive effects whereas the lack of IPV would still be a desired
outcome. Alternatively, it could be that REP or couple therapy are not appro-
priate mechanisms for changing IPV. For instance, DeBoer, Rowe, Frousakis,
Dimidjian, and Christensen (2012) found that 75% of women who reported
IPV and received couple therapy still reported IPV posttreatment. At the same
time, WMR is multifaceted, and the aims are to assist those in dangerous
relationships as well as be a primary prevention agent for individuals who are
not currently in an aggressive or violent relationship.
The current study examined the primary preventative nature of WMR. We
examined the effectiveness of WMR to prevent IPV, specifically controlling
behaviors and physical aggression. We compared those individuals who
reported no physical aggression and very low levels of controlling behaviors
at pretest who participated in WMR versus a comparison group who did not
participate in WMR or any REP. We opted for these restrictions to ensure
that our sample would qualify for the typical primary prevention status (vs.
an intervention status). In full transparency, our grant stipulations did not
allow for a random assignment or an experimental design. As such, our
control group was a wait-list condition drawn from the same population as
the WMR condition. Nonetheless, we posited that WMR participants would
report lower levels of physical aggression (Hypothesis 1) and controlling
behaviors (psychological aggression; Hypothesis 2) in their relationship at
6-month follow-up as compared to the control condition.

Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from a social service delivery system for the large
urban area. The social delivery system is a network of eight sites, which offers
460 J. OWEN ET AL.

colocation of social service agencies, such as child protection, income assistance,

public health, school-based services, mental health and substance abuse ser-
vices, and other family support services. Clients were predominantly individuals
of low income who are involved with social services due to issues of economic
need, family violence, or other health/mental health concerns. At each site,
social service workers screened the participants for eligibility criteria related to
these risk factors and receipt of corresponding social services.
Our focus here was to examine the preventative nature of WMR, and
accordingly we excluded participants who reported IPV at pretest.
Specifically, we excluded participants who had a Conflict Tactics Scale-physical
aggression score over zero (any physical violence in their relationship) and
excluded participants with an average (or mean) score over 1 (range 0 – 4) on
the 24 items from the Controlling Behaviors Scale (CBS; i.e., this would equate
to anyone who scored 24 or higher on the CBS). Additionally, we excluded
participants who were not in a romantic relationship. Figure 1 shows the

N = 1102
(n = 882 WMR;
n = 220 Control)

N =739 (WMR) N = 185 (Control)

- 143 excluded for not - 35 excluded for not
being in a rom rel being in a rom rel

N = 331 N = 128
- 408 excluded due to - 57 excluded due to
pre CTS > 0 pre CTS > 0

N = 210 N = 88
- 121 excluded due to - 40 excluded due to
CBS > 1 CBS > 1

N = 46
N = 108
- 42 excluded due to
- 102 excluded due to
no 6-month FU
no 6-month FU

Figure 1. Inclusion/exclusion flowchart. Note. rom rel = romantic relationship; CTS = conflict
tactic scale; CBS = controlling behaviors scale; FU = follow up.
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 461

number of participants excluded based on the criteria listed above by group

(WMR vs. control). Consequently, our final sample only included those
individuals who reported no physical aggression and no to very low controlling
behaviors in their relationship prior to the intervention.
The final sample (N = 154) included 23 (14.8%) men, 130 (83.9%) women,
and one participant did not indicate gender. The mean age of the participants
was 37.27 (SD = 12.13). The ethnicity of the participants was 64.5% African
American (n = 100), 32.9% White (n = 51), 0.6% Hispanic (n = 1), 0.6%
multiethnic (n = 1), and one participant did not report. On average, there
were 1.5 children living in the participants’ home (SD = 1.47). In terms of
relationship status, 38% were never married (also includes currently dating),
15% were living together, 15% were married, 19% were divorced, 4% were
widowed, 1% were remarried, and 8% were in the “other” relationship
category. The median income was below $20,000 (USD). There were no
significant differences between the two groups for any of the demographic
variables (see Results section).

Measures
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale
The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus et al., 1996) CTS-physical
aggression subscale has eight items that reflect a range of physically aggres-
sive actions (e.g., pushed, grabbed, hit, threw something). The items were
rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (always). The CTS is the
most widely used measure of relationship violence. In the current study, the
Cronbach’s alpha was .95 at 6-month follow-up. No alpha was computed for
CTS at pretest because all participants had a CTS score of zero, thus there
was no variability.

Controlling Behaviors Scale

he Controlling Behaviors Scale (CBS; Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003) is a
measure of controlling behaviors across five domains (i.e., economic restric-
tion, verbal threatening, isolation from others, emotional abuse, and intimi-
dation). The CBS is based upon M. Johnson’s (1995) model of domestic
violence to differentiate between types and severity of violence. For purposes
of this study, we utilized the total scale score. The 24 items were rated on a 5-
point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (always). The psychometrics for the
CBS have been supportive with Cronbach’s alpha scores ranging from .85 to
.95 and good discriminant validity for students, women in domestic violence
shelters, male prisoners, and couples attending domestic violence treatment
programs (Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2003; Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003;
2005). In the current study, the Cronbach alpha at pretest was .70 and at 6-
month follow-up was .92.
462 J. OWEN ET AL.

Within My Reach
Participants participated in the 16-hour WMR healthy relationships pro-
gram, a REP. WMR is delivered to individuals versus couples to meet a
number of the challenges in REPs, including how to have discussions about
IPV and other high-risk activities (e.g., substance abuse), ambiguous com-
mitment between partners, and feeling coerced to enter or stay in maladap-
tive relationships, in a safe environment. WMR has several modules, which
focus on communication and conflict-resolution skills, relationship decision-
making strategies, understanding personal boundaries, and relationship
safety/violence prevention. This program attempts to balance relationship
enhancement with understanding dysfunctional and dangerous relationships
that may need to be ended (Antle, Barbee, & van Zyl, 2008). For instance,
participants learn how relationships develop in healthy deliberate steps (e.g.,
through clear expectations, collaborative decision making, and with clear
commitment, such as having a joint vision for the relationship, having a
strong couple identity, mutual sacrificing behaviors). Participants are also
challenged to understand what behaviors they find to be acceptable based on
the models they have seen/experienced in their lives, as well as determine
what they believe should be their “bottom line” of unacceptable behaviors.
Additionally, the program also includes communication skills training,
which is a common feature of many REPs. These activities teach how to
not only identify risky or negative communication patterns, but also how to
validate other people in dialogues (e.g., through empathy and reflections).
Instead of working with a partner, individuals pair up to practice the skills.
Participants are encouraged to use these skills with others in their lives, and
there is a supplemental workbook for all participants. The program has
specific modules for working with IPV and resources are provided to all
participants to receive adequate care for them and if relevant for their
children.
WMR is a relatively new REP and is unique in that it targets individuals
(vs. couples) in its approach. Three samples, from overlapping data sets, have
shown positive small to medium-sized effects on a range of relationship
factors, including reductions in IPV, communication quality, relationship
adjustment, and relationship confidence (Antle et al., 2011, 2013; Owen,
Antle, & Barbee, 2013). Other comparable REPs with similar Prevention
and Relationship Education Program (PREP) foundation, focusing on only
one partner, have also demonstrated similar effects (see Owen & Rhoades,
2012).
The leaders of the WMR curriculum were primarily African American
(70.0%) and worked in local social service agencies. These leaders were
trained in providing culturally competent care via their social service agen-
cies and were also trained about cultural dynamics (e.g., being aware of and
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 463

attending to cultural norms and values of participants). Additionally, the

WMR program was pilot tested with participants with similar demographics
to those in the current study during the development of the curriculum.
Leaders were trained in WMR prior to implementation (3-day training).
There were two leaders per group, and they conducted WMR in groups of
participants (group size ranged from 5 – 20). The sessions were delivered
over the course of 4 weeks (4 hours per session).

Procedure
Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the authors’
university. A full consent form was used prior to the administration of the
pretest. The pretest was administered on the first day of training prior to the
initiation of the lecture. The first posttest was administered on the last day of
training prior to dismissal. The 6-month follow-up assessment was mailed to
participants. Participants were provided with stamped envelopes to return
tests upon completion and receive $15 compensation for returning these 6-
month posttests. Adherence assessment data were collected through live
observation of the sessions and the adherence scores were high (M = 72.5,
SD = 7.62 out of a possible 78; see Owen, Antle, & Barbee, 2014).

Results
Preliminary analyses
Even though the inclusion criteria for the study restricted the range of pretest
scores, there was a significant difference between the WMR group and
control group in their pretest levels on the CBS, t(153) = 2.364, p = .019,
d = .42, with participants in the control group (M = 8.16, SD = 6.00)
reporting lower CBS scores as compared to the participants in the WMR
group (M = 10.80, SD = 6.01). There were no differences between the groups
in CTS pretest scores as we only included individuals who reported no
physical aggression (i.e., CTS = 0 at pretest for both groups). Additionally,
we examined whether the groups were similar on other factors (demo-
graphics). There were no statistical differences between the control and
WMR group for gender, χ2(1, N = 153) = 1.23, p = .267, for ethnicity, χ2(3,
N = 153) = 1.73, p = .631, or for age, t(150) = .378, p = .706. As such, we only
utilized CBS pretest scores as a covariate in the main analysis.

Primary analyses
We examined whether participants in WMR and control groups differed in
their reports of physical aggression (Hypothesis 1) and controlling behaviors
464 J. OWEN ET AL.

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for controlling behaviors and Conflict Tactics Scales at 6-
month follow-up.
CBS CTS CBS ≥ 24 CTS any
M (SD) M (SD) % (n) % (n)
WMR group (n = 109) 11.04 (10.56) 1.04 (3.84) 10.1 (11) 26.6 (29)
Control group (n = 46) 16.80 (16.80) 1.68 (5.20) 21.7 (10) 21.7 (10)
Effect size (d) 0.45 0.15
Notes. CBS = Controlling Behaviors Scale; CTS = Conflict Tactics Scale (Physical Aggression subscale);
WMR = Within My Reach.
The means reported reflect the adjusted means after controlling for differences in CBS-pretest scores.
Effect sizes Cohen’s d = .20 (small-sized effect), .50 (medium-sized effect), .80 (large-sized effect).

(Hypothesis 2) at 6-month follow-up. To do so, we conducted a multivariate

ANCOVA with prevention status (i.e., WMR vs. control group) as the
independent variable, CBS and CTS at 6-month follow-up as the dependent
variables, and CBS pretest scores as the control variable. The main effects
were statistically significant for prevention status (WMR vs. control),
λ = .952, F(2, 154) = 3.77, p = .030, η2 = .048. More specifically, the
between-subject effect for CTS at 6-month follow-up was not statistically
significant for prevention status, F(1, 154) = 0.73, p = .39, η2 = .005 (not
supporting Hypothesis 1). However, there was a statistically significant dif-
ference between WMR and control group for CBS at 6-month follow-up, F(1,
154) = 6.76, p = .010, η2 = .043 (supporting Hypothesis 2). As seen in Table 1,
WMR group had lower CBS scores at 6-month follow-up than the control
group, after controlling for the differences in CBS scores at pretest, d = .45 a
medium sized-effect. The effect size difference for CTS at 6-month follow-up
was d = .15, a small-sized effect favoring the WMR group.
Given that our variables were not normally distributed, we also dichot-
omized CTS at 6-month follow-up (0 = no physical aggression, 1 = any
physical aggression or CTS > 0) and CBS at 6-month follow-up (0 = CBS <
24, 1 = CBS > 24) to compare across the groups. There was no statistically
significant difference between the two groups for CTS, χ2(1, N = 154) = .45,
p = .50. However, similar to above there was a significant effect for CBS, χ2(1,
N = 154) = 3.75, p = .05. Collectively, these results support Hypothesis 2
(controlling behaviors), however, they do not support Hypothesis 1 (physical
aggression).

Discussion
Our findings provide some initial support for WMR as a preventative
approach for specific aspects of IPV, specifically emotional abuse and con-
trolling behaviors. Participants in the WMR group endorsed moderately
lower controlling behaviors as compared to the control group (d = .45).
These differences were evident after controlling for the initial disparities
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 465

between the two groups. That is, participants in the control group reported,
on average, fewer controlling behaviors in their relationships prior to starting
the program, suggesting that the control group was better adjusted as com-
pared to the WMR group. Still, the lack of random assignment in the study
will render our conclusions as preliminary at this point.
This is the first known study of WMR as a preventative method for IPV.
Several recent studies have pointed to the importance of initial levels of
relationship distress and/or violence within relationship education programs
(Howell, Krafsky, McAllister, & Collins, 2013; Hsueh et al., 2012; Petch,
Halford, Creedy, & Gamble, 2012). For example, findings of a study done
by Bradford and colleagues (Bradford, Skogrand, & Higginbotham, 2011) of
a government-supported couple relationship education (CRE) program
found that 10% of individuals were at moderate to severe risk of experiencing
relationship violence and 29% were at minor risk. Furthermore, Bradley et al.
(2011) designed a CRE program particularly targeting couples who were low
income experiencing situational couple violence, with results showing mod-
est success at reducing situational couple violence (also see DeBoer et al.,
2012). Given the obvious negative effects of IPV, there is a clear push to
develop and evaluate effective programs that identify those at greatest risk for
future violence and prevent or reduce the occurrence of such dynamics. As
couples navigate difficult transitions and problems in the future, partners
need to feel safe and supported to sustain healthy and lasting commitments.
By providing individuals with critical skills and awareness, they may be more
likely to prevent and halt any burgeoning instances of violence within their
relationship.
At the same time, participants in the WMR did not outperform the control
group in preventing physical violence. That is, approximately 27% of those in
the WMR group, and 22% of those in the control group reported some
incident of physical violence at 6-month follow-up, respectively.
Participants in both groups were selected because they reported no physical
violence at pretest, thus they were equivalent in that manner. The lack of
differences between the two groups is not ideal and may suggest that
relationship education programs may be limited in scope of what aspects of
relationships can be affected. The effects demonstrated here could be better
accounted for by the mechanisms at work during instances of physical
violence. For instance, in many cases of physical violence the aggressor
may be unable to emotionally regulate (see McNulty & Hellmuth, 2008;
Siegel, 2013). In addition, the WMR group focuses on individuals (not
couples), which means the effects may extend only to one individual part-
ner’s behavior, without influencing a broader relational dynamic, especially
around emotional regulation during difficult conversations for the couple.
Given that the changes in controlling behaviors from pretest to follow up
in the control condition (d = 1.44 from pretest to 6-month follow-up) were
466 J. OWEN ET AL.

in stark contrast to the lack of change in the WMR condition (d = .04), and
these findings are notably different than the lack of differences between
conditions on physical violence, it may be that the WMR program more
directly targeted the psychological aspects and precursors of violence.
Although this is speculative, the low, but increasing, levels of physical
violence may suggest movement toward the earliest characteristics of a
cycle of violence. Thus, it would be important to understand whether these
participants continue in these relationships or use the information about
healthy relationships to make adjustments. Accordingly, we encourage future
studies to examine the prevention of IPV in an experimental paradigm, with
follow up assessments that stem multiple years. In doing so, researchers can
also examine the potential effects of WMR on partner selection as well.
Although the lack of randomization to experimental and control groups is
a limitation of the current study, there were also a few other notable limita-
tions. First, we only utilized self-report data of IPV from one partner in the
relationship, which limits our understanding of the full relationship
dynamics. That is, some individuals may not feel comfortable disclosing
the level of IPV in their relationship. Second, we only intervened with one
partner, by design, so it is unclear whether the results could have been
enhanced by the inclusion of the other partner (see Owen & Rhoades,
2012). More research is needed to understand how WMR can be effective
as a prevention/intervention. Third, though our sample was racial/ethnically
diverse, the majority of the participants were women. Thus, it is unclear
whether our results would have been different if there were more men in the
interventions, which could be the focus of follow up investigations.
Notwithstanding these limitations, our results provide some preliminary
evidence that WMR might assist in the prevention of some types of IPV,
more specifically controlling behaviors typically associated with emotional
abuse. The small-sized, nonstatistically significant effects for the prevention
of physical abuse provides a reminder that WMR might not be fully effective
as a prevention aid and more follow-up services may be needed. More
specifically, the WMR program was designed to increase participants’ aware-
ness of relationship danger signs, such as negative communication, physical
aggression, and controlling behaviors. Moreover, the program has specific
modules to promote individuals’ understanding of their relationship patterns
as well as developing their sense of directed purpose in their relationship
choices (Pearson et al., 2008). For instance, participants are challenged to
reflect on their relationship choices as they relate to their personal back-
ground, relational history, systemic and environmental influences, and ulti-
mately make healthy choices (e.g., positive communication, proper
boundaries) as they progress in relationships. Relationship awareness has
been linked to healthy relationship functioning, such as lower rates of extra-
dyadic involvement and greater commitment (e.g., Owen, Rhoades, &
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 467

Stanley, 2013; Vennum & Fincham, 2012). Additionally, the WMR program
assists individuals in developing better relationship skills, such as commu-
nication and problem-solving skills (Antle et al., 2011; Visvanathan et al.,
2015) . These facets have been associated with stronger relationships (e.g.,
Markman, Rhoades, Stanley, Ragan, & Whitton, 2010). Ultimately, the cur-
rent study demonstrates the potential protective and preventative nature of
WMR for IPV.

References
Ackard, D. M., Eisenberg, M. E., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007). Long-term impact of
adolescent dating violence on the behavioral and psychological health of male and female
youth. Journal of Pediatrics, 151, 476–481. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.04.034
Ackard, D. M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2002). Date violence and date rape among adoles-
cents: Associations with disordered eating behaviors and psychological health. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 26, 455–473. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00322-8
Antle, B. F., Barbee, A. P., & Van Zyl, M. A. (2008). A comprehensive model for child welfare
training evaluation. Child and Youth Services Review, 30, 1063–1080. doi:10.1016/j.
childyouth.2008.02.002
Antle, B. F., Karam, E., Christensen, D. N., Barbee, A. P., & Sar, B. K. (2011). An evaluation of
healthy relationship education to reduce intimate partner violence. Journal of Social Work,
14, 387–406.
Antle, B. F., Sar, B., Christensen, D., Ellers, F., Barbee, A., & Van Zyl, M. (2013). The impact
of the Within My Reach relationship training on relationship skills and outcomes for low-
income individuals. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39, 346–357. doi:10.1111/
j.1752-0606.2012.00314.x
Archer, J., & Graham-Kevan, N. (2003). Do beliefs about aggression predict physical aggres-
sion to partners? Aggressive Behaviour, 29, 41–54. doi:10.1002/ab.10029
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., . . .
Stevens, M. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010
summary report. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_
report2010-a.pdf.
Bradford, K. P., Skogrand, L., & Higginbotham, B. J. (2011). Intimate partner violence in a
statewide couple and relationship education initiative. Journal of Couple and Relationship
Therapy, 10, 169–184. doi:10.1080/15332691.2011.562468
Bradley, R. P. C., Friend, D. J., & Gottman, J. M. (2011). Supporting healthy relationships in
low-income, violent couples: Reducing conflict and strengthening relationship skills and
satisfaction. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 10, 97–116. doi:10.1080/
15332691.2011.562808
Campbell, J. C. (2004). Helping women understand their risk in situations of intimate partner
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1464–1477. doi:10.1177/0886260504269698
DeBoer, K. M., Rowe, L., Frousakis, N. N., Dimidjian, S., & Christensen, A. (2012). Couples
excluded from a therapy trial due to intimate partner violence: Subsequent treatment-
seeking and occurrence of IPV. Psychology of Violence, 2, 28–39. doi:10.1037/a0026175
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Greene, W. F., Koch, G. G., Linder, G. F., & Macdougall, J. E.
(2000). Briefs-The Safe Dates program: 1 year follow-up results. American Journal of Public
Health, 90, 1619–1622. doi:10.2105/AJPH.90.10.1619
468 J. OWEN ET AL.

Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., &
Bandiwala, S. (1996). The Safe Dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and
selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12, 39–47.
Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2005). Investigating four explanations of women’s relation-
ship aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 270–277.
Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: A
test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18,
1247–1270. doi:10.1177/0886260503256656
Hardesty, J. L., Crossman, K. A., Haselschwerdt, M. L., Raffaelli, M., Ogolsky, B.,G., &
Johnson, M. P. (2015). Toward a standard approach to operationalizing coercive control
and classifying violence types. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 833–843. doi:10.1111/
jomf.2015.77.issue-4
Howell, P., Krafsky, K. J., McAllister, S., & Collins, D. (2013). Impact report: Research on the
impact of relationship and marriage education programs in California. Leucadia, CA:
Healthy Relationships California.
Hsueh, J., Alderson, D. P., Lundquist, E., Michalopoulos, C., Gubits, D., Fein, D., & Knox, V.
(2012). The supporting healthy marriage evaluation: Early impacts on low-income families
(OPRE Report 2012-11). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and
Families.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of
violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 283–294. doi:10.2307/
353683
Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: intimate terrorism, violent resistance,
and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Knickerbocker, L., Heyman, R. E., Slep, A. M. S., Jouriles, E. N., & McDonald, R. (2007). Co-
occurrence of child and partner maltreatment definitions, prevalence, theory, and implica-
tions for assessment. European Psychologist, 12, 36–44. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.12.1.36
Lawrence, E., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). Physical aggression and marital dysfunction: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 135–154. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.15.1.135
Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., Cohan, C. L., & Lloyd, S. E. (2004). Consequences of male
partner violence for low-income minority women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66,
472–490. doi:10.1111/jomf.2004.66.issue-2
Markman, H. J., Renick, M. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M., & Clements, M. (1993).
Preventing martial distress through communication and conflict management training:
a 4-year and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 70.
Markman, H. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Ragan, E. P., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). The
premarital communication roots of marital distress and divorce: The first five years of
marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 289–298. doi:10.1037/a0019481
McFarlane, J. M., Groff, J. Y., O’Brien, J. A., & Watson, K. (2006). Secondary prevention of
intimate partner violence: A randomized controlled trial. Nursing Research, 55, 52–61.
doi:10.1097/00006199-200601000-00007
McNulty, J. K., & Hellmuth, J. C. (2008). Emotion regulation and intimate partner violence in
newlyweds. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 794–797. doi:10.1037/a0013516
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV). (2015). What is domestic violence?
Retrieved from http://ncadv.org/learn-more/what-is-domestic-violence.
Owen, J., Antle, B., & Barbee, A. (2013). Alliance and group cohesion in relationship
education: Mechanisms of change. Family Process, 52, 465–476. doi:10.1111/
famp.2013.52.issue-3
 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 469

Owen, J., Antle, B., & Barbee, A. (2014). Does adherence to relationship education curriculum
relate to participants’ outcomes? Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3,
99–109.
Owen, J., & Rhoades, G. (2012). Reducing interparental conflict among parents in conten-
tious child custody disputes: A pilot study of the Working Together program. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 542–555. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2010.00215.x
Owen, J., Rhoades, G., & Stanley, S. (2013). Sliding versus deciding in relationships:
Associations with relationship quality, commitment, and infidelity. Journal of Couple and
Relationship Therapy, 12, 135–149. doi:10.1080/15332691.2013.779097
Pearson, J., Stanley, S., & Rhoades, G. (2008). Within My Reach instructor manual. Denver,
CO: PREP.
Petch, J., Halford, W. K., Creedy, D. K., & Gamble, J. (2012). Couple relationship education at
the transition to parenthood: A window of opportunity to reach high-risk couples. Family
Process, 51, 498–511. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01420.x
Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2011). Using individual-oriented relationship education to
prevent family violence. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 10, 185–200.
doi:10.1080/15332691.2011.562844
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Kelmer, G., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Physical aggression in
unmarried relationships: The roles of commitment and constraints. Journal of Family
Psychology, 24, 678–687. doi:10.1037/a0021475
Siegel, J. (2013). Breaking the links in intergenerational violence: An emotional regulation
perspective. Family Process, 52, 163–178. doi:10.1111/famp.2013.52.issue-2
Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating violence against
adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk beha-
vior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 572–
579. doi:10.1001/jama.286.5.572
Smith, P. H., White, J. W., & Holland, L. J. (2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating
violence among adolescent and college-age women. American Journal of Public Health, 93
(7), 1104–1109.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised
Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal
of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001
Vennum, A., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Assessing decision making in young adults romantic
relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 739–751. doi:10.1037/a0023287
Visvanathan, P. D., Richmond, M., Winder, C., & Koenck, C. H. (2015). Individual-oriented
relationship education: An evaluation study in community-based settings. Family Process,
54, 686–702. doi:10.1111/famp.12116
Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S. R., O’Neil, J. A., Nesius, A. M.,
Mathew, A., and Reese, L. R. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary
prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(2),
151–166.
Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A., Grasley, C., & Reitzel-Jaffe, D. (2003).
Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation. Journal of
Counsulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 279–291. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.279
Wood, R. G., McConnell, S., Moore, Q., Clarkwest, A., & Hsueh, J. (2010, May). The Building
Strong Families Project: Strengthening unmarried parents’ relationships: The early impacts of
building strong families – executive summary. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc.