Stover, C. S. (2015). Fathers for Change for substance use and intimate partner violence: Initial community pilot. Family Process, 54(4), 600–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12136

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of Participants: 18

Population:

• Age — Not specified
• Race/Ethnicity — 52% African American, 14% European American, 19% Latino, 10% Multiethnic, and 5% Other Ethnicity
• Gender — 100% Male
• Status — Participants were men who were referred by the courts or the Department of Children and Families (DCF) after either an arrest for domestic violence or drug related charges, or a call for an investigation to DCF due to these co-occurring issues.

Location/Institution: Not specified

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations)
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Fathers for Change (F4C) intervention on men with histories of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) or substance abuse. Participants were randomly assigned to F4C or individual drug counseling (IDC). Measures utilized include the Addiction Severity Index 5th Edition (ASI), the TimeLine Follow-back-Spousal Violence and TimeLine Follow-back-Substance Use (TLFB-SV and TLFB-SA), the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), the Coparenting Relationship Scale (CRS), the Child Interactive Behavior Rating, and modified Client Satisfaction Questionnaire 8. Results indicate that men in the F4C group: (1) were more likely to complete treatment; (2) reported significantly greater satisfaction with the program; (3) reported a trend toward less IPV; and (4) exhibited significantly less intrusiveness in coded play interactions with their children following treatment than fathers in the IDC group. Men in both groups reported less violence during and following intervention on the CTS2. Both groups had significantly less violence over time. There was a trend toward greater reductions in violence in the F4C group, but it was not significant. Men’s reports of their own and their partners’ violence showed a reduction over time for both groups. There were no significant differences between groups on the ASI. Both groups reduced their substance use during treatment, with 90% of the sample maintaining abstinence throughout. Limitations include the small sample size, the sample included a limited range of substance abuse, and reliance on self-reported data. Limitations include the small sample size, the sample included a limited range of substance abuse, and reliance on self-reported data.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 3 months.

Beebe, R., Fish, M. C., Grasso, D., Bernstein, B., DiVietro, S., & Stover, C. S. (2023). Reducing family violence through child welfare intervention: A propensity score-matched study of Fathers for Change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(21–22), 11666–11691. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231186121

Type of Study: Pretest–posttest study with a nonequivalent control group (Quasi-experimental)
Number of Participants: 594

Population:

• Age — Not specified
• Race/Ethnicity — 40% White, 32% Hispanic, 22% Black, and 7% Other
• Gender — 100% Male
• Status — Participants were families with histories of incident reports with child protective services.

Location/Institution: Urban area of Florida

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations)
The purpose of the study was to test the hypothesis that families with fathers who completed Fathers for Change (F4C) will have significantly lower rates of new child protective services (CPS) reports over a 12-month period compared to a propensity score matching (PSM) sample of families of fathers not referred to F4C. Participants were fathers who completed the F4C intervention and those who were not referred to F4C. Measures utilized include administrative data on reports from the Connecticut Department of Child and Family Services. Results indicate that PSM pairs revealed that control fathers were 2.4 times more likely to have a repeat maltreatment report during the 12-month follow-up period than F4C fathers. Limitations include that the type of maltreatment in the repeat maltreatment reports is not provided; the study was unable to define or account for other interventions that the control group may have received; relied solely on CPS data and thus did not capture non-CPS reported IPV or maltreatment that may have been occurring in either group; examination of the cost effectiveness of implementing F4C was beyond the scope of the current study; the population from which the study drew the sample was limited to heterosexual couples and so results may not generalize to other family types; and with more than 50% Hispanic or non-White participants in both the F4C and control groups, the study did not have the statistical power to test for differences based on race or ethnicity.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 12 months.

Stover, C. S., Holland, M. L., Martin, E., Modanesi, E., Fish, M. C., & Beebe, R. (2024). Comparing in person to telehealth delivery of a family violence intervention. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(4), Article e3034. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.3034

Type of Study: Pretest–posttest study with a nonequivalent control group (Quasi-experimental)
Number of Participants: 311

Population:

• Age — Mean=33.7 years
• Race/Ethnicity — 136 White, 98 Hispanic, 51 Black, and 9 Multiracial or Other
• Gender — 192 Male and 119 Female
• Status — Participants were fathers and their female coparents (referred to as mothers going forward) who were enrolled in services at one of six IPV-FAIR sites across the state of Connecticut.

Location/Institution: Connecticut

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations)
The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of the Fathers for Change (F4C) intimate partner violence (IPV) intervention delivered by telehealth compared to delivery in person. Participants were individuals who received the F4C intervention in person versus those who received F4C by telehealth. Measures utilized include the Abusive Behaviour Inventory (ABI), the Co-parenting Relationship Scale (CPRS), the Multidimensional Anger Inventory (MAI), the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21), and the Structured Trauma-Related Experiences and Symptoms Screener (STRESS). Results indicate that parents reported significantly greater symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress prior to treatment if they enrolled prior to COVID than if they enrolled during the pandemic. There were few differences in completion rates or outcomes based on in-person compared to telehealth delivery. Fathers were slightly more likely to complete treatment and attended a significantly higher percentage of their sessions when it was delivered by telehealth during COVID. Fathers reported significantly lower stress scores posttreatment when they received COVID telehealth delivery compared to prior to COVID in-person delivery of F4C. Coparents reported significantly lower rates of fathers' IPV behaviors and children's exposure to conflict at discharge than at intake for both groups. There were no significant differences over time on the MAI. Limitations include that this was not a randomized controlled study; there were many psychosocial and systematic factors that may have contributed to study outcomes unrelated to the intervention; the study did not control for the total contact fathers had with their children (other than if they were living together); and the reliance on self-reported measures.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 3 months.

Stover, C. S., Shayani, D., Lebron Ramos, K., Sullivan, T., & Hayes, A. (in press). Comparing Fathers for Change individual therapy for IPV use to the Duluth Model intervention in individual and group formats. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of Participants: 82

Population:

• Age — Average=33 years
• Race/Ethnicity — 54% Black, 32% Hispanic or Latino, 18% White, 16% Preferred Not to State, 10% Other Racial Identify, and 9% Multiracial, and 1% Native American
• Gender — 100% Male
• Status — Participants were fathers referred by child protection, probation, their attorney, or the agency in the community due to recent intimate partner violence.

Location/Institution: Not specified

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations)
The purpose of the study was to conduct a pilot evaluation of an individual intervention for fathers who use intimate partner violence (IPV), Fathers for Change (F4C), compared to the standard of care for IPV, the Duluth Model Batterer Intervention Program, delivered in its original group format (Duluth-G), or an individual format (Duluth-I) developed for this study. Participants were randomly assigned to F4C, Duluth G, or Duluth-I. Measures utilized include the Abusive Behavior Inventory (ABI), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale-Short Form (DERS-SF), the TimeLine Follow-back Spousal Violence and Harsh Child Discipline (TLFB-SVCD), the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form (WAI-S), and treatment completion/number of sessions was measured by weekly post-treatment research assessments. Results indicate that there were significant differences in the number of sessions completed by intervention type. Significantly more sessions were completed by fathers in the F4C and Duluth-I conditions than in the Duluth-G condition. Analysis also found significant treatment differences in working alliance between treatments, with F4C and Duluth-I having higher working alliance scores than Duluth-G at every timepoint for both client and therapist reports. After adjusting for initial emotion regulation scores, there were no significant differences in emotion regulation across intervention groups. After adjusting for pretreatment IPV scores, there were no significant group differences in post-treatment IPV across the three groups. There was a significant between-group difference in IPV frequency. The mean score for total number of IPV events over time was significantly lower for the F4C group than for the Duluth-G group. The Duluth-I intervention group did not significantly differ from either F4C or Duluth-G. Lastly, there were no significant between-group differences in harsh discipline frequency. Limitations include the small sample size, the study also lacked a fourth treatment group that would have tested F4C delivered in a group format, the study did not include collateral reports of IPV, and the study only presents outcomes during treatment and at the end of treatment.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: None.

The following studies were not included in rating F4C on the Scientific Rating Scale...

Stover, C. S., McMahon, T. J., & Moore, K. (2019). A randomized pilot trial of two parenting interventions for fathers in residential substance use disorder treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 104, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2019.07.003

The purpose of the study was to prepare for a multisite, phase II, randomized clinical trial by demonstrating the feasibility, discriminability, acceptability, and potential efficacy of Fathers for Change (F4C) compared to an active control condition. Participants were randomly assigned to F4C or Dads n’ Kids (DNK). Measures utilized include the Difficulties with Emotion Regulation (DERS), the State-Trait Anger Inventory (STAXI-2), the TimeLine Followback Spousal Violence and Substance Use (TLFBSV,TLFB-SU), the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), the Co-parenting relationship scale (CRS), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), the Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory-Revised (AAPI-2), the Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (PRFQ), the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form, the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale, and a modified version of the Client Satisfaction 8. Results indicate that overall, both groups showed significant reductions in affect dysregulation, anger, and intimate partner violence (IPV). F4C fathers showed significantly greater decreases in affect dysregulation problems. There were no significant differences between groups on IPV but men who received F4C may have been less likely to use substances after leaving residential treatment. Integration of fatherhood focused interventions were possible and welcomed by residents at the facilities. F4C showed some benefit over DNK in terms of affect dysregulation symptoms and substance use relapse. Limitations include the small sample size, the study did not examine a control group that received residential treatment only without fatherhood intervention, the inability to recruit female coparents so reports of IPV and coparenting are based on fathers reports only and may be an underrepresentation of his behaviors, and IPV often occurs without police involvement and over a longer follow-up period than measured here. Note: This article was not used in the rating process since it reports on an adaptation of Fathers for Change. The F4C program duration is normally 18–24 weeks. In this study, the participants only received the intervention for 12 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of aftercare.