Appendix for breakdown of subscale items. Self-esteem - Self-Esteem Scale (SISE; Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001) This measure consists of one item, “I have high Respondents are asked to rate their self-esteem from 1 being low and 5 being high. The SISE has good construct validity, when compared to other measures of self-esteem (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001) Gender stereotyping attitudes - Gender Stereotyping Among Adolescents (Foshee et al., 1998) 11-item measure developed from the SAFE DATES curriculum and is used to evaluate the rigidity of sex roles among adolescents, e.g., “In a dating relationship the boy should be smarter than the girl”. Response choices are on a four-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A high score on this measure indicates that the participant holds fewer traditional gender stereotypes, whilst a high score suggests they hold more. An overall score is calculated by adding all of the items together. Overall scores will be used in data analysis. This measure has an internal consistency of .67 For this study the cronbach’s alpha was measured to be.86 at T1 and .81 at T2. Procedure See above for procedure on questionnaire completion. For the interviews, the facilitator requested one participant from each project take part in an interview with the researcher. Participants’ who volunteered first were selected to take part in an interview immediately after the last session in each group. The interviews took place with only the participant and the researcher present. All participants received a information sheet with named organisations to contact if they needed further support. Quantitative analysis Item 5,
Ethnicity (%) White British Middle Eastern Black British Mixed Ethnicity White Irish White European Any other White Background Black African Prefer not to say 0 50.0 16.7 16.7 0 0 16.7 0 0 60 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 36.8 0 21.1 5.3 10.5 0 5.3 10.5 10.5 33.3 10 16.7 6.7 10 3.3 6.7 6.7 6.7 Religion (%) Christian Jewish Muslim No religion Prefer not to say 16.7 16.7 66.7 0 0 20 0 0 80 0 47.4 0 21.1 21.1 5.3 36.7 3.3 26.7 26.7 3.3 Table 2. Distribution of total scores on questionnaire measures for whole sample. Measures Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Possible score range Score range in sample AOCV* Pre Post Change 38.83 39.40 0.57 7.00 6.95 4.23 -2.36 -2/62 .43 7.65 8.93 3.63 0-44 0-44 - 11-44 11-44 - SISE** Pre Post Change 2.93 3.93 1.00 1.09 0.98 1.25 -.22 -.80 .44 -.81 -.13 -.10 1-5 1-5 - 1-5 2-5 - GSAA** Pre Post Change 36.23 38.60 2.37 6.01 5.48 4.42 -.49 -1.11 .43 -.75 .64 .91 0-44 0-44 - 23-44 11-44 - *Acceptance of Couple Violence Scale ** Single Self-esteem Scale ***Gender Steretyping attitudes among adolescents scale Table 3. Mean and Standard deviation scores on questionnaire measures for each project and entire sample. Questionnaire measures Project 1 (n=6) Project 2 (n=5) Project 3 (n=19) Total Sample (n=30)
Appendix A: Semi Structured Interview Schedule Questions Prompts /Themes to chase up Can you tell me about your experience of the programme? What did you cover? What did you like? What did you not like? What impact do you think the programme has on attitudes towards violence? How did it impact? What are attitudes towards violence? What impact do you think the programme had on gender stereotyped attitudes? How do you think it impacted? What impact do you think the programme had on self-esteem? How did it impact? How do you understand How has it impacted on your ability to support others? What does support mean to you? How would you support someone? What do you think you’ve learned from going through the programme? What will you take away from the programme? IS there anything else you would like to include in the programme? Do you think they should spend any more time on things? Appendix B: University of Surrey Ethical Approval
Table 1. Details of qualitative studies Study Authors Setting and context Sample Size Methods Type of study Quality Indicators Potential barrier Humphreys & Thaira, (2003) UK, 160 Women from 12 Women’s Aid projects completed questionnaires. 20 women (2 from each project) were interviewed 180 Questionnaires completed by 160 women. interview – 20 women participated. Qualitative study - Thick descriptions Interpersonal level Lack of recognition of trauma Mental health problems not seen in the context of abuse Victim blaming Dominance of medical model Woodcock, (2007) USA, Women’s Centre & Shelter 22 interviews Qualitative study - Multiple coders Interpersonal level Difficulty in trusting mental health providers Weren’t offered the right type of treatment Care packages were not integrated across professions Fugate et al (2005) USA, from existing data set – The Chicago Women’s health Risk Study – primary care setting 491 interviews Qualitative study - Multiple coders Interpersonal level Protect partners and preserve relationship Privacy and confidentiality Watson (2009) USA, One university and one private college 5 interviews Qualitative study - Member checking - Reflexive Journal - Negative Intra-personal level Feeling emotionally distressed Interpersonal level Shame and embarrassment
Case Analysis Isolation Being controlled Characteristics of the mental health professional Benson (2010) USA, Referrals from services, local newspaper advertising and word of mouth 8 interviews Qualitative study - Member checking - Reflexive journal - Thick descriptions Intra-personal level Didn’t see it as domestic violence Larsen et al (2012) Germany, Forensic Medical Centre 6 interviews Qualitative study None Interpersonal level Long waiting lists to access to access mental health services Chang et al (2010) USA, Group counselling centres & advertisements posted in outpatient primary care setting and through direct recruitment from clinicians or counsellors. 81 Focus groups – 61 women participated. interview – 20 women Qualitative study - Member checking - Multiple coders - Reviewed codes with experts Intra-personal level Increased severity of domestic violence Increased emotional distress Interpersonal level Access to services Characteristics of the mental health professional Changes within abusive relationship Trevillion et al (2012) UK, Community mental health services 24 interviews Qualitative study - Multiple coders - Negative case analysis Intra-personal level Manage abuse on their own Interpersonal level Professionals not receptive to their disclosure of abuse Access and support Stigma of mental health
problems Macleod et al (2010) UK, Counselling centres & community domestic violence agencies 5 interviews Qualitative study - Negative case analysis - Thick descriptions - Triangulation - Reflexive journal Intra-personal level Socioeconomic status Interpersonal Services not asking about domestic violence Pathologising domestic abuse Lack of acknowledgement of domestic violence in therapy Lack of response Not feeling safe Characteristics of the mental health professional Difficulties with access Simmons et al (2011) USA, two helping agencies 121 Questionnaires Mixed methods study - Multiple coders Interpersonal level Shame & Embarrassment Don’t know what services are available Institutional level No one can protect them
Table 2. Details of quantitative studies Study Authors Setting and context Sample Size Methods Type of study Quality Indicators Potential barrier Ahmed et al (2010) USA, Electronic patient records accessed 6870 Patient record search Quantitative study - No power calculation - No control of confounding variables Intra-personal level Previously diagnosed mental health problem Interpersonal level Characteristics of mental health professional Postmus (2009) USA, three sites: Prison, specialist domestic violence community receiving treatment & a specialist domestic violence community not receiving treatment 423 interviews Quantitative study None Intra-personal level Wanting to handle the problem on own Thought it would get better Interpersonal level Unsure about who to go and see Didn’t think treatment would work Du Mont et al (2005) Canada, data pulled from two existing national household surveys - Violence Against Women Survey (VAWS, 1993 & GSS, 1999) 2765 Telephone survey Quantitative study - No power calculation - No controlling for confounding variables Intra-personal level Didn’t want or need help Incident too minor Interpersonal level Not knowing about services No services available Ashamed/embarrassed Cho (2012) USA, Data taken from existing data set – The National Latino and Asian American Study 346 Telephone or interviews Quantitative study - No power calculation -Small sample size in some Intra-personal level Ethnicity Current mental health
(NLASS) categories Kaukinen (2012) Canada, Data taken from existing data set – The General Social Survey (GSS, 1999) 250 Telephone survey Quantitative study - No power calculation Intra-personal level Education level in relation to male partner Household income Simmons et al (2011) USA, two helping agencies 121 Questionnaires Mixed methods study None Intrapersonal level Shame and embarrassment Interpersonal level Don’t know what services are available Institutional level Confidentiality and trust