Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Regression of sessions on overall mean effect sizes for anger.
- Figure 2.
Mean effect sizes of follow-up periods.
Tables
Characteristic N % Source Form of publication Unpublished 24 25 Published (peer review) 72 75 Design Type of design Random 73 76 Nonrandom-matching 11 11 Nonrandom-equivalent 1 1 Nonrandom-different 7 7 No comparison 4 4 Comparison group Minimal treatment 7 7 No control group 7 7 No treatment 16 16 Other treatment 41 42 Wait list 25 26 Sample size (tx + ct) Under 50 61 63 51 to 100 14 14 101 to 150 1 1 151 and over 7 7 Participants Gender mix Both 52 54 Female 8 8 Male 36 37 Location of studies Australia 4 4 Canada 5 5 Europe 8 8 Japan 1 1 Israel 1 1 United Kingdom 1 1 United States 76 79 Setting of studies College or university 31 32 Community treatment 31 32 Correctional facility 12 12 General hospital 12 12 Police academy 2 3 Psychiatric facility 8 8 Delivery of treatment Treatment format Group 91 94 Individual 5 5 Number of sessions 3 or less 3 3 4 to 7 23 24 8 to 11 48 50 12 to 15 10 10 16 or more 12 12 Delivery personnel Faculty 6 6 Graduate student 39 40 Psychiatrist 9 9 Psychologist 16 16 Therapist 26 27 Manuals used No 37 38 Yes 59 61 Fidelity checks used No 47 49 Yes 49 51 Anger Outcome Description Example of Instruments Anger control The extent that an individual attempts to control the outward expression of anger Multidimensional Anger Inventory: anger (Siegel51) State-Trait-Anger Expression-Inventory (STAXI): anger control (Spielberger, et al.18) Anger expression Outward expression towards individuals, or objects through physical or verbal behaviors Multidimensional Anger Inventory: anger out (Siegel51) State-Trait-Anger Expression-Inventory (STAXI): anger out (Spielberger, et al.18) Anger situation Anger in response to the individual's most intense source of ongoing anger Anger situation rating (Hazaleus and Deffenbacher10) Anger symptom Anger-related physiological arousal Anger symptom (Hazaleus and Deffenbacher10) Driving anger Anger provoked while driving Driving anger scale (Deffenbacher, Oetting and Lynch52) Driving anger expression inventory (Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, Swaim53) General anger Anger in response to a wide range of potential provocations Anger inventory (Novaco54Anger log (Deffenbacher and Stark55) State anger Emotional response that is composed of cognitions of perceived injustice State-Trait-Anger Expression-Inventory (STAXI): state anger (Spielberger, et al.18) Trait anger Stable and consistent pattern of behavior in responding with feelings of anger State-Trait-Anger Expression-Inventory (STAXI): trait anger (Spielberger, et al.18) Type of Anger ES 95% CI N Heterogeneity Statistic Overall anger* 0.76 0.67–0.85 139 Q = 403.1, df 138, p < 0.001 Anger control 0.47 0.38–0.57 39 Q = 43.75, df 38, p = 0.2 Anger expression 0.41 0.33–0.49 59 Q = 64.54, df 58, p = 0.25 Anger situation 0.75 0.62–0.88 31 Q = 43.96, df 30, p < 0.05 Anger symptom 0.75 0.61–0.90 26 Q = 38.75, df 25, p < 0.05 Driving anger 1.35 0.94–1.77 7 Q = 9.05, df 6, p = 0.17 General anger 1.09 0.88–1.13 80 Q = 200.19, df 79, p < 0.001 State anger 0.56 0.40–0.71 37 Q = 67.29, df 36, p < 0.01 Trait anger 0.64 0.50–0.78 66 Q = 211.96, df 65, p < 0.001 * Based on an overall mean score of anger for each treatment effect. Overall anger represents the overall mean of anger scores for each treatment effect. The preceding anger outcomes are presented in crude analysis format for visual comparisons for descriptive purposes only as these are not independent (which explains why the total number of studies for each type of outcome exceeds 139). For all other analyses, an overall mean of anger scores for each treatment effect was calculated or sequential placement of outcomes was performed so that one outcome from each study was used in the analyses to ensure independence. ES, effect size; CI 95%, confidence interval; N, number of studies included in each of these meta-analyses.
Type of Treatment ES 95% CI N1 N2 Heterogeneity Statistic Cognitive 0.83 0.56–1.09 7 160 Q = 2.28, df 6, p = 0.892 Cognitive behavioral therapy* 0.60 0.50–0.69 42 1,846 Q = 129.09, df 41, p < 0.001 Exposure therapy 0.60 0.30–0.89 5 173 Q = 7.22, df 4, p = 0.12 Multicomponent 0.93 0.84–1.01 17 2,651 Q = 81.01, df 16, p < 0.001 Psychodynamic therapy 1.40 1.14–1.72 2 188 Q = 1.07, df 1, p = 0.3 Psychoeducational treatment 0.37 0.14–0.59 4 74 Q = 1.29, df 3, p = 0.7 Relaxation-Based therapy 0.67 0.56–0.78 37 1,297 Q = 45.74, df 36, p = 0.12 Skills training 0.85 0.70–1.01 13 822 Q = 48.25, df 12, p < 0.001 Stress inoculation 0.58 0.30–0.85 10 229 Q = 26.54, df 9, p < 0.01 Based on an overall mean score of anger for each treatment effect. ES, effect size; CI 95 %, confidence interval; N1, number of studies; N2, number of subjects (treatment plus control).
* Two effects were removed due to extreme scores beyond 3.00.
Type of Treatment % Treatment Success Rate % Comparison Success Rate % Absolute Difference Cognitive 69.2 30.7 38.5 Cognitive behavioral therapy 65.7 35.2 30.5 Exposure therapy 65.4 34.6 30.8 Multicomponent 70.4 29.5 40.9 Psychodynamic therapy 78.8 21.1 57.7 Psychoeducational treatment 59.2 40.8 18.4 Relaxation-based therapy 66.7 33.3 33.4 Skills training 71.5 28.5 43.0 Stress inoculation 69.3 30.6 38.7
