A Comparison of Group Anger Management Treatments for Combat Veterans With PTSD: Results From a Quasi-Experimental Trial

Abstract

Difficulty controlling anger is a significant concern among combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), yet few controlled studies have examined the efficacy of anger treatments for this population. This study examined the effects of a group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention compared with a group present-centered therapy (PCT) control condition in male and female combat veterans with PTSD. Thirty-six combat veterans with PTSD and anger difficulties began group treatment (CBT, n = 19; PCT, n = 17). Separate multilevel models of self-rated anger, PTSD symptoms, and disability were conducted using data from baseline, each of 12 treatment sessions, posttreatment, and 3- and 6-month follow-up time points. Significant decreases in anger and PTSD symptoms were observed over time, but no significant differences between CBT and PCT were observed on these outcomes. A significant interaction of therapy by time favoring the PCT condition was observed on disability scores. Gender differences were observed in dropout rates (i.e., 100% of female participants dropped out of CBT). Findings suggest that both CBT and PCT group therapy may be effective in reducing anger in combat veterans with PTSD. Results also highlight potential gender differences in response to group anger treatment.

Keywords

cognitive behavioral therapy present-centered therapy anger aggression veterans war PTSD

Introduction

U.S., Iraq, and Afghanistan combat veterans have reported that controlling anger and aggressive urges are primary readjustment concerns (Sayer et al., 2010; Sippel et al., 2016), and problems with anger and aggression have been found to be particularly pronounced in combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; B. Andrews & Brewin, 2012; Elbogen et al., 2010; Orth & Wieland, 2006). Anger in combat veterans with PTSD is associated with diminished quality of life and functional impairments across domains (Thomas et al., 2010), including ineffective parenting, unsafe driving, employment difficulties, and social alienation (Rodriguez, Holowka, & Marx, 2012). In particular, PTSD and elevated anger has been identified as a risk factor for interpersonal violence among veterans (Miles, Menefee, Wanner, Teten Tharp, & Kent, 2015; Novaco & Chemtob, 2015; Taft et al., 2015), and recent longitudinal research found that anger-related cognitions partially mediated the association between PTSD and aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans (Van Voorhees et al., 2016).

Anger-related readjustment problems can persist for decades (Biddle, Elliott, Creamer, Forbes, & Devilly, 2002; Koenen, Stellman, Stellman, & Sommer, 2003; Novaco & Chemtob, 2002): A study conducted almost 30 years after the end of hostilities in Vietnam found that Vietnam veterans, their spouses, and their clinicians identified problems with anger as the highest priority among several potential psychiatric concerns, including anxiety, depression, and alcohol problems (Biddle et al., 2002). Moreover, anger has been found to increase the likelihood of dropout from treatment for PTSD (Rizvi, Vogt, & Resick, 2009) and to diminish the effectiveness of therapy among those who do engage (Foa, Riggs, Massie, & Yarczower, 1995; Forbes, Creamer, Hawthorne, Allen, & McHugh, 2003; Forbes et al., 2008). The increasing awareness among researchers of the impact of anger on the lives of veterans with PTSD is reflected in clinical practice, such that an estimated 35% to 65% of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) PTSD specialists report providing anger management to their patients (Rosen et al., 2004). Yet few studies have examined the efficacy of treatments for anger problems in veterans with PTSD, leaving clinicians to address this pressing concern with limited empirical guidance.

For decades, the only study of anger treatment for veterans with PTSD was a small trial comparing 12 individually delivered sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; n = 8) to treatment as usual (n = 7) in male Vietnam veterans with combat-related PTSD (Chemtob, Novaco, Hamada, & Gross, 1997). In this study, there was a high (46%) dropout rate. Improvements were found at posttreatment on the total score and the anger control subscale of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI), but not on any of the other subscales or on the Novaco Anger Scale. Gains on the STAXI anger control subscale were maintained 18-month follow-up.

Since that time, only three other randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated individual or group interventions targeting anger or aggression in veterans. Shea, Lambert, and Reddy (2013) adapted Chemtob, Novaco, Hamada, Gross, and Smith’s (1997) CBT intervention and compared it with a supportive intervention (SI) in 23 male Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans with anger problems and at least one other hyperarousal symptom. Results indicated a dropout rate of 33% from the CBT and 27% from SI. Among those who completed treatment, findings suggested greater improvement in CBT versus SI from pretreatment to posttreatment on the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2) Anger Expression Index, as well as on each of the Index’s component subscales (Expression-In, Expression-Out, Anger Control-In, Anger Control-Out; Shea et al., 2013). Taft, Macdonald et al. (2016) developed the 12-week cognitive behavioral Strength at Home (SAH) group therapy program to specifically address partner aggression in male veterans with PTSD. An RCT comparing SAH with enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) in 135 male veterans with a history of partner violence found reductions in partner violence in both arms at posttreatment and 3-month follow-up. Veterans in the SAH demonstrated significantly lower incidence of partner aggression at posttreatment compared with ETAU, though this difference did not remain at 3-month follow-up (Taft, Macdonald, Creech, Monson, & Murphy, 2016). It should be noted that this study evaluated aggression as the primary outcome, and did not specifically measure anger. Finally, Ford, Grasso, Greene, Slivinsky, and DeViva (2018) compared 10 sessions of individual therapy using a manualized present-centered emotion regulation therapy (TARGET) to prolonged exposure (PE) in 31 male service members who had been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Results indicated lower dropout in TARGET than in PE, similar improvements in emotion regulation and hostility in both conditions, and no significant improvement in anger as measured by the STAXI trait anger subscale (Ford et al., 2018). Of the four RCTs evaluating interventions for anger or aggression in veterans, only the SAH intervention was delivered in a group format. Other uncontrolled trials have found that group CBT for anger may reduce anger and aggression from pretreatment to posttreatment in male veterans, including measures of state anger (Gerlock, 1994; Marshall et al., 2010; Morland et al., 2010), trait anger (Gerlock, 1994; Marshall et al., 2010), anger expression (Morland et al., 2010), and physical aggression (Marshall et al., 2010).

Taken together, prior studies have suggested that cognitive behavioral interventions may be effective in reducing anger in veterans. However, only three published studies to date have compared CBT with an active control (Chemtob, Novaco, Hamada, & Gross, 1997; Shea et al., 2013; Taft, Macdonald et al., 2016), and one of these evaluated intimate partner aggression and not anger as the primary outcome (Taft, Macdonald et al., 2016). One controlled study found that present-centered emotion regulation therapy reduced hostility but not anger in veterans postdeployment (Ford et al., 2018). Finally, several uncontrolled studies found CBT to be effective in reducing anger in veterans (Gerlock, 1994; Marshall et al., 2010; Morland et al., 2010). Of note, although research suggests that women veterans struggle with anger and aggression as much as male veterans (Kirby et al., 2012; Sullivan & Elbogen, 2013; Worthen et al., 2014, 2015), no study of individual or group therapy for anger or aggression in veterans to date has included women.

The current pilot study was designed to determine the feasibility of a larger RCT and to characterize the effects of two group interventions for anger and aggression in male and female combat veterans with PTSD. A 12-session, manualized group CBT intervention designed to address information processing biases and physiological hyperarousal associated with anger in combat veterans was compared with a 12-session, manualized group present-centered therapy (PCT) intervention. We hypothesized that veterans in the CBT condition would show greater reductions in self-reported anger and aggression than veterans in the PCT condition. Secondary outcomes included self-report measures of PTSD symptoms and overall disability.

Method

This study was a pilot, two-arm parallel controlled trial comparing group CBT with group PCT. The study was approved by the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System Institutional Review Board (IRB), and has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02233517). All patients gave written informed consent before participation. Data collection occurred between May 1, 2014, and July 5, 2017. Participants were compensated for their participation. Target enrollment was six groups (four all-male groups, two all-female groups) of five to six veterans per group (N = 36), with three groups of CBT and three groups of PCT. Optimal randomization of participants to groups would have required enrollment of 12 eligible participants prior to group assignment (Schnurr, Friedman, Lavori, & Hsieh, 2001), which would have resulted in significant delays between screening and the initiation of treatment. However, requiring participants to wait for several months between study enrollment and treatment for anger and aggression may be ethically questionable, and may also increase the likelihood that a high percentage would drop out of the study prior to the first session to seek treatment elsewhere. As a result, we began each group immediately upon enrollment of six participants, alternating the initiation of CBT and PCT groups.

Participants

Eligible participants were veterans 18 years of age or older who met criteria for current PTSD based on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for the DSM-5 (CAPS; Weathers, Blake et al., 2013), had served in a combat zone, and were able to speak and write fluent conversational English. Participants must also have reported problems with irritability, anger, or aggression within the past month as defined by a CAPS score > 2 (moderate/threshold) on item 15 (E1): “Irritable behavior and angry outbursts (with little or no provocation) typically expressed as verbal or physical aggression toward people or objects.” Veterans were ineligible for participation if they expected to be unstable on their medication regimen during the active treatment phase of the study; currently met criteria for bipolar I disorder or a primary psychotic disorder as determined by the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV (SCID; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, & Williams, 1996); were receiving or planned to initiate other anger management psychotherapy or empirically supported therapy for PTSD during the treatment component of the study; met criteria for substance dependence (other than nicotine) of sufficient severity to prevent full engagement in the treatment protocol; or were determined to have moderate or severe impairment related to traumatic brain injury (TBI) as measured by the Brief Traumatic Brain Injury Screen (BTBIS; Schwab et al., 2007) and medical record review or consultation with their provider. Participants were recruited through referral by clinicians at the Durham VA Medical Center (VAMC) and the local Vet Center, as well as through flyers and brochures posted in the VA medical center and the local Vet Center and distributed at community events for veterans. IRB-approved letters were also sent to potentially eligible veterans identified using the VAMC’s Fileman system or the Corporate Data Warehouse, and the Post-Deployment Mental Health Registry Recruitment Database. We oversampled women for a target recruitment of 33% women, to include one group of women and two groups of men in each treatment arm.

Treatment

Both treatments were administered in 12 weekly sessions using a group format. Previous research has suggested that women and men veterans may differ in their expression of anger and aggression (Sullivan & Elbogen, 2013), that much of the anger expressed by men in anger management groups is directed at women (Gerlock, 1994), and that inclusion of women with sexual trauma histories in trauma-related therapy groups with men is not recommended (Chard, 2010). Therefore, groups were composed of all-male and all-female cohorts. Each group session lasted 120 min. Participants were asked to miss no more than three of the 12 group sessions. Participants who missed more than three group sessions were given the opportunity for one “make-up” individual session with the group facilitator; participants who missed more than three sessions were dropped from the group but were invited to complete follow-up measures.

CBT

This 12-week manualized group treatment was developed specifically to target problems with PTSD-related anger and aggression in combat veterans. The first session oriented participants to the structure and philosophy of the program, provided an historical overview of PTSD, and introduced the concept of the “survival mode” of functioning (Chemtob, Novaco, Hamada, Gross, & Smith, 1997). The remaining 11 sessions followed a standard format: (a) practice relaxation training (15-20 min); (b) review homework, introduce new material, and engage in group activities focused on implementing new skills and behaviors (70-80 min); and (c) review problems or concerns of group members. A summary of each session, as well as information on how sessions were tailored specifically for combat veterans with PTSD, is available in the supplemental material.

PCT

Participants assigned to the control condition received 12 weeks of group PCT. PCT was selected as the control condition because it has been used as an active control condition in a number of psychotherapy trials for PTSD (Foa, McLean, Zang, & et al, 2018) and anger (Shea et al., 2013) in veterans. It was initially developed to provide an active, manualized treatment comparison condition for psychotherapy trials by controlling for nonspecific factors such as contact with a trained therapist, rationale for treatment, and instillation of expectancy for therapeutic gains. The therapeutic approach was drawn from Yalom’s group therapy model, which utilizes interpersonal process, supportive techniques, identification of response options, encouragement of adaptive reactions, and focus on the “here-and-now” (Yalom, 1975). A recent meta-analysis suggested that PCT may be efficacious in the treatment of PTSD (Frost, Laska, & Wampold, 2014), and a survey of practice patterns within the VA suggests that similar present-focused approaches are routinely employed by VA mental health providers (Rosen et al., 2004). The PCT manual used in this trial was adapted from a manual used in previous psychotherapy trials for PTSD and anger (Shea et al., 2013). The use of cognitive behavioral strategies such as Socratic questioning or discussion of traumatic material was proscribed in this arm. Instead, therapists modeled and encouraged supportive therapeutic interactions by facilitating problem-solving and application of formerly used or new coping methods; using and modeling active listening; encouraging expression of feelings; pointing out themes; providing praise; and encouraging contact with supportive others.

Therapist training and treatment fidelity

Study therapists for both conditions were doctoral-level licensed clinical psychologists or master’s-level rehabilitation therapists. All therapists had extensive experience administering manualized, empirically supported psychotherapy for PTSD. Specifically, one PhD-level psychologist was present in each group, and all PhD-level therapists had successfully completed VA’s training program for cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and been added to the VA’s roster of approved CPT therapists. One of the master’s-level therapists was also on this roster. Training on the CBT protocol was provided by co-author P.C., the primary author of the treatment protocol. Sessions were videotaped, and a random selection of 20% of the group sessions in each treatment arm were rated by a licensed clinical psychologist using fidelity checklists adapted from the Yale Adherence and Competence Scale (Carroll et al., 2000).

Measures

Diagnostic assessments

The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) (Weathers, Blake et al., 2013) was administered at baseline to diagnose PTSD. The CAPS is a semistructured interview to assess PTSD. The excellent reliability and validity of the CAPS has established it as the “gold standard” for PTSD assessment (Blake et al., 1995; Weathers, Keane, & Davidson, 2001). Selected modules of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID; First et al., 1996) were administered to assess for bipolar 1 disorder, primary psychotic disorders, and substance use disorders. The BTBIS (Schwab et al., 2007) is a three-item self-report questionnaire that was administered to screen for the possibility of a moderate or severe TBI that could interfere with the ability to engage meaningfully in cognitive behavioral treatment. As necessary based on the results of the BTBIS, medical records were examined or providers consulted to evaluate for the presence of moderate to severe TBI, or referrals were made for further evaluation.

Outcome measures

Three scales were administered at baseline, during each of the 12 psychotherapy sessions, at posttreatment, and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups: the Dimensions of Anger Reactions (DAR; Forbes et al., 2004) scale; the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-5 (PCL-5; Weathers, Litz et al., 2013); and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, Version 2.0 (WHODAS). The DAR (Forbes et al., 2004) is a seven-item scale measuring the frequency, duration, and behavioral response to anger, and anger-related functional impairment on social relationships, health, and work. Participants rated each item on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 8 (exactly so), for a total scale ranging from 0 to 56. The DAR has been found to have high internal reliability (α = .92) and good concurrent validity (r ranging from .69-.77) and to correlate highly with measures of functional impairment, in a large sample of treatment-seeking soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan (Novaco, Swanson, Gonzalez, Gahm, & Reger, 2012). The PTSD Checklist for the DSM-5 (PCL-5; Weathers, Litz et al., 2013) is a 20-item measure of PTSD symptoms on which participants first report an autobiographical narrative of a trauma, and then rate how much they were bothered over the past week by each DSM-5 PTSD symptom on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Total scores could range from 0 to 80. Previous versions of the PCL have been found to have good reliability and validity (Blanchard, Jones-Alexander, Buckley, & Forneris, 1996), and preliminary findings suggest adequate reliability and validity for this version as well (i.e., internal consistency α = .94; test–retest reliability r = .82; and convergent validity r ranging from .74 to .85; Blevins, Weathers, Davis, Witte, & Domino, 2015). The 12-item version of the WHODAS (Üstün & World Health Organization, 2010) was administered to assess broad functioning in the areas of understanding and communication, self-care, mobility (getting around), interpersonal relationships (getting along with others), work and household roles (life activities), and community and civic roles (participation). Participants rate each item on a scale of 0 (none/no difficulty) to 4 (extreme or cannot do), for a total score ranging from 0 to 36. The WHODAS has been found to be reliable and valid in the assessment of functioning across a range of chronic physical and psychological conditions, and to be sensitive to change (Andrews, Kemp, Sunderland, Von Korff, & Ustun, 2009).

The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979) was administered at baseline, posttreatment, and 3- and 6-month follow-up to assess psychological and physical aggression. The CTS includes 18 items that measure both psychological aggression (i.e., insulting, swearing at, or threatening someone; destroying objects) and physical aggression (i.e., throwing something at someone, pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, kicking, biting, hitting, beating up, threatening with a gun or knife, or using a gun or knife on someone). Participants indicate how often they have engaged in each behavior using the following scale: 0 (never); 1 (once); 2 (twice); 3 (3-5 times); 4 (6-10 times); 5 (11-20 times); 6 (more than 20 times). Scores on psychological aggression could range from 0 to 36; scores on physical aggression could range from 0 to 42. Consistent with previous studies on veterans and violence (Beckham, Feldman, Kirby, Hertzberg, & Moore, 1997), the original CTS instructions were modified by expanding the target of the aggressive behavior from “partner” to “anyone” and reducing the time frame of the response from 1 year to 1 month to detect potential changes associated with treatment. Coefficient alpha for the CTS has been found to range from .62 to .88, with good evidence of construct validity.

Data Analysis

Data were screened during data entry for completeness and accuracy, and when possible participants were contacted about inconsistent or improbable response options to ensure data quality and participant safety. This process resulted in either corroboration of responses (e.g., verification that a veteran had pulled a knife on an individual over the past month when he felt threatened in his neighborhood) or elimination of a specific measure for a single time point from analysis (e.g., a veteran indicated that he must have misunderstood the questionnaire when called to verify self-report on the CTS that he had engaged in all forms of physical aggression more than 20 times over the previous month). In one case, inspection of data prior to analysis resulted in the determination that a participant in the male CBT arm had likely provided invalid responses to most or all measures. For example, on one measure he circled a single response option and then drew an arrow down the page and through the next page indicating the same response option for the remainder of the measure. This veteran could not be contacted to corroborate his responses, so his data were eliminated from analysis.

Participants who attended at least one group therapy session were included in the primary analyses. An intent-to-treat, last-observation-carried-forward approach was used, based on the conservative assumption that participants who dropped out of treatment would remain at the same level on all outcome measures. Inspection of residuals by means of Q-Q plots indicated adequate model fit for time modeled as a linear effect for the DAR, PCL-5, and WHODAS outcomes. Time was modeled as a categorical variable for the CTS psychological and physical aggression outcomes, which were measured at fewer time points. Separate multilevel models of the DAR, PCL-5, and WHODAS were examined using scores from baseline, each of the 12 sessions, posttreatment, and 3- and 6-month follow-up. Each model examined the effects of gender, therapy type (CBT vs. PCT), time, and therapy type by time on the outcome variable.

Separate multilevel models of CTS psychological aggression and CTS physical aggression were examined using data from baseline, posttreatment, and 3- and 6-month follow-up. In these models, the independent variables were gender, therapy type (CBT vs. PCT), categorical time, and therapy type by time. For all outcomes, we calculated the effect size (Cohen’s d) of change from baseline to posttreatment using estimates calculated within the context of the multilevel models.

Two of the three previous controlled trials of therapy for anger or aggression in veterans presented findings based on analyses only of participants who completed the full course of therapy (Chemtob, Novaco, Hamada, & Gross, 1997; Shea et al., 2013). To make our findings consistent with reporting in these studies, we reran multilevel models using only individuals who had completed at least 9 of the 12 sessions (n = 23).

Results

Participants

Thirty-six participants began treatment, with 19 assigned to the CBT arm, and 17 assigned to the PCT arm. Slow initial recruitment and a dropout resulted in three participants in one of the first male CBT groups; therefore, we recruited for an additional male CBT group for a total of three male CBT groups of three to six members each; two male PCT groups of five to six members each; one female CBT group of five members; and one female PCT group of six members. As described in the Data Analysis section, one participant’s data were eliminated from analysis due to invalid responding. This resulted in a total sample size of 35, with 18 in the CBT arm and 17 in the PCT arm. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic or baseline clinical characteristics between treatment groups (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics by Treatment Condition.

	CBT (n = 18)M (SD)/n (%)	PCT (n = 17)M (SD)/n (%)	t or χ²	p Value
Age	51.6 (11.5)	52.6 (12.3)	0.24	.810
Years of education	13.1 (3.5)	15.4 (2.9)	1.98	.058
Male	13 (72%)	11 (65%)	0.23	.632
Race
Black/African American	12 (68%)	9 (53%)	2.40
White/Caucasian	6 (33%)	6 (35%)		.301
Biracial/Other	0 (0%)	2 (12%)
Married	3 (17%)	8 (47%)	3.75	.053
Employed (full- or part-time)	2 (11%)	3 (18%)	0.31	.581
Baseline Symptoms and Functioning
DAR	40.2 (12.6)	41.2 (10.4)	0.24	.814
PCL-5	58.8 (13.2)	56.0 (12.1)	0.65	.519
WHODAS 2.0	19.3 (8.3)	24.6 (7.3)	2.01	.053
CTS psychological aggression	8.9 (7.7)	8.3 (5.1)	0.26	.794
CTS physical aggression	0.5 (1.0)	1.23 (4.1)	0.71	.484

Note. DAR = Dimensions of Anger Reactions; PCL-5 = PTSD Checklist for DSM-5; WHODAS 2.0 = World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule; CTS = Conflict Tactics Scale.

Treatment Retention

Of the 18 participants assigned to the CBT arm, 10 (55.6%) were categorized as completers (attended nine or more sessions); of the 17 assigned to the PCT arm, 13 (76.5%) were completers. The difference in completion rates between the two arms was not statistically significant, χ²(1) = 1.70, p = .19. Completion rates differed significantly by gender, χ²(1) = 6.13, p = .01. Across both treatment arms, four of 11 women (36.4%) were completers, while 19 of 24 men (79.2%) were completers. Two men (14%) and five women (100%) dropped out of the CBT arm voluntarily. One woman (17%) and one man (9%) dropped out of the PCT arm voluntarily, and one man and one woman were withdrawn from the PCT arm by the PI after being admitted for inpatient substance abuse treatment and medical hospitalization, respectively.

Efficacy of CBT Versus PCT

Intent-to-treat analyses

Results of multilevel models for the DAR, PCL-5, and WHODAS are presented in Table 2. Results showed no main effect for therapy type. Significant main effects of time were observed for anger disposition (DAR), PTSD scores (PCL-5), and disability scores (WHODAS), suggesting that, for the reference condition (PCT), participants improved approximately 0.31 points on the DAR per time point, an estimated 0.19 points on the PCL-5 per time point, and an estimated 0.10 points on the WHODAS per time point. Significant main effects were observed for gender on the DAR and the PCL-5: Women scored an estimated 10.1 points higher on the DAR and an estimated 15.9 points higher on the PCL-5. No significant interaction effects were observed for therapy by time for the DAR or the PCL-5. A significant interaction effect of therapy by time was observed for the WHODAS, such that participants demonstrated about a 0.3-point difference per session favoring PCT. Figure 1 presents modeled contrasts of scores by therapy type from baseline to posttreatment, baseline to 3-month follow-up, and baseline to 6-month follow-up for the DAR, PCL-5, and WHODAS.

Table 2.

Multilevel Model of Therapy Type (CBT vs. PCT) For Measures Given at Each Session.

	DAR		PCL-5		WHODAS 2.0
	Intent-to-Treat Analysis	Completer Analysis	Intent-to-Treat Analysis	Completer Analysis	Intent-to-Treat Analysis	Completer Analysis
Intercept	36.8 (3.1)***	35.0 (4.0)***	48.1 (3.9)***	45.9 (4.8)***	20.5 (2.2)***	19.7 (2.8)***
Gender^a	10.1 (4.0)*	13.0 (7.0)	15.9 (5.1)**	19.2 (8.4)*	5.76 (2.9)	6.39 (5.0)
Therapy type^b	−1.38 (3.8)	0.62 (5.5)	2.52 (4.8)	3.58 (6.6)	−3.32 (2.8)	−3.68 (3.9)
Time	−0.31 (0.07)***	−0.51 (0.11)***	−0.19 (0.09)*	−0.25 (0.12)*	−0.10 (0.04)*	−0.20 (0.6)**
Time × Therapy Type^b	0.11 (0.10)	0.28 (0.07)	0.16 (0.12)	0.07 (0.18)	0.28 (0.06)***	0.36 (0.09)***

Note. Model coefficients and standard errors in parentheses. DAR = Dimensions of Anger Reactions; PCL 5 = PTSD Checklist for DSM-5; WHODAS 2.0 = World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule.

Male is used as the reference category.

PCT is used as the reference condition.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Change in scores on anger, PTSD, and disability: Baseline to posttreatment, 3 months, and 6 months–(a) DAR, (b) PCL-5, and (c) WHODAS.

Because there were no significant therapy by time interaction effects for the DAR and the PCL-5, we collapsed across therapy type when calculating baseline to posttreatment effect size (d) estimates for these outcomes. Baseline to posttreatment effect sizes were 0.86 (p < .001) for the DAR and 0.29 (p < .08) for the PCL-5. Given the significant interaction effect of therapy by time for the WHODAS, effect size estimates were calculated separately for each arm. For PCT, baseline to posttreatment effect size was 0.56; for CBT, baseline to posttreatment effect size was 0.48. Note that for CBT, the direction of the change was positive, suggesting that scores on the WHODAS got worse over time. On the CTS, no significant main effects or interaction effects were observed on any variable.

Completer analyses

The analyses of the subsample of treatment completers (n = 26) produced a similar pattern of results to the intent-to-treat analyses. In the multilevel models including completers only, the main effects of time remained significant but were slightly larger. In the reference condition (PCT), participants improved an estimated 0.51 points on the DAR per time point, an estimated 0.25 points on the PCL-5 per time point, and an estimated 0.20 points on the WHODAS per time point. A main effect of gender was found for the PCL-5, where women scored an estimated 19.2 points higher than men. No significant interaction effect was observed for therapy by time for the DAR or the PCL-5. A significant interaction effect of therapy by time was observed for the WHODAS, such that participants demonstrated about a 0.36-point difference per session favoring PCT. There were no significant interaction effects in the completer subsample on the CTS except for an interaction on the physical aggression scale at 6 months suggesting that veterans in the CBT (vs.PCT) group showed approximately 1.4 points less improvement (p < .05).

Discussion

This study examined the efficacy of group CBT for anger and aggression in male and female combat veterans with PTSD using PCT as an active control condition. To our knowledge, this is the first study to include female veterans in an individual or group therapy intervention trial for anger or aggression in a veteran population.

Overall, while significant reductions in anger, PTSD symptoms, and disability were observed over time, results do not support the hypothesis that CBT is more effective than PCT in reducing these outcomes in combat veterans with PTSD. Specifically, multilevel models using an intent-to-treat approach indicated that participants in the PCT condition reported significant decreases in anger, but the absence of a significant interaction effect with time suggests that there were no differences between CBT and PCT on this outcome. Collapsed across both CBT and PCT therapy arms, effect sizes for anger reductions over time were large. PTSD symptoms and overall disability scores also improved significantly over time in the PCT active control condition. No interaction effect of therapy type by time was observed for PTSD symptoms, and the significance of the effect of time was reduced to a trend when scores were collapsed across therapy arm.

Surprisingly, findings related to changes in self-rated disability were in the opposite direction of the hypothesis, such that interaction effects of therapy by time favored the PCT condition. Effect size estimates suggest a significant, medium-sized increase in disability in the CBT condition, and a significant medium size decrease in disability in the PCT condition. Although this finding is difficult to interpret, it is possible that the interaction may be the result of (nonsignificant) higher baseline scores in the PCT group versus the CBT group, and a regression toward the group mean over time in both groups.

Finally, intent-to-treat analyses revealed no changes over time and no interaction effects for psychological or physical aggression as measured by the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). Analyses using only participants who completed at least nine out of 12 sessions of therapy showed similar results, except that a significant difference was observed in changes in physical aggression scores on the CTS at 6 months favoring PCT. It is important to keep in mind, however, that baseline rates of physical aggression in this sample were low, and changes in aggression at each time point were small. As such, the observed difference on changes in physical aggression at 6 months should be interpreted with caution. Several previous intervention studies targeting psychological aggression in couples and families have also reported low baseline rates of physical aggression in their samples (Hayes et al., 2015; Taft, Creech, et al., 2016; Taft et al., 2014). It may be that though PTSD increases risk for physical aggression in veterans (Beckham et al., 1997; Blakey, Love, Lindquist, Beckham, & Elbogen, 2018; Macmanus et al., 2013; MacManus et al., 2015), base rates of physically aggressive acts are sufficiently rare among combat veterans with PTSD that they are difficult to capture in a measure evaluating behavior within the previous month.

The finding that PCT performed equally well with CBT in reducing symptoms associated with PTSD including anger is not unprecedented (Ford et al., 2018). While PCT was originally designed to be an active control condition in psychotherapy trials, a recent meta-analysis found that PCT performed as well as evidenced-based treatment for PTSD in three of five trials reviewed, and that it was significantly better than a no-treatment control condition with a large effect size (Frost et al., 2014). A more recent RCT found that PCT did not differ significantly from PE therapy delivered over an 8-week period (Foa et al., 2018), and another study found that a present-centered intervention performed as well as PE in reducing hostility in Iraq/Afghanistan War veterans, with a lower dropout rate (Ford et al., 2018). Taken together, our findings add to the growing literature suggesting that PCT should be evaluated as a potentially efficacious therapy for trauma and trauma-related dysfunction.

Although dropout rates for male veterans in our study were comparable to other trials of anger treatment for veterans with PTSD, significantly more women than men dropped out of treatment. This difference in dropout by gender was entirely explained by the 100% dropout of female participants from the CBT group. Furthermore, despite the exclusion of female veterans from previous anger and intervention trials, our findings indicated that women veterans scored significantly higher scores on the DAR, PCL-5, and WHODAS than did male veterans.

While the high dropout rate among women assigned to the CBT arm could be viewed as a limitation, these findings could also be interpreted to suggest that treatment retention may be an especially important consideration for women veterans who are seeking treatment for trauma-related anger. It may be relevant to consider that the CBT treatment presented here was based on Chemtob, Novaco, Hamada, Gross, and Smith (1997) “survival mode” model of anger in veterans, which has been called into question as a relevant framework to understand anger in women veterans (Worthen et al., 2015). The survival mode model assumes that hostile attribution bias and excessive combat trauma-related physiological arousal lead to the experience and expression of anger in benign or ambiguous situations where it is not warranted or appropriate (Chemtob et al., 1997). However, this assumption may not necessarily hold for women veterans who have experienced a military culture where power dynamics may not allow for the expression of anger, even in situations where it is appropriate. In addition, there is substantial evidence that women in the military are not uncommonly subjected to unfair or even abusive gender-based treatment in situations where they have limited recourse (Street, Vogt, & Dutra, 2009). Research in civilians has found that powerlessness and injustice play a role in anger expression particularly in women (Kring, 2000; Strachan & Dutton, 1992; S. A. Thomas & Gonzalez-Prendes, 2009; S. P. Thomas, 2005). It is also important to note that all but one of the women in the study were Black, while the composition of men was more racially balanced. The “Angry Black Woman” is a pernicious stereotype that may serve to further delegitimize or silence anger in Black women, even in cases where it is clearly warranted (Ashley, 2014). Taken together, this suggests that rather than challenging women veterans’ anger as excessive and inappropriate, it may be important to first validate that their anger as warranted and even adaptive in some situations, and to help them develop skills to assert themselves in ways that are safe and constructive. It is likely that the PCT group’s central treatment method was better equipped to provide that necessary validation, which would explain the differential dropout rates between groups for women veterans in the study.

This study has important limitations. First, the study is not a randomized trial. The lack of randomization to treatment arm prevents us from eliminating alternative explanations for our findings, including the possibility that the source of referral or recruitment differed systematically at different time points. We alternated assignment to intervention to attempt to mitigate this concern, but the baseline group differences between PCT and CBT on education level, marital status, and WHODAS scores, while not statistically significant, suggest that this process may not have been completely successful at ensuring equal groups prior to treatment. Second, though to our knowledge this is the largest controlled study of anger management therapy for veterans with PTSD to date, and the only sample to include women, the total sample size remains small and therefore limits both power and the degree to which findings are generalizable. Relatedly, while the high dropout rate of women from this study is an important finding, it may also be viewed as an important limitation. Finally, despite the consistent association observed between PTSD and aggression in the literature, the baseline levels of physical aggression were low in this sample. Future studies should measure physical aggression over time period of at least 3 or 6 months to increase the chances of observing changes in this critical but relatively rare behavior.

Despite these limitations, our findings suggest that group therapy can be effective in reducing anger in combat veterans with PTSD and that the theoretical orientation of the group (i.e., cognitive behavioral, present-centered) may not be as important to recovery as the group therapy process itself (Ahn & Wampold, 2001; Hayes & Hofmann, 2017). Our findings did not suggest that the putative active ingredients in CBT were critical in facilitating change, and in fact we found evidence that the techniques specific to CBT may have decreased treatment engagement in women veterans. Though women have been excluded from psychotherapy trials for anger in veterans, results presented here suggest that it may not be appropriate to assume that anger interventions designed for male veterans will necessarily be effective for women veterans. Identifying mechanisms of change in anger interventions for veterans (Kazdin, 2007), and considering how they may operate differently in racially and gender-diverse populations, will be critically important to the VA’s mission of serving all of those who served.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary_material – Supplemental material for A Comparison of Group Anger Management Treatments for Combat Veterans With PTSD: Results From a Quasi-Experimental Trial

Supplemental material, Supplementary_material for A Comparison of Group Anger Management Treatments for Combat Veterans With PTSD: Results From a Quasi-Experimental Trial by Elizabeth E. Van Voorhees, Kirsten H. Dillon, Sarah M. Wilson, Paul A. Dennis, Lydia C. Neal, Alyssa M. Medenblik, Patrick S. Calhoun, Eric A. Dedert, Kelly Caron, Nivedita Chaudhry, Jeffrey D. White, Eric Elbogen and Jean C. Beckham in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Kirsten H. Dillon and Lydia C. Neal is also affiliated with Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation of this work was supported by a Career Development Award to E.V. (1K2RX001298) and a Career Development Award to K.D. (1K2RX00295) from VA Rehabilitation Research & Development, a Career Development Award to S.W. (1K2HX002398) from VA Health Services Research and Development, and a Senior Research Career Scientist Award to J.B. (11S-RCS-009) from VA Clinical Science Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research & Development. This work was also supported by resources from the Durham VA Health Care System, the Center of Innovation for Health Services Research in Primary Care (CIN 13-410) at the Durham VA Health Care System, and the VA Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the VA or the United States government. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the U.S. Government.

ORCID iD

Elizabeth E. Van Voorhees

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Elizabeth E. Van Voorhees is a full-time researcher at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center with a joint appointment as an assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University Medical Center. Her research interests include examining mechanisms and advancing treatment of anger and aggression in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Kirsten H. Dillon is a full-time researcher at the Durham VA Medical Center and a clinical associate in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University Medical Center. Her research interests include developing evidence-based treatments for anger among individuals with PTSD.

Sarah M. Wilson is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine, and a Core Investigator at the VA Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care. Her research focuses on access to care for behavioral health services and treatment development for health behavior change.

Paul A. Dennis is an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and serves as a core statistician in the Duke University Traumatic Stress and Health Laboratory, providing statistical support to clinicians and researchers in the design and analysis of clinical trials, longitudinal observational studies, ecological momentary assessment studies, and epidemiological and survey studies.

Lydia C. Neal is a project manager and psychology technician for the Traumatic Stress and Health Research Laboratory at Duke University Medical Center. She works primarily with combat veterans struggling with PTSD, anger, and aggression. She also assists with various projects related to trauma and substance use.

Alyssa M. Medenblik is a senior clinical research specialist in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University Medical Center and a Research Assistant at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center. She currently assists with various projects related to trauma, addiction, and anger.

Patrick S. Calhoun is the director of the VA Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, Education, & Clinical Center Health Services Research Core and a Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences in the Duke University School of Medicine with expertise in the psychological, behavioral, and health consequences of traumatic stress.

Eric A. Dedert is an assistant professor at the Duke University Medical Center and a psychologist with the Durham VA Health Care System. He plans to devote his career to the testing and implementation of substance use disorder, PTSD, and behavioral health interventions.

Kelly Caron is a staff psychologist at the Durham VA Medical Center (DVAMC). She provides assessment and psychotherapy to women veterans with traumatic stress disorders including PTSD, mood disorders, personality disorders, and anxiety disorders. She holds expertise in a range of empirically supported treatments including dialectical behavior therapy, prolonged exposure therapy, and cognitive processing therapy, and she trains and supervises trainees and fellows in these empirically supported psychotherapies.

Nivedita Chaudhry is a staff psychiatrist at the DVAMC and the medical director of the Women’s Mental Health clinic for the past 14 years. She provides care to women veterans with mood, anxiety, psychotic, cognitive, and substance-related disorders, as well as comprehensive services to women veterans with PTSD.

Jeffrey D. White is a staff psychologist in the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System. He provides assessment and psychotherapy to veterans with traumatic stress disorders including PTSD with a special focus on anger management, and he trains and supervises trainess and fellows in these modalities.

Eric Elbogen is a professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University Medical Center, and local recovery coordinator at the Durham VA Medical Center. He is trained as a forensic psychologist and has conducted clinical work and research on anger, aggression, and violence in Veterans with PTSD.

Jean C. Beckham is the Behavioral Medicine Division Director, a tenured professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University Medical Center, and a VA senior research career scientist. She has worked in the area of PTSD since 1992 and was among the first to document hostility and anger among individuals (both men and women) with PTSD.

References

Ahn

Wampold

B. E.

(2001). Where oh where are the specific ingredients? A meta-analysis of component studies in counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 251-257.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Andrews

Brewin

(2012, November). The phenomenology of shame and anger and their interrelationship in UK military Veterans with and without PTSD. Paper presented at the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies 28th Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA.

Andrews

Kemp

Sunderland

Von Korff

Ustun

T. B.

(2009). Normative data for the 12 item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. PLoS ONE, 4(12), e8343. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008343

Ashley

(2014). The angry black woman: The impact of pejorative stereotypes on psychotherapy with black women. Social Work in Public Health, 29, 27-34.

Beckham

J. C.

Feldman

M. E.

Kirby

A. C.

Hertzberg

M. A.

Moore

S. D.

(1997). Interpersonal violence and its correlates in Vietnam veterans with chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 859-869. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199712)53:8<859::AID-JCLP11>3.0.CO;2-J

Biddle

Elliott

Creamer

Forbes

Devilly

G. J.

(2002). Self-reported problems: A comparison between PTSD-diagnosed veterans, their spouses, and clinicians. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 853-865.

Blake

D. D.

Weathers

F. W.

Nagy

L. M.

Kaloupek

D. G.

Gusman

F. D.

Charney

D. S.

Keane

T. M.

(1995). The development of a Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, 75-90.

Blakey

S. M.

Love

Lindquist

Beckham

J. C.

Elbogen

E. B.

(2018). Disentangling the link between posttraumatic stress disorder and violent behavior: Findings from a nationally representative sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86, 169-178. doi:10.1037/ccp0000253

10.

Blanchard

E. B.

Jones-Alexander

Buckley

T. C.

Forneris

C. A.

(1996). Psychometric properties of the PTSD Checklist (PCL). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 669-673. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(96)00033-2

11.

Blevins

C. A.

Weathers

F. W.

Davis

M. T.

Witte

T. K.

Domino

J. L.

(2015). The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5): Development and Initial Psychometric Evaluation. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28, 489-498. doi:10.1002/jts.22059

12.

Carroll

K. M.

Nich

Sifry

R. L.

Nuro

K. F.

Frankforter

T. L.

Ball

S. A.

. . . Rounsaville

B. J.

(2000). A general system for evaluating therapist adherence and competence in psychotherapy research in the addictions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 57, 225-238. doi:10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00049-6

13.

Chard

(2010, November). Using cognitive processing therapy in a group setting. Workshop presented at the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies 26th Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

14.

Chemtob

C. M.

Novaco

R. W.

Hamada

R. S.

Gross

D. M.

(1997). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for severe anger in posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 184-189.

15.

Chemtob

C. M.

Novaco

R. W.

Hamada

R. S.

Gross

D. M.

Smith

(1997). Anger regulation deficits in combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10, 17-36.

16.

Elbogen

E. B.

Wagner

H. R.

Fuller

S. R.

Calhoun

P. S.

Kinneer

P. M.

Beckham

J. C.

(2010). Correlates of anger and hostility in Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 1051-1058. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09050739

17.

First

M. B.

Gibbon

Spitzer

R. L.

Williams

J. B. W.

(1996). User’s guide for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders—Research Version. New York, NY: Biometrics Research Department.

18.

Foa

E. B.

McLean

C. P.

Zang

Rosenfield

Yadin

Yarvis

J. S.

. . . Peterson

A. L.

(2018). Effect of prolonged exposure therapy delivered over 2 weeks vs 8 weeks vs present-centered therapy on PTSD symptom severity in military personnel: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 319, 354-364. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21242

19.

Foa

E. B.

Riggs

D. S.

Massie

E. D.

Yarczower

(1995). The impact of fear activation and anger on the efficacy of exposure treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. Behavior Therapy, 26, 487-499.

20.

Forbes

Creamer

Hawthorne

Allen

McHugh

(2003). Comorbidity as a predictor of symptom change after treatment in combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191, 93-99. doi:10.1097/01.NMD.0000051903.60517.98

21.

Forbes

Hawthorne

Elliott

McHugh

Biddle

Creamer

Novaco

R. W.

(2004). A concise measure of anger in combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 249-256. doi:10.1023/B:JOTS.0000029268.22161.bd

22.

Forbes

Parslow

Creamer

Allen

McHugh

Hopwood

(2008). Mechanisms of anger and treatment outcome in combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21, 142-149. doi:10.1002/jts.20315

23.

Ford

J. D.

Grasso

D. J.

Greene

C. A.

Slivinsky

DeViva

J. C.

(2018). Randomized clinical trial pilot study of prolonged exposure versus present centred affect regulation therapy for PTSD and anger problems with male military combat veterans. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 25, 641-649. doi:10.1002/cpp.2194

24.

Frost

N. D.

Laska

K. M.

Wampold

B. E.

(2014). The evidence for present-centered therapy as a treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27, 1-8. doi:10.1002/jts.21881

25.

Gerlock

A. A.

(1994). Veterans’ responses to anger management intervention. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 15, 393-408.

26.

Hayes

M. A.

Gallagher

M. W.

Gilbert

K. S.

Creech

S. K.

DeCandia

C. J.

Beach

C. A.

Taft

C. T.

(2015). Targeting relational aggression in veterans: The Strength at Home Friends and Family intervention. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 76, e774-e778. doi:10.4088/JCP.14m09155

27.

Hayes

S. C.

Hofmann

S. G.

(2017). The third wave of cognitive behavioral therapy and the rise of process-based care. World Psychiatry, 16, 245-246.

28.

Kazdin

A. E.

(2007). Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 1-27.

29.

Kirby

A. C.

Beckham

J. C.

Calhoun

P. S.

Roberts

S. T.

Taft

C. T.

Elbogen

E. B.

Dennis

M. F.

(2012). An examination of general aggression and intimate partner violence in women with posttraumatic stress disorder. Violence and Victims, 27, 777-792.

30.

Koenen

K. C.

Stellman

J. M.

Stellman

S. D.

Sommer

J. F.

Jr. (2003). Risk factors for course of posttraumatic stress disorder among Vietnam Veterans: A 14-year follow-up of American Legionnaires. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 980-986. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.6.980

31.

Kring

A. M.

(2000). Gender and anger. In Fischer

A. H.

(Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 211-231). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Macmanus

Dean

Jones

Rona

R. J.

Greenberg

Hull

. . . Fear

N. T.

(2013). Violent offending by UK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: A data linkage cohort study. The Lancet, 381, 907-917. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60354-2

33.

MacManus

Rona

Dickson

Somaini

Fear

Wessely

(2015). Aggressive and violent behavior among military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: Prevalence and link with deployment and combat exposure. Epidemiologic Reviews, 37, 196-212. doi:10.1093/epirev/mxu006

34.

Marshall

A. D.

Martin

E. K.

Warfield

G. A.

Doron-Lamarca

Niles

B. L.

Taft

C. T.

(2010). The impact of antisocial personality characteristics on anger management treatment for veterans with PTSD. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 2, 224-231. doi:10.1037/a0019890

35.

Miles

S. R.

Menefee

D. S.

Wanner

Teten Tharp

Kent

T. A.

(2015). The relationship between emotion dysregulation and impulsive aggression in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1795-1816. doi:10.1177/0886260515570746

36.

Morland

Greene

Rosen

Foy

Reilly

Shore

. . . Frueh

(2010). Telemedicine for anger management therapy in a rural population of combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: A randomized noninferiority trial. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 71, 855-863. doi:10.4088/JCP.09m05604blu

37.

Novaco

R. W.

Chemtob

C. M.

(2002). Anger and combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 123-132. doi:10.1023/A:1014855924072

38.

Novaco

R. W.

Chemtob

C. M.

(2015). Violence associated with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder: The importance of anger. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 75, 485-492. doi:10.1037/tra0000067

39.

Novaco

R. W.

Swanson

R. D.

Gonzalez

O. I.

Gahm

G. A.

Reger

M. D.

(2012). Anger and postcombat mental health: Validation of a brief anger measure with U.S. soldiers postdeployed from Iraq and Afghanistan. Psychological Assessment, 24, 661-675. doi:10.1037/a0026636

40.

Orth

Wieland

(2006). Anger, hostility, and posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed adults: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 698-706. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.4.698

41.

Rizvi

S. L.

Vogt

D. S.

Resick

P. A.

(2009). Cognitive and affective predictors of treatment outcome in cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure for posttraumatic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 737-743. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2009.06.003

42.

Rodriguez

Holowka

D. W.

Marx

B. P.

(2012). Assessment of posttraumatic stress disorder-related functional impairment: A review. The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 49, 649-665. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2011.09.0162

43.

Rosen

C. S.

Chow

H. C.

Finney

J. F.

Greenbaum

M. A.

Moos

R. H.

Sheikh

J. I.

Yesavage

J. A.

(2004). VA practice patterns and practice guidelines for treating posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 213-222. doi:10.1023/B:JOTS.0000029264.23878.53

44.

Sayer

N. A.

Noorbaloochi

Frazier

Carlson

Gravely

Murdoch

(2010). Reintegration problems and treatment interests among Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans receiving VA medical care. Psychiatric Services, 61, 589-597.

45.

Schnurr

P. P.

Friedman

M. J.

Lavori

P. W.

Hsieh

F. Y.

(2001). Design of Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study No. 420: Group treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Controlled Clinical Trials, 22, 74-88. doi:10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00118-5

46.

Schwab

K. A.

Ivins

Cramer

Johnson

Sluss-Tiller

Kiley

. . . Warden

(2007). Screening for traumatic brain injury in troops returning from deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq: Initial investigation of the usefulness of a short screening tool for traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 22, 377-389. doi:10.1097/01.HTR.0000300233.98242.87

47.

Shea

M. T.

Lambert

Reddy

M. K.

(2013). A randomized pilot study of anger treatment for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51, 607-613. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2013.05.013

48.

Sippel

L. M.

Mota

N. P.

Kachadourian

L. K.

Krystal

J. H.

Southwick

S. M.

Harpaz-Rotem

Pietrzak

R. H.

(2016). The burden of hostility in U.S. Veterans: Results from the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study. Psychiatry Research, 243, 421-430. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2016.06.040

49.

Strachan

C. E.

Dutton

D. G.

(1992). The role of power and gender in anger responses to sexual jealousy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1721-1740. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00973.x

50.

Straus

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

51.

Street

A. E.

Vogt

Dutra

(2009). A new generation of women veterans: Stressors faced by women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 685-694.

52.

Sullivan

C. P.

Elbogen

E. B.

(2013). PTSD symptoms and family versus stranger violence in Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Law and Human Behavior, 38(1). doi:10.1037/lhb0000035

53.

Taft

C. T.

Creech

S. K.

Gallagher

M. W.

Macdonald

Murphy

C. M.

Monson

C. M.

(2016). Strength at home couples program to prevent military partner violence: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84, 935-945. doi:10.1037/ccp0000129

54.

Taft

C. T.

Howard

Monson

C. M.

Walling

S. M.

Resick

P. A.

Murphy

C. M.

(2014). “Strength at home” intervention to prevent conflict and violence in military couples: Pilot findings. Partner Abuse, 5, 41-57. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.5.1.41

55.

Taft

C. T.

Macdonald

Creech

S. K.

Monson

C. M.

Murphy

C. M.

(2016). A randomized controlled clinical trial of the strength at Home Men’s Program for partner violence in military veterans. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 77, 1168-1175. doi:10.4088/JCP.15m10020

56.

Taft

C. T.

Weatherill

R. P.

Scott

J. P.

Thomas

S. A.

Kang

H. K.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2015). Social information processing in anger expression and partner violence in returning U.S. veterans. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28, 314-321. doi:10.1002/jts.22017

57.

Thomas

J. L.

Wilk

J. E.

Riviere

L. A.

McGurk

Castro

C. A.

Hoge

C. W.

(2010). Prevalence of mental health problems and functional impairment among active component and National Guard soldiers 3 and 12 months following combat in Iraq. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67, 614-623.

58.

Thomas

S. A.

Gonzalez-Prendes

A. A.

(2009). Powerlessness, anger, and stress in African American women: Implications for physical and emotional health. Health Care for Women International, 30, 93-113. doi:10.1080/07399330802523709

59.

Thomas

S. P.

(2005). Women’s anger, aggression, and violence. Health Care for Women International, 26, 504-522. doi:10.1080/07399330590962636

60.

Üstün

T. B.

, & World Health Organization. (2010). Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule WHODAS 2.0. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

61.

Van Voorhees

E. E.

Dennis

P. A.

Neal

L. C.

Hicks

T. A.

Calhoun

P. S.

Beckham

J. C.

Elbogen

E. B

. (2016). Posttraumatic stress disorder, hostile cognitions, and aggression in Iraq/Afghanistan era veterans. Psychiatry, 79, 70-84. doi:10.1080/00332747.2015.1123593

62.

Weathers

Litz

Keane

Palmieri

Marx

Schnurr

(2013). The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Available from www.ptsd.va.gov

63.

Weathers

F. W.

Blake

D. D.

Schnurr

P. P.

Kaloupek

D. G.

Marx

B. P.

Keane

T. M.

(2013). Clinician-Administered Scale for the DSM-5 (CAPS-5). Washington, DC: National Center for PTSD.

64.

Weathers

F. W.

Keane

T. M.

Davidson

J. R.

(2001). Clinician-administered PTSD scale: A review of the first ten years of research. Depression and Anxiety, 13, 132-156. doi:10.1002/da.1029

65.

Worthen

Rathod

S. D.

Cohen

Sampson

Ursano

Gifford

. . . Ahern

(2014). Anger problems and posttraumatic stress disorder in male and female National Guard and Reserve Service members. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 55, 52-58. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.04.004

66.

Worthen

Rathod

S. D.

Cohen

Sampson

Ursano

Gifford

. . . Ahern

(2015). Anger and posttraumatic stress disorder symptom severity in a trauma-exposed military population: Differences by trauma context and gender. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28, 539-546. doi:10.1002/jts.22050

67.

Yalom

I. D.

(1975). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB