The article for analysis is ‘Parent-Child Interaction Therapy With Physically Abusive Parents: Efficacy for Reducing Future Abuse Reports’ published in the ‘Journal of Consulting And Clinical Psychology’ (APA) .
This article is the result of a collaborated effort on the subject by Mark Chaffin, Jane F. Silovsky, Beverly Funderburk, Linda Anne, Elizabeth V. Brestan, Tatiana Balachova, Shelli Jackson, Jay Lensgraf and Barbara L. Bonner.

As the title of the article suggests, this article describes the efficacy of reducing re-reports of parent-to-child violence, and also goes into a detailed discussion and description of the therapy involved. In addition to this, there are descriptions that even an average reader can follow easily. This is because great care has been taken in order to present the nature of the topic, the kind of problem, and the aim of the therapy.

The article begins with a clear and concise description of child abuse, transitioning into the need for therapeutic intervention, citing various studies that have significant approaches to the problem. However, the focus of therapy is ‘Parent Child Interactive Therapy’ (PCIT), under which all its merits are stated.

The study described in this article primarily asks three questions:
1. Is PCIT more efficacious than standard group-based parenting
interventions in preventing physical abuse recurrence among physically
abusive parents in the child welfare system?
2. If efficacy is supported, are PCIT-related benefits consistent with the
change model and techniques of the intervention?
3. Given the narrow focus of the intervention, is PCIT alone sufficient to
achieve benefits, and to what extent are benefits enhanced by the
addition of ad hoc clinic services for known risk factors (e.g.,
parental depression)? (Chaffin et al., 2004, 500-510)

In view of the questions asked, participants for the study were selected, and they numbered 110 individuals who were capable of fulfilling the requirements of the study. This shows that the data collected is valid and not simply pieced together for the sake of validating the study. In addition to this, this was a longitudinal study (850 days) with the same 110 individuals selected. This needed to be so because of the fact that the study aimed at examining re-reports after intervention.
In employing the intervention, the study describes the method, procedure, instruments, etc. Particularly, the questionnaires used were specifically described, and employed to fit the type of participant in the study. In addition to this, the article describes individualized treatment services for parents to help them along in the intervention.

With the efforts in the intervention program, re-reports were measured. It is believed that the results are encouraging and that there is room for improvement based on the fact that there are significant positive effects of the intervention program (PCIT).

Since this was a randomized study conducted in order to ascertain what kind of impact the study could have, it is considered successful by its results. However, a more targeted approach with more specific targets could reveal more information and lines along which therapists could work. Weaknesses in the study might therefore include lack of in-depth sight into each individual’s life, background, economic situation, etc. Although some of these points have been covered, a more focused study on the same and other individuals over a longer period would be more feasible.