An interventional study of Program For Alleviating Relationship Trauma and Stress through New Behaviors and DVIT Treatment As Usual (TAU) in Individuals Who Use Violence and Interpersonal Violence, sponsored by Cambridge Health Alliance. Not yet recruiting at 2 sites in United States. Open to male participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-05.
Sponsored by Cambridge Health Alliance · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
This research study investigates the feasibility of a randomized control trial of a group-based treatment program for reducing stress, trauma, substance use, and use of violence among individuals who were court-mandated to attend a program after committing an act(s) of domestic violence. The study is in a 2-arm design with an intervention group and a control group.
We previously tested a pilot program called PARTS-NB (Program For Alleviating Relationship Trauma and Stress- New Behaviors), an adaptation of the original PARTS Program and a study registered under the name of PARTS IPV (NCT06765122). The pilot program included unique and specific elements for People who Use Violence (PUV) in intimate relationships. Preliminary results from the PARTS IPV pilot suggest that intervention-based feasibility was met, with a total of 13 individuals attending at least 1 group and 12/13 individuals attending at least 8/12 of the first 12 groups. Mean acceptability was 26 (SD =3.4) meeting the acceptability criteria for the intervention at week 12. Moreover, individuals in the pilot PARTS IPV had overall declines in their aggression scales, minor psychological aggression (CTS2) and trended towards lower values and less variance in severe psychological aggression (CTS2). Interestingly, we also observed reductions in the frequency of individuals having six or more drinks (Question 3, AuditC).
Given these results, this project is an important and timely study with high-quality pilot randomized control clinical trial design. The methodology aligns closely with the specific aims described in this application and uses several innovative features and some carefully implemented gold-standard measures to ensure a high likelihood of success and publication. This will be the first RCT testing an intensive model of IFS group therapy designed specifically for those who use violence within intimate partner relationships with concurrent intermittent individual meetings for ongoing evaluation and support.
Previous reviews of interventions suggest there is a gap in effective interventions to treat IPV for those with trauma backgrounds (Cheng et al., 2021; Travers et al. 2021). PARTS1, PARTS2 and PARTS for Substance Use Disorder (PARTS SUD) have all demonstrated enhanced emotion regulation and self-related processing (Comeau et al. 2024; Ally et al. 2025; Joss et al. 2026). The protocol's methodology follows previous intimate partner violence studies, incorporating verbal consent and partner inclusion, while employing rigorously implemented informed consent procedures and gold-standard measures to enhance the likelihood of success and publication. While CBT IPV interventions vary in length (e.g., Strength at Home (SAH) groups are 12-weeks, standard state programs such as the psychoeducation program in the State of Washington are 26 sessions), we will use a phased approach that will run a total of 20 weeks with 20 group sessions and 6-9 individual sessions.
Primary Aims The primary aim of this study is to conduct a NIH Stage III hybrid "real-world implementation" study assessing the feasibility and acceptability (Nathan, 2007; Onken et al., 2014) of an Internal Family Systems intensive group program (Program for Alleviating and Reducing Trauma and Stress - IPV) (PARTS-IPV Phase 2) versus domestic violence treatment intervention treatment as usual (DVIT-TAU) control group on individuals mandated for treatment. We have two primary aims for this pilot RCT protocol: feasibility and acceptability.
Feasibility is defined in two ways: intervention-based feasibility: in both arms, we expect 70% of participants completing at least 67% (e.g., 8/12) of the first 12 groups. For study-protocol feasibility we do not expect differences in the arms but expect each arm to obtain overall 67% or more of participants completing week-20 study assessments (H1.1).
Secondary Aims H2.1: A secondary aim is overall acceptability of the intervention as measured by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) (Larsen et al., 1979) where for both arms, we expect a mean score of at least 20 out of a total of 32 (H2.1).
H2.2: Intervention satisfaction, as measured by a satisfaction question (would you recommend a friend) will obtain at least a mean of 7 out of 10 (H2.2) in week 20 for both arms.
H2.3: Another secondary aim of the study is to investigate the potential effects of the intervention on the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) (Straus et al., 1996; Chapman \& Gillespie, 2019) and Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse- Restrictive Engulfment (MMEA-RE Subscale) (Murphy \& Hoover, 1999). We hypothesize a risk reduction in physical and psychological violence from self-reports in both arms IFS/DVIT-TAU arm (H2.3). In our pilot (N=12), baseline mean of the psychological aggression subscale was 0.51 (SD=0.17), indicating that some participants had very high aggression scores while others did not. In Week 12, the mean was 0.13 (SD=0.12), suggesting that everyone clustered near zero, with a reduction in variability and suggesting a potential for stabilization in risk. Risk reduction in this case is both improvement and stabilization (decreased or stable scores).
For this pilot RCT, we hypothesize a greater risk reduction (decreased/stable scores) of psychological aggression use in the IFS arm compared to DVIT-TAU as measured by the psychological aggression subscale in CTS2 and MMEA-RE Subscale (H2.3).
H2.4: Lastly, in the pilot, we observed declines in the Aggression Experience Sampler (AES) from baseline to week 12. Average baseline scores were 13.97 (SE=0.63) with weekly rates of decline of -0.06 (p-value=0.09), indicating decreases ranging from 0.01 to 0.13 points per week. Based on these pilot findings we hypothesize that the 20-week RCT intervention will produce a weekly decline of -0.04 in AES scores (H2.4).
Exploratory Aims Exploratory outcomes include effects on mechanisms of emotion regulation, decentering, self-critical rumination, and self-compassion.
We hypothesize a greater capacity for decentering (Experiences Questionnaire - Decentering subscale (EQ)), reductions in self-critical rumination, reactivity in interpersonal relationships (OAS2, IRI-SF), as well as an increase in emotion identification and regulation (PAQ-S, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS)), transcendent experiences (NADA-Bliss subscale), and self-compassion (using Self-Compassion Scale Short Form (SCS-SF)) self report, in IFS PARTS compared to DVIT-TAU at week 12 and 20. Other exploratory aims of the study are to investigate the effects of the intervention on general mental health including posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety (Achtyes et al., 2015; Guinart et al., 2021), and substance use (Craving Scale, AUDIT-C).
Cambridge Health Alliance is the lead sponsor of 52 studies on the registry; 10 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
The American Psychiatric Association’s manual of mental health diagnoses. DSM-5 (2013, revised as DSM-5-TR in 2022) replaced DSM-IV, and some studies still name the older edition. “Meets DSM criteria for …” means diagnosed by that edition’s diagnostic criteria, usually by a clinician in an interview.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
DSM diagnostic criteria
The American Psychiatric Association’s manual of mental health diagnoses. DSM-5 (2013, revised as DSM-5-TR in 2022) replaced DSM-IV, and some studies still name the older edition. “Meets DSM criteria for …” means diagnosed by that edition’s diagnostic criteria, usually by a clinician in an interview.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Participants (N=24 anticipated) randomly allocated to this arm with undergo an IFS-based intervention called PARTS-NB, which curriculum is adapted from the original PARTS program and encompasses a mix of weekly group sessions (120 minutes each) for 20 weeks and individual IFS therapy sessions (minimum 6, and up to 9).
Behavioral: Program For Alleviating Relationship Trauma and Stress through New Behaviors
The control group (N=24 anticipated) will follow Treatment As Usual (TAU) for people who use violence in interpersonal and domestic relationships. Currently in WA state, these treatments are a mix of elements from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Duluth Model, and/or Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT). Participants in this group will not be exposed to IFS during TAU to preserve the integrity of the study design. The number of individual counseling sessions during TAU will be tracked, but it can vary based on need in the treatment as usual modalities.
Behavioral: DVIT Treatment As Usual (TAU)
The experiential protocol includes 15 minutes of themed curriculum and 45 minutes of experiential exercises, e.g., going inside meditation, centering practice, witnessing their own parts, psychodrama, speaking for parts exercises, finding parts in the body, etc. In addition, participants will have 30 minutes to speak in the group about their experience and review the manual focused on new coping strategies and behaviors. We will ask participants to keep a journal to write down observations and parts they notice during the week and ask them to bring the journal and manual we send to them to the group so they can record information they remember after exercises. All participants also will be scheduled to have approximately six to nine standard clinical one-hour sessions with an individual IFS trained counselor (at least Level 1 IFS trained) during their time in the program, with an average of one-two sessions per month (6-9 total individual sessions).
Also known as: Program For Alleviating Relationship Trauma and Stress - InterPersonal Violence
Treatment As Usual (TAU) for people who use violence in interpersonal and domestic relationships. In WA state currently, these treatments are usually a mix of elements from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Duluth Model, and/or Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT). Participants in this group will not be exposed to IFS during TAU, to preserve the integrity of the study design. The number of individual counseling sessions during TAU will be tracked, but it can vary based on need in the treatment as usual modalities.
H1.1 - Intervention Feasibility
70% of participants attend 67% of group sessions Study feasibility: 70% of participants complete of post study assessments For study-protocol feasibility we do not expect differences in the arms but expect each arm to obtain overall 67% or more of participants completing week-20 study assessments (H1.1)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 20 weeks
H2.1. - Acceptability
Mean score of 20 on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) general acceptability item A secondary aim is overall acceptability of the intervention as measured by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) (Larsen et al., 1979) where for both arms, we expect a mean score of at least 20 out of a total of 32 (H2.1)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 20 weeks
H2.2 -- Satisfaction
Intervention satisfaction, as measured by a satisfaction question (would you recommend a friend) will obtain at least a mean of 7 out of 10 (H2.2) in week 20 for both arms Mean \>7.0 of 10 on willingness to refer a friend on Satisfaction Questionnaire
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 20 weeks
H2.3 -- Conflict Tactics
Investigate the potential effects of the intervention on the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) (Straus et al., 1996; Chapman \& Gillespie, 2019) and Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse- Restrictive Engulfment (MMEA-RE Subscale) (Murphy \& Hoover, 1999). We hypothesize a risk reduction in physical and psychological violence from self-reports in both arms IFS/DVIT-TAU arm (H2.3). In our pilot (N=12), baseline mean of the psychological aggression subscale was 0.51 (SD=0.17), indicating that some participants had very high aggression scores while others did not. In Week 12, the mean was 0.13 (SD=0.12), suggesting that everyone clustered near zero, with a reduction in variability and suggesting a potential for stabilization in risk. Risk reduction in this case is both improvement and stabilization (decreased or stable scores).
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 20 weeks
H2.4 -- Aggression Experience
in the pilot PARTS IPV study, we observed declines in the Aggression Experience Sampler (AES) from baseline to week 12. Average baseline scores were 13.97 (SE=0.63) with weekly rates of decline of -0.06 (p-value=0.09), indicating decreases ranging from 0.01 to 0.13 points per week. Based on these pilot findings we hypothesize that the 20-week RCT intervention will produce a weekly decline of -0.04 in AES scores (H2.4)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 20 weeks
Exploratory Aim - mechanisms of emotion regulation, decentering, self-critical rumination, and self-compassion
Exploratory outcomes include effects on mechanisms of emotion regulation, decentering, self-critical rumination, and self-compassion. We hypothesize a greater capacity for decentering (Experiences Questionnaire - Decentering subscale (EQ)), reductions in self-critical rumination, reactivity in interpersonal relationships (OAS2, IRI-SF), as well as an increase in emotion identification and regulation (PAQ-S, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS)), transcendent experiences (NADA-Bliss subscale), and self-compassion (using Self-Compassion Scale Short Form (SCS-SF)) self report, in IFS PARTS compared to DVIT-TAU at week 12 and 20. Other exploratory aims of the study are to investigate the effects of the intervention on general mental health including posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety (Achtyes et al., 2015; Guinart et al., 2021), and substance use (Craving Scale, AUDIT-C).
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 20 weeks
Plan to share: No
Start is estimated for Aug 2026; primary completion for Jul 2027, 11 months later.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Jul 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Cambridge Health Alliance