Research directed toward profiling an abuser to develop effective treatment modalities should consider the framework for how batterer subtypes were developed. This article evaluates a seminal work in batterer typology for a review of its method and findings. Findings indicate that the formation of batterer subtypes rely on unstable theory and methods: (a) Variables were not held constant, (b) Theoretical constructs lack clarity, (c) There were unclear boundaries for subtypes. A re-evaluation of this particular line of typology research should address the utility and relevance of these batterer subtypes in an effort to address methodological implications that may help profile and treat abusers.