Content uploaded by Astrid Rossegger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Astrid Rossegger on Mar 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Risk Assessment for Domestic Violence
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to give a systematic overview of risk assessment instruments for the field of domestic violence. Six instruments were identified, which had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and for which validation studies exist: the Domestic Violent Screening Instrument (DVSI), the Danger Assessment (DA), the Spousal Assault Risk-Assessment (SARA), the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk-Assessment (ODARA), the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), and the Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (DVRAG). Their validity and practical use are discussed.
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
... Third, we screensed the reference lists of review studies on individual or specific types of instruments (i.e., female victim risk appraisals [Bowen, 2011]; the SARA [Helmus & Bourgon, 2011]), and a review on risk assessment for dating violence (i.e., Tapp & Moore, 2016). Finally, we screened one non-English review for additional studies (i.e., Kilvinger, Rossegger, Urbaniok, & Endrass, 2012). ...
Risk assessment tools are increasingly being used to guide decisions about supervision and treatment of domestic violence perpetrators. However, earlier review studies showed that the predictive validity of most of these tools is limited, and is reflected in small average effect sizes. The present study aimed to meta-analytically examine the predictive validity of domestic violence risk assessment tools, and to identify tool characteristics that positively moderate the predictive validity. A literature search yielded 50 independent studies (N = 68,855) examining the predictive validity of 39 different tools, of which 205 effect sizes could be extracted. Overall, a significant discriminative accuracy was found (AUC = 0.647), indicating a moderate predictive accuracy. Tools specifically developed for assessing the risk of domestic violence performed as well as risk predictions based on victim ratings and tools designed for predicting general/violent criminal recidivism. Actuarial instruments (AUC = 0.657) outperformed Structured Clinical Judgment (SCJ) tools (AUC = 0.580) in predicting domestic violence. The onset of domestic violence (AUC = 0.744) could be better predicted than recurrence of domestic violence (AUC = 0.643), which is a promising finding for early detection and prevention of domestic violence. Suggestions for the improvement of risk assessment strategies are presented.
In the forensic field, a reliable and valid assessment of domestic perpetrators who pose a high risk of reassaulting an intimate partner is needed to implement effective risk management strategies. The purpose of the present study was to examine the accuracy of two violence risk assessment methods in identifying high-risk perpetrators of IPV, comparing forensic experts with psychology students. For a cohort (n = 30) of domestic violent cases that required an expert evaluation in the Canton of Zurich in Switzerland, violence risk was assessed by certified forensic psychiatrists using unstructured clinical judgment (UCJ) and by undergraduate and graduate research assistants scoring the actuarial Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) instrument. After a mean follow-up period of 8.0 years, the base rate of violent recidivism was 20.0%. Students were significantly more accurate than clinical experts in assessing long-term violent recidivism (AUC = 0.78 vs. 0.44). Raters without extensive clinical training could differentiate those spouses who carried on assaulting their intimate partner from those who desisted from violent behavior. Potential explanations are clinical assessment biases and the mediating effect of interventions. Further research should address the lack of use of mechanical instruments in clinical forensic practice.
On average one third of all women are victimised by intimate partner violence at least once in their life. Many women are affected repeatedly. To efficiently reduce the risk of repeated violence a reliable and valid risk assessment is needed. To date several risk assessment tools have been published in the field of intimate partner violence. There is a strong demand for such tools to be applicable by a wider range of practitioners (e.g., police officers, hospital and victim services' staff) to reliably assess cases of intimate partner violence and recommend further interventions. By developing the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) it was the authors' aim to provide a brief risk assessment tool which can be scored on the basis of only few and easily collectable information and which efficiently discriminates between low-risk and high-risk offenders of intimate partner violence. Previous replication studies found moderate to good and on average higher power of discrimination of the ODARA compared to other risk assessment tools in the field. However, for the German speaking countries robust findings are still lacking. In the present publication a scientific and authorised translation of the ODARA is provided.
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Clinical predictions made by mental health practitioners are compared with those using statistical approaches. Sixty-seven studies were identified from a comprehensive search of 56 years of research; 92 effect sizes were derived from these studies. The overall effect of clinical versus statistical prediction showed a somewhat greater accuracy for statistical methods. The most stringent sample of studies, from which 48 effect sizes were extracted, indicated a 13% increase in accuracy using statistical versus clinical methods. Several variables influenced this overall effect. Clinical and statistical prediction accuracy varied by type of prediction, the setting in which predictor data were gathered, the type of statistical formula used, and the amount of information available to the clinicians and the formulas. Recommendations are provided about when and under what conditions counseling psychologists might use statistical formulas as well as when they can rely on clinical methods. Implications for clinical judgment research and training are discussed.
Assessing violence risk among wife assaulters is receiving increasing attention in the literature, but risk assessment tools specifically for this population are just beginning to be developed. The literature on wife assaulters suggests the importance of antisocial personality and behavior. The present study examines psychopathy; the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), a validated actuarial risk assessment tool for violent recidivism; and motives thought to be related to wife assault, in predicting violent recidivism among 88 men with a history of serious wife assault. Violent recidivism was lower among wife assaulters (24%) than among a larger sample of generally violent offenders (44%). Score on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised was a good predictor of subsequent violence, r = .35, and score on the VRAG was a significantly better predictor, r = .42, area under the curve (AUC) = .75. The prospects for predicting lethal wife assault and violence against specific victims are discussed.
The findings of this study contribute to the discussion about the best method for predicting the recurrence of severe domestic violence. The findings are from a secondary data analysis comparing the accuracy of 177 domestic violence survivors' predictions of reassault to risk factors supported by previous research. The survivors' predictions were associated with recurrence of severe violence in a bivariate analysis. These predictions also added significantly to the accuracy of established risk factors in two multivariate equations predicting severe reassault within a 4-month period. Although not all of the survivors made accurate predictions, this research supports the use of survivors' predictions as an important element that should be included in risk prediction.
As a result of mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution policies, domestic violence cases are flooding courts throughout the country and overwhelming available resources. Ideally, the most dangerous offenders would be prosecuted and sentenced most aggressively and victims at the highest risk would receive the most intensive advocacy. Thus, judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and advocates are calling for empirically validated methods to assess future risk among arrested batterers. This article describes a pilot investigation of the utility of the Danger Assessment Scale for contributing to the prediction of repeat abuse. Findings suggest that the Danger Assessment Scale, administered to battered women seeking help from the justice system, can contribute significantly to the prediction of short-term abuse recurrence among arrested batterers. Implications for future research are discussed.
The problem of domestic violence has been well documented with respect to its social, psychological, and economic costs. Proactive arrest and sentencing policies have resulted in an increasing, and in some cases, overwhelming number of spousal batterers being processed through the criminal justice system. Scarce correctional and treatment resources necessitate that difficult decisions be made about the management of domestic violence perpetrators. In an effort to make better decisions, many jurisdictions have adopted a risk assessment approach. Spousal assault risk assessment now serves to inform those making decisions about sentencing (e.g., community release vs. incarceration), treatment placement, and supervision intensity. With these developments, researchers and clinicians have begun to discuss the appropriate content and process of spousal assault risk assessment. There have been a number of efforts in recent years to develop theoretically and scientifically sound risk assessment instruments and procedures. This article attempts to review state-of-the-art instruments in this rapidly expanding field.
Multivariate techniques were used to derive and validate an actuarial instrument for the prediction of violent postrelease offenses by mentally disordered offenders. The 618 subjects were a heterogeneous group of men who had been charged with serious offenses. Approximately half had been treated in a maximum security psychiatric institution and the rest had been briefly assessed prior to imprisonment. The actuarial instrument consisted of 12 variables and significantly predicted violent outcome in each of five subgroups. The instrument's practical application and its use in clinical appraisals of dangerousness are discussed.
Using structured risk assessment instruments to predict criminal offences in individual cases has several methodological limitations. Nevertheless actuarial risk assessment instruments enjoy an increase in popularity in research and forensic practice. This review highlights and discusses general difficulties In forensic research concerning low base rates of delinquency, the area under the curve as the gold standard in risk prediction research and the problem of heterogeneous samples, with regard to individual risk prediction. To determine the relapse probability as «low», «medium» or «high» will always be a political, legal and ethical question. Statistics are unlikely to resolve this problem.
This paper presents a new short-form scale called the Index of Spouse Abuse or ISA that was designed for use in clinical settings to monitor and evaluate progress in treatment. The ISA can be used on a regular or periodic basis with a single client in order to evaluate change in the degree or severity of both physical and nonphysical abuse as perceived by female respondents. The paper presents detailed findings concerning the reliability and validity of the ISA, along with details concerning the administration, scoring, and interpretation of the scale.
Risk assessment instruments and procedures are increasingly being used by justice system officials to provide better protection for victims, more appropriate sanctions and treatment for offenders, and better allocation of scarce resources, from prosecutor time to prison beds. A survey of courts and court-related agencies found that a number of risk assessment instruments are currently used in decisions about charging, pretrial release, probation, treatment, and incarceration of intimate partner offenders. Information on the content, scoring, psychometrics, administration, and use in sentencing of risk assessment instruments is provided. Justice officials and judges find the assessment results helpful in making decisions about sentencing and the allocation of scarce resources, and there is anecdotal information of their value in enhancing victim safety. Yet solid evidence on the reliability, validity, and predictive accuracy of dangerousness assessments is scarce, and legal and ethical issues remain unresolved. Caution is urged in the use of risk assessments without further research.