Evaluating risk assessment instruments for intimate partner stalking and intimate partner violence.

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacomina Gerbrandij ◽  
Barry Rosenfeld ◽  
Alicia Nijdam-Jones ◽  
Michele Galietta
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Instruments

Preliminary Validation of the ODARA for Female Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

Partner Abuse ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Zoe Hilton ◽  
Suzanne Popham ◽  
Carol Lang ◽  
Grant T. Harris
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Recidivism Rates ◽  
Domestic Assault ◽  
Preliminary Validation ◽  
Female Perpetrators ◽  
Roc Area

Female perpetrators of assault against dating, cohabiting, or marital partners (intimate partner violence [IPV]) recidivate less than their male counterparts. Risk assessment instruments, though, have been developed almost exclusively on men. In a prospective, masked 9-year follow up of 30 female IPV offenders incarcerated in a correctional treatment institution within one decade, the base rate of IPV recidivism was 23%. The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) predicted IPV recidivism, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area = .724, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.503, 0.944], but recidivism rates differed significantly from rates based on male samples. Gender-modified items did not improve prediction. We recommend further research with larger samples to seek improved recidivism estimates among female IPV offenders, but in the interim, we suggest the ODARA can be used to apportion intervention resources for female IPV perpetrators.

Persistence and Potential Lethality in Intimate Partner Violence: Evaluating the Concurrent and Predictive Validity of a Dual Risk Assessment Protocol

2021 ◽  
pp. 107780122098834
Author(s):  
Kirk R. Williams ◽  
Richard Stansfield ◽  
Jacquelyn Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Race And Ethnicity ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Risk Management Strategies ◽  
Domestic Violence Screening

This study seeks to determine the concurrent and predictive validity of a dual risk assessment protocol. It combines the risk of persistence in intimate partner violence (IPV) measured via the Domestic Violence Screening Instrument–Revised (DVSI-R) with supplemental items from the Danger Risk Assessment (DRA) bearing on the risk of potential lethality. We further test whether this assessment protocol reproduces disparities by race and ethnicity found in the larger population. Using a sample of 4,665 IPV male defendants with a female victim, analyses support both types of criterion validity. The DRA risk score is associated with felony charges, incarceration at the initial arrest, and the frequency of subsequent dangerous behavior. Results also suggest minimal predictive bias or disparate impact by race and ethnicity. Incorporating supplemental items bearing on potential lethality risk adds important information concerning the risk management strategies of those involved in IPV.

#15 Risk Assessment in Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of Contemporary Approaches

Partner Abuse ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-86
Author(s):  
Tonia L. Nicholls ◽  
Michelle M. Pritchard ◽  
Kim A. Reeves ◽  
Ed Hiltermana
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Theresa Messing
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Lethal Violence ◽  
Female Victims ◽  
Power And Control ◽  
The Individual ◽  
And Control

Intimate partner violence—the continual and systematic exercise of power and control within an intimate relationship that often also includes physical and sexual violence—has emerged as a significant and complex social problem warranting the attention of social workers. Risk and protective factors have been identified at the individual, family, community, and societal levels. Some of these risk factors for repeat and lethal violence have been organized into risk assessment instruments that can be used by social workers to educate and empower survivors. Intimate partner violence has multiple negative health and mental health consequences for female victims and their children. Social workers in all areas of practice should be prepared to intervene with victims of intimate partner violence in a culturally competent manner using a strengths-based framework.

Predictors of Severe Intimate Partner Violence Among Antisocial and Family-Only Perpetrators: Victims’ and Offenders’ Characteristics

2020 ◽  
pp. 088626052094371
Author(s):  
Raúl Aguilar Ruiz ◽  
María José González-Calderón
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Predictive Variables ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Estimated Risk

The objective of this study was to determine the variables that predict severe intimate partner violence (S-IPV) according to the typology of abusers. The data were derived from 1,610 police reports on intimate partner violence (IPV) in Catalonia (Spain) between 2016 and 2017 obtained through the Police Risk Assessment Questionnaire. The study has compared a group of antisocial aggressors ( n = 613) with a group of family-only perpetrators ( n = 997). The chi-square test shows significant differences between antisocial and family-only groups for most of the variables analyzed. To determine the predictive variables of S-IPV in both groups, binary regression analyses were performed. In the antisocial group, death threats and degrading treatment by the aggressor significantly increased the probability of S-IPV, as did the victim’s minimization or justification of the abuse, living together with the aggressor, isolation, and drug or alcohol abuse. In the family-only group, an increase in the severity of the abuse and death threats against partners significantly increased the likelihood of perpetrating S-IPV. For the victims, being abused by a previous partner and fear for her physical integrity were found to increase the probability of suffering S-IPV. On the other hand, having filed a prior complaint appears to protect women from S-IPV, but only when the victims have antisocial perpetrators. The findings show that S-IPV risk factors are common regardless of the sociocultural context. Modifying the weighting of the factors that make up the risk assessment tools according to the typology of the abuser is suggested, as well as improving knowledge of these factors to increase the accuracy of the estimated risk. Finally, adapting supervision and monitoring measures according to the type of aggressor and taking into consideration the woman’s own perception of the danger she is in are also suggested.

Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment and Management

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Randall Kropp
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Military Family ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment ◽  
Original Intent ◽  
Family Advocacy ◽  
Managing Risk

While risk assessment is important in the management of intimate partner violence perpetrators, the science and practice of risk assessment in this field are still in early development. This article reviews the literature on intimate partner violence risk assessment. The original intent was to direct discussion to assist the Military Family Advocacy Program (FAP), U.S. Department of Defense, to develop guidelines for the treatment of domestic violence offenders. The article is divided into sections as follows: (a) Defining Risk; (b) The Risk Factors; (c) Models of Risk Assessment; (d) Existing Risk Instruments; (e) The Role of the Victim in Risk Assessment; (f) Qualifications to Conduct Assessments; (g) Communicating Risk; and (h) Managing Risk. Relevant issues and controversies are raised throughout the article.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document