The field of intimate partner violence (IPV) risk assessment (predicting recidivism, lethality) is fast growing, and the majority of research examining the predictive validity of IPV risk assessment instruments has been conducted in the past decade. This study examines the average predictive validity weighted by sample size of five stand alone IPV risk assessment instruments that have been validated in multiple research studies using the Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve (AUC). The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) has the highest average weighted AUC (=.666, k=5) followed, in order of most to least predictive, by the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA; AUC=.628, k=6), the Danger Assessment (DA; AUC=.618, k=4), the Domestic Violence Screening Inventory (DVSI; AUC=.582, k=3), and the Kingston Screening Instrument for Domestic Violence (K-SID; AUC=.537, k=2). The effect size for the average AUCs for IPV risk assessment instruments is small, with the exception of a medium effect size for the ODARA. Of the 20 measures of predictive validity included in this analysis, the risk assessment was administered correctly in nine (45%). IPV risk assessment is relatively new, and the use of proxy instruments and utilization of risk assessment instruments in settings for which they were not created is widespread. While waiting for a more rigorous body of research, factors in addition to predictive validity must be taken into consideration (e.g., setting, outcome, skills of the assessor, access to information) when choosing which risk assessment instrument is appropriate for use in a particular practice setting.

No abstract

At least one in seven homicides around the world is perpetrated by intimate partners. The danger of intimate partner homicide (IPH) associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) has led to the development of numerous IPV reassault and IPH risk assessment tools. Using 18 electronic databases and research repositories, we conducted a systematic review of IPH or IPV reassault risk assessment instruments. After review, 43 studies reported in 42 articles met inclusion criteria. We systematically extracted, analyzed, and synthesized data on tools studied, sample details, data collection location, study design, analysis methods, validity, reliability, and feasibility of use. Findings indicate that researchers in eight countries have tested 18 distinct IPH or IPV reassault risk assessment tools. The tools are designed for various professionals including law enforcement, first responders, and social workers. Twenty-six studies focused on assessing the risk of male perpetrators, although eight included female perpetrators. Eighteen studies tested tools with people in mixed-sex relationships, though many studies did not explicitly report the gender of both the perpetrators and victims/survivors. The majority of studies were administered or coded by researchers rather than administered in real-world settings. Reliable and valid instruments that accurately and feasibly assess the risk of IPH and IPV reassault in community settings are necessary for improving public safety and reducing violent deaths. Although researchers have developed several instruments assessing different risk factors, systematic research on the feasibility of using these instruments in practice settings is lacking.

No abstract

Testing posttraumatic stress as a mediator of childhood trauma and adult intimate partner violence.