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

Over the past 40 years, intimate partner violence (IPV) has evolved from an emerging social problem to a socially unacceptable crime. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 encourages state policies that focus on criminal justice intervention, including mandatory arrest and prosecution. Services offered to victim-survivors of IPV are often tied to criminal justice intervention, or otherwise encourage separation. These interventions have been seen as effectively using the authority of the state to enhance women's power relative to that of abusive men. However, these interventions do not serve the needs of women who, for cultural or personal reasons, want to remain in their relationship, or marginalized women who fear the power of the state due to institutionalized violence, heterosexism, and racism. The one-size-fits-all approach that encourages prosecution and batterer intervention programs for offenders and shelter and advocacy for victim-survivors fails to adhere to the social work value of client self-determination and the practice principle of meeting clients where they are. It is imperative that social workers in all areas of practice are aware of IPV policies, services, and laws. Social workers' challenge moving forward is to develop innovative and evidence-based interventions that serve all victim-survivors of IPV

Intimate partner sexual violence (IPSV) is a significant social problem, particularly among women who are concurrently experiencing physical violence in their intimate relationships. This research examined the prevalence and factors associated with IPSV among a sample of women recruited at the scene of police-involved intimate partner violence incidents (N = 432). Within this sample, 43.98 percent of participants reported experiencing IPSV; this includes 17.36 percent who reported sexual abuse and 26.62 percent who reported forced sex. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the factors related to sexual abuse and forced sex, controlling for victim and relationship characteristics. Compared with women not reporting IPSV, women who were sexually abused or forced into sexual intercourse were significantly more likely to experience strangulation, feelings of shame, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Women whose partners had forced sex were more likely to report that they had a child in common with their abusive partner; and that their partner was sexually jealous, had threatened to kill them, had stalked or harassed them, or caused them to have a miscarriage due to abuse. These findings can be used to better inform social work practitioners about the prevalence and nature of IPSV and the associated risk factors, and can assist in routine screening and intervention.

No abstract