Risk Assessment
measures in prediction of domestic / interpersonal violence:
Brief overview of some measures and issues
Report by
Counterpoint, November 2003
Professional Education for Community Practitioners:
Technical Paper Series: User- Report 2003:01
With compliments from
Counterpoint
Technical Paper Series Editor : Smita Vir Tyagi, Ph.d
(Candidate)
November
2003
The Technical Paper Series is a professional development service from Counterpoint for community based practitioners. It is an attempt to bridge the gap between research, academia and community based practice in the area of domestic violence. The series will appear from time to time and contact information for copies is given below. You are welcome to share these papers with your colleagues and photocopy the information. However we request that you acknowledge the source whenever you do so.
Contact
information:
Counterpoint Counselling and
Educational Co-operative Inc.
365 Bloor Street East, #
1005
Toronto, Ontario M4W
3L4
Phone (416)
920-0268
Fax: (416) 920-2387
Described in this snapshot paper are brief notes of risk measures in the field. As Dutton & Kropp (2000) point out diverse groups in North America [Police, Corrections and others ]have developed risk, lethality and prediction scales. Many are not easily accessible or do not have accessible published validity data. The scales reviewed here provide information on some popularly used as well as new risk measures that have been developed in response to changing needs. The paper also highlights some key issues in the use of risk assessment and risk prediction measures.
Important Caveats for
use: Decisions to use one
measure or the other should be made based on the following considerations
q
Context of use
[Community, institution, type of setting, at intake or at program completion,
used with victims or offenders]
q
Purpose [Exclusion from
service, classification, evaluation of client, prediction of violence
etc.]
q
Partner’s
assessment in assessing risk. Recent
research shows that victims assessment can be an accurate and important source
of risk assessment and risk prediction (Weisz, Tolman & Saunders, 2000). Is
such an assessment included in the risk measure?
q
Standardization and norms
[Standardized on what population, sample size, diversity of sample,
generalizability to Canadian population etc.]
q
Reliability and
validity [Psychometric properties as
reported by scale developers]
q
Role of ‘base rates’ in risk prediction [How
often does violence occur in the population and it’s consideration in a risk
instrument]. Other issues related to base rates are (to name one) difficulties
in predicting homicide because it is rare.
q
Information source for
measure [From victim, from offender
himself, from collateral sources, from file information. If information is from
offender what about response distortions such as faking good or faking
bad]
q
Theoretical
framework of
measure.
q
Content of measure [If
measure incorporates previous history as well as current situation, how well
does it address current ‘dynamic’ factors in the present, does the instrument
address risk within a certain timeframe? etc.]
q
Ease of
administration [Is it too long, can it be
used on a phone intake etc.]
q
Ease of
interpretation [Is it too complicated or
specialized for widespread use]
q
Training of staff
[Does it require special
training, qualifications]
q Cost and availability [Is it copyrighted; Is the cost prohibitive; Will authors consent to share it for widespread use]
-Purpose is not to provide
relative or absolute risk measures using cut-off scores but to enhance
professionals judgments about risk if person is a threat to family , spouse or
other
-Scores based on information
from multiple sources [victim, offender, addictions history, review of
collateral records including police reports, criminal records, other
psychological assessments where available]
-Well established
psychometric properties
-Easy to score. Risk
management flows from scores
-One critique is it’s
variables which are derived from clinical judgments that rely on professionally
trained staff and are subject to inter-rater disagreement. Also, it does not
assess relationship status.
-Copyrighted, sold by Multi
Health System, Toronto, Complete kit $72 Cn.
-Uses information from the
victim. Use applied to adult males only.
-Originally developed to
assess risk of homicide among batterers but can be used to predict future
domestic violence
-Psychometric properties
have been published. Replication on larger samples promising (Goodman, Dutton
& Benett, 2000 for other references see Danger Assessment
website)
-Easy to use and
interpret
-Copyright by author but
available for widespread use with credit to author. See website for up to date
information. www.son.jhmi.edu/research/CNR/homicide/DANGER.htm
PAPS: Partner
Abuse Prognostic Scale (Murphy, Morrell, Elliott,& Neavans,
2003).
Scale obtained information
from both offenders and partners in it’s development
-A prognostic index derived
from 17 well established risk variables. For use with adult males only
-Found prediction of
additive model (putting different risk factors together) was
good
-Reported psychometric data
are very promising
-Provides cut-off scores for
risk
-As of Sept 2003 practice
applications await further validation
-Authors can be contacted at
University of Maryland
Scale based on information
gathered from convicted killers and community men
DOVE: Domestic
Violence Evaluation (Ellis, D and associates, York University,
Toronto).
New measure being developed
on assessing, screening and predicting post-separation domestic violence.
Information not available but awaiting imminent
publication
PAS : Propensity
for Abusiveness Scale (Dutton, 1995)
Scale based on information
gathered from batterers and non violent community men
-Self-report scale developed
by assessing items in a comprehensive assessment. Taps attachment style, anger
response, trauma symptoms, parental treatment and self-concept stability. For
use with adult males only.
-Author suggests it maybe
more useful for noncriminal populations and predicting emotional abuse and risk
for physical abuse
-Preliminary psychometric
data looks promising, still developmental
-Author should be contacted
for more information @ Dept of Psychology, University of British Columbia
PCL –R :
Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (Hare, 1991)
-Multiple information
sources include case history reviews, interviews with family members, criminal
and psychiatric records.
-Uses information such as
exploitation of others and chronically unstable lifestyle as predictors and has
a few violence related items
-Well established
psychometric properties, large number of studies supporting it’s use
-Robust predictor of
violence including domestic violence although scale was not designed for
domestic violence
-Easy to score. Risk
management flows from scores
-One critique is that it was
designed to predict general violence and criminal recidivism so it gathers
little or no information on partner abuse. (See Dutton, 2000 for potential
limitation as demonstrated in a recent study)
-Copyrighted, Training for
the instrument sold by Multi Health System, Toronto, Complete kit price $300
Cn.
VRS-E1: Violence Risk Scale
Experimental Version 1 (Wong & Gordon, 1996)
-Provides
a sum of scores. The higher the score, the higher the risk
VPS: Violence
Prediction Scheme (Webster, Harris, Rice, Cormier & Quinsey, 1991)
and
VRAG: Violence
Risk Appraisal Guide (Quinsey, Harris, Rice & Cormier,
1998)
-Used for prediction of
dangerousness and risk with adult males only
-For use with mentally
disordered and serious offenders in prison populations
-Uses developmental,
personality, violent and non violent history items. Includes PCL-R
score.
IBWB:
Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating (Saunders, Lynch, Grayson &
Linz,1987)
CTS
2:
Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy
& Sugarman, (1996)
MAI:
MultiDimensional
Anger Inventory (Siegal, 1986)
HTWS:
Hostility Toward Women Scale (Check, 1985)
Most
of these are in the public domain and available for use by practitioners
Concluding
remarks: Inspite of different
measures in use there is a consensus on some key points
-There are no short-cuts to
assessing risk.
-Selection of instrument
must be a systematic, thoughtful process.
-Available risk assessment /
prediction instruments have important limitations
-Multiple sources of data
are important (partner, probation officer, addictions worker
etc.)
-Over reliance on any one
method can be problematic
- Risk assessment should
speak to a time frame (will offend in the next few days, in a few months, ever
again)
-Risk assessment must
present the conditions under which a batterer is likely to re-offend (example,
under the influence of alcohol, on threat of separation
etc.)
-Consultations with
colleagues who work on the team improve chances of assessing risk
-Practitioners should be
trained in risk assessments, be aware of the legal parameters of their
assessments and be prepared
to develop and propose action plans for management of risk
See Monahan and Steadman (1996) for an excellent review of issues in risk assessment for practitioners and Schopp (1996) for communication of risk assessments.
Campbell, J. C. (1995).
Prediction of homicide of and by battered women. In J.C.
Campbell (Ed.). Assessing
dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers and child abusers
(pp. 96-113).
Check, J.V.P.
(1985). The Hostility Toward Women Scale. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Manitoba.
Dutton, D.
(1995). A scale for measuring the propensity for abusiveness. Journal of
Family Violence, 10, 203-221.
Dutton, D.G.,
& Kropp, P.R. (2000).A review of domestic violence risk instruments.
Trauma, Violence and Abuse,1, 171-182.
Goodman, A.L.,
Dutton, M., & Bennett, L. (2000). Predicting repeat abuse among arrested
batterers: use of the danger Assessment Scale in the criminal justice system.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15 (1), 63-74.
Hare, R. (1991).
Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi Health
System
Kropp, P.R.,
Hart, S.D., Webster, C. D., & Eaves, D. (1994). Manual of the Spousal
Assault Risk Assessment Guide (2nd ed). Vancouver, Canada:
British Columbia Institute on Family Violence.
Kropp, P.R., Hart, S.D.,
Webster, C. D., & Eaves, D. (2000). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment
Guide (SARA) guide: Reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law and
Human Behaviour, 24 (1), 101-118.
Meredith,
C., & Burns, N. (1990). The Index of Controlling Behaviours. Ottawa: ABT and
Associates.
Monahan, J.,
& Steadman, J.H. (1996). Violent storms and violent people: How meteorology
can inform risk communication in mental health law. American Psychologist, 51
(9), 931-938
Murphy,M.C.,
Morrell, M.T., Elliott, D.J., & Neavans,M.N.(2003). A prognostic Indicator
Scale for the treatment of partner abuse perpetrators. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18
(9), 1087-105.
Quinsey, L.V.,
Harris, T.G., Rice, E. M., & Cormier, A.C. (1998). Violent offenders:
Appraising and managing risk. Washington: American Psychological
Association.
Saunders,
D.G., Lynch, A.B., Grayson M., & Linz, D. (1987). Inventory of Beliefs about
Wife Beating: The construction and initial validation of a measure of beliefs
and attitudes. Violence and Victims, 2, 39-55.
Schopp,
F.R. (1996). Communicating risk assessments: Accuracy, efficacy and
responsibility. American Psychologist, 51
(9), 939-944.
Siegal,
J.M. (1986). Multidimensional Anger Inventory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 191-200.
Straus, M.A.,
Hamby, S.L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D.B (1996). The revised Conflict
Tactics Scale (CTS-2). Journal of Family Issues, 7, 283-316.
Webster, C., Harris, G., Rice, M., Cormier, C., &
Quinsey, V. (1991). The violence prediction scheme: Assessing dangerousness
in high risk men. Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto
Weisz, A.,
Tolman, R.M., & Saunders, D. (2000). Assessing risk of severe domestic
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15 ,
75-90.
Wong, S., &
Gordon, A. (1996). Violence Risk Scale Experimental Version 1. Department
of Psychiatric Research, Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatchewan, Canada:
Solicitor General of Canada.