Risk assessment for spousal violence has become a much-discussed topic in the scientific and professional literatures. There have been recent advances in our knowledge regarding risk factors related to spousal violence, but there remain numerous controversies and outstanding questions regarding risk assessment practice. This article outlines some of these issues and offers some recommendations for future research and policy initiatives. Six fundamental questions are posed: (a) What is risk? (b) How should risk assessments be conducted? (c) What should be the role of the victim in risk assessment? (d) Who should conduct risk assessments? (e) How should risk be communicated and managed? (f) How should risk assessments be evaluated? An underlying theme of this article is the importance of bridging science and practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & the National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI–R). Toronto, Canada: Multi–Health Systems.
4.
Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001). Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 490–521.
5.
Barnett, O. (2001). Why battered women do not leave, part 2: External inhibiting factors— social support and internal inhibiting factors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2, 3–35.
6.
Borum, R. (1996). Improving the clinical practice of violence risk assessment. American Psychologist, 51, 945–953.
7.
British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General. (2000). Violence against women in relationships policy. Victoria, Canada: Queen’s Printer.
8.
Campbell, J. C. (1995). Prediction of homicide of and by battered women. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing the risk of dangerousness: Potential for further violence of sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 93–113). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Campbell, J. C., McFarlane, J., Webster, D., Wilt, S., Block, C. R., Sharps, P., et al. (2001, November). The Danger Assessment instrument: Modifications based on findings from the Intimate Partner Femicide Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.
10.
Campbell, J. C., Sharps, P., & Glass, N. (2001). Risk assessment for intimate partner homicide. In G. F. Pinard& L. Pagani (Eds.), Clinical assessment of dangerousness: Empirical contributions (pp. 175–239). New York: Plenum.
11.
Denver Metro Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee. (2000). When domestic violence kills. Denver, CO: Project Safeguard.
12.
Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (2001). Homicide in Britain: Risk factors, situational contexts and lethal intentions (Research Bulletin No. 1). Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.
13.
Douglas, K. S., Cox, D. N., & Webster, C. D. (1999). Violence risk assessment: Science and practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 149–184.
14.
Douglas, K. S.,& Kropp, P. R. (2002). Aprevention–based paradigm for violence risk assessment: Clinical and research applications. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2(5), 617–658.
15.
Douglas, K. S.,& Webster, C. D. (1999). Predicting violence in mentally and personality disordered individuals. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart,& J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 175–239). New York: Plenum.
16.
Dutton, D. G., Bodnarchuk, M., Kropp, R., Hart, S. D., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1997). Wife assault treatment and criminal recidivism: An eleven–year follow–up. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 41(1), 9–23.
17.
Dutton, D. G., & Kropp, P. R. (2000). A review of domestic violence risk instruments. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1, 171–181.
18.
Fein, R., Vossekuil, B.,& Holden, C. (1995). Threat assessment: An approach to prevent targeted violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
19.
Furby, L., Weinrott, M. R., & Blackshaw, L. (1989). Sex offender recidivism: Areview. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 100–105.
20.
Gondolf, E. W. (1988). Whoare those guys? Toward a behavioral typology of batterers. Violence and Victims, 3, 187–203.
21.
Gondolf, E. W. (2001). Batterer intervention systems: Issues, outcomes, and recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Grann, M., & Wedin, I. (2002). Risk factors for recidivism among spousal assault and spousal homicide offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 8(1), 5–23.
23.
Grove, W. M.,& Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinicalstatistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293–323.
24.
Hanson, R. K. (1998). What do we know about sex offender risk assessment? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 50–72.
25.
Hanson, R. K. (2000). Risk assessment. Prepared for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Beaverton, OR: Association for theTreatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA).
26.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta–analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362.
27.
Hanson, R. K.,& Harris, A. J. R. (2000). Where shouldwe intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 6–35.
28.
Hanson, R. K., & Wallace–Capretta, S. (2000). Prediction recidivism among male batterers. Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
29.
Hart, B. (1990). Assessing whether batterers will kill. St. Paul: Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse.
30.
Hart, S. D. (1998). The role of psychopathy in assessing risk for violence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 121–137.
31.
Hart, S. D. (2001). Assessing and managing violence risk. In K. S. Douglas, C. D. Webster, S. D. Hart, D. Eaves, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), HCR–20 violence risk management companion guide (pp. 13–25). Burnaby, Canada: Simon Fraser University, Mental Health, Law, & Policy Institute and University of South Florida, Florida Mental Health Institute, Department of Mental Health Law and Policy.
32.
Hart, S. D. (2002, September). Violence risk assessment: An anchored narrative approach. Paper presented at the 12th European Conference on Psychology and Law, Leuven, Belgium.
33.
Heilbrun, K. (1997). Prediction versus management models relevant to risk assessment: The importance of legal decision–making context. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 347–359.
34.
Heilbrun, K., O’Neill, M. L., Strohman, L. K., Bowman, Q., & Philipson, J. (2000). Expert approaches to communicating violence risk. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 137–148.
35.
Henderson, A. D. (2001). Factors influencing nurses’ responses to abused women: What do they say they do and why do they say they do it? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1284–1306.
36.
Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband–to–wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101–124.
37.
Jones, A. S.,& Gondolf, E. W. (2001). Time–varying risk factors for reassault among batterer program participants. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 345–359.
38.
Kapp, M. B., & Mossman, D. (1996). Measuring decisional competency: Cautions on the construction of a “capacimeter.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 73–95.
39.
Kropp, P. R.,& Hart, S. D. (2000). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment(SARA) guide: Reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 101–118.
40.
Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Lyon, D. R.,& LePard, D. (2002). Managing stalkers: Coordinating treatment and supervision. In L. Sheridan & J. Boon (Eds.). Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for prevention, policing and treatment (pp. 141–163). New York: John Wiley.
41.
Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Eaves, D. (1999). Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (3rd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Multi–Health Systems.
42.
Litwack, T. R. (1997). Communications regarding risk. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1245–1260.
43.
Litwack, T. R. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 409–443.
44.
Litwack, T. R.,& Schlesinger, L. B. (1999). Dangerousness risk assessments: Research, legal and clinical considerations. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 171–217). New York: John Wiley.
45.
McFarlane, J., Soeken, K., Campbell, J. C., Parker, B., Reel, S., & Silva, C. (1998). Severity of abuse to pregnant women and associated gun access of the perpetrator. Public Health Nursing, 15, 201–206.
46.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G.,& Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (2nd ed.) New York: Guilford.
47.
Monahan, J. (1996). Violence prediction: The last 20 and the next 20 years. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 107–120.
48.
Monahan, J., & Steadman, H. J. (1994). Toward a rejuvenation of risk assessment research. In J. Monahan& H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment (pp. 1–17). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49.
Mulvey, E. P.,& Lidz, C. W. (1995). Conditional prediction: Amodel for research on dangerousness to others in a new era. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 18, 129–143.
50.
Otto, R. K. (1992). Prediction of dangerous behavior: A review and analysis of “ secondgeneration” research. Forensic Reports, 5, 103–133.
51.
Otto, R. K. (2000). Assessing and managing violence risk in outpatient settings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 1239–1262.
52.
Pence, E.,& Lizdas, K. (1998). The Duluth Safety and Accountability Audit: Aguide to assessing institutional responses to domestic violence. Minneapolis, MN: MPDI.
53.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
54.
Riggs, D. S., Caulfield, M. B.,& Street, A. E. (2000). Risk for domestic violence: Factors associated with perpetration andvictimization. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 1289–1316.
55.
Roehl, J.,& Guertin, K. (1998). Current use of dangerousness assessments in sentencing domestic violence offenders. Pacific Grove, CA: State Justice Institute.
56.
Rosenfeld, B. D. (1992). Court–ordered treatment of spouse abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 205–226.
57.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), E Division. (2000). Violence in relationships policy. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
58.
Saunders, D. G. (1993). Husbands who assault: Multiple profiles requiring multiple responses. In N. Z. Hilton (Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and evaluation (pp. 9–34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
59.
Sjöstedt, G.,& Grann, M. (2003). Risk assessment: What is being predicted by actuarial prediction instruments? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1, 179–184.
60.
Slovic, P., Monahan, J., & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 271–296.
61.
Sonkin, D. G. (1997). The perpetrator assessment handbook. Sausalito, CA: Volcano Press.
62.
Steadman, H. J. (2000). From dangerousness to risk assessment of community violence: Taking stock at the turn of the century. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28, 265–271.
63.
Straus, M. A. (1991, July). Factors predicting serious violence towards wives. Paper presented at the International Conference for Research on Family Violence, University of New Hampshire, Durham.
64.
Tolman, R. M., & Bennett, L. W. (1990). Areview of research on men who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 87–118.
65.
Watterworth, J., Smith, L., Williams, K. R.,& Houghton, A. (2001, November). Assessing the risk of partner assault re–offending: Avalidation study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.
66.
Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding domestic homicide. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
67.
Websdale, N., Sheeran, M.,& Johnson, B. (1998). Domestic violence fatality reviews: Summarizing national developments. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
68.
Webster, C. D.,& Bailes, G. (2000). Assessing violence risk in mentally and personality disordered individuals. In C. R. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 71-84). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
69.
Weisz, A. N., Tolman, R. M.,& Saunders, D. G. (2000). Assessing the risk of severe domestic violence: The importance of survivors’ predictions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 75-90.
70.
Whittemore, K. E., & Kropp, P. R. (2001, August). The victim’s impact in spousal assault risk assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
71.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and Victims, 8, 3-15.
