Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment Validation Study: The RAVE Study -- Practitioner Summary and Recommendations: Validation of Tools for Assessing Risk From Violent Intimate Partners

• NCJ Number: 209732
• Author(s): Janice Roehl Ph.D.; Chris O'Sullivan Ph.D.; Daniel Webster Sc.D.; Jacquelyn Campbell Ph.D.
• Date Published: March 2005
• Length: 15 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2000-WT-VX-0011
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
• Corporate Author: Johns Hopkins University
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study assessed the accuracy of several approaches for predicting the risk of future harm or lethality in domestic violence cases.

Abstract

The methods tested were the Danger Assessment, DV-MOSAIC, Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI), and the Kingston Screening Instrument for Domestic Violence (K-SID). These instruments were selected because many service providers currently use them, even though little is known about whether and how well they assess the likelihood of future violence. Four New York City sites and two Los Angeles sites were selected for testing the instruments. A total of 1,307 domestic-violence victims were involved in baseline interviews. Follow-up interviews were begun in December 2002 and ended in early January 2004. Although follow-up phone contacts began 6 months after baseline interviews, the length of the follow-up periods varied among the sample for various reasons. Retention rates varied from site to site, ranging from a low of 33 percent to a high of 69 percent. Overall, of the 1,307 enrollees at baseline, follow-up interviews were completed with 782 (60 percent). At Time 1, 82 percent of the women had experienced severe abuse, with all but 6 percent having been physically assaulted by their partner or ex-partner. Approximately one-third had been re-assaulted by the end of the follow-up period (a maximum of 2 years). Repeat assaults continued to be severe, with 11 percent having experienced a potentially lethal attack. None of the instruments or method was impressive in predicting reassault. By most analytical strategies, the Danger Assessment had the strongest psychometric properties, including the predictive statistics. The DVSI and DV-MOSAIC also had significant associations with re-assaults. The K-SID was the weakest of the instruments; however, it did well in predicting re-arrests with the use of criminal justice data. Women's perception of risk did better than the other assessment methods. 11 tables and 13 references