Type:	Journal Article
Title:	Empirically examining the risk of intimate partner violence: the revised domestic violence screening instrument (DVSI-R)
Other Titles:	Public health reports
Authors:	Williams, Kirk R Grant, Stephen R
Keywords:	Measurement
Year:	2006
Publisher:	U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Resources Administration
Citation:	121, July-August 2006
Notes:	General Overview: This US (Connecticut) research looks at the revised Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (the DVSI-R) to: * estimate the effects of age, ethnicity, gender on risk scores * determine the concurrent validity of the instrument by estimating the effects of other behaviour measures on the score, particularly emphasising incidents having multiple victims as an indicator of more severe violence and Method: In Connecticut, individuals arrested on family violence charges are subject to a risk assessment by Family Relations Counselors (FRCs). The assessments (in principle) are based on perpetrator interviews, a review of police reports, criminal history and protective order reviews and victim interviews and the assessments guide recommendations made by the FRCs to the courts. A sample of 14,970 risk assessments was taken from between 1 September 2004 and 2 May 2005 covering all areas of Connecticut. Of these cases, 25% had multiple assessments, meaning the perpetrator was re-arrested and brought back to the court on intimate violence charges. These cases were treated as repeat cases and used in the analysis of predictive validity of the DVSI-R. Of the total number of cases, 38% had multiple victims and these were used to assess whether cases involving multiple victims scored higher than those involving single victims. The DVSI-R includes a summary risk rating for the FRCs to provide their own professional assessment of the case. The predictive value of this assessment was compared with the predictive value of the DVSI-R scores. Results: The DVSI-R consistently predicted repeat intimate violence and it performed better generally than professional judgment. The predictive accuracy was consistent between intimate partner violence and other intimate violence (that is, between non-partner family members). Repeat violence, however, was found to be more likely in intimate partner violence than in other types of violence. There was a strong and unanticipated relationship between multiple victim incidents and repeat intimate violence. The risk assessment instrument was generally applicable across all of the population regardless of demographics, and was not biased by age, gender or ethnicity. Conclusion: The results show that the instrument is robust and independent of characteristics of perpetrators or forms of intimate violence. Further validation is necessary using more comprehensive measures of recidivism than multiple assessments alone. The important aim is to train professionals in their use of risk assessment instruments to link them with well-crafted strategies of supervision and treatment to help protect victims and to hold perpetrators accountable.
URI:	https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/14550
ISSN:	0033-3549
Appears in Collections:	Journal Articles

Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.