Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of Spouse Violence Risk Assessment Inventory for Police Purposes

  • RISK FACTORS FOR VICTIMS AND PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE
  • Published:
Journal of Family Violence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Spouse Violence Risk Assessment Inventory (SVRA-I) is a new scale developed by the Israeli police to measure the likelihood of male perpetrators repeating violent behavior toward their partners. This article describes the objectives of the inventory, its distinction in comparison to existing inventories, and the process of its development. Our preliminary study demonstrated a reasonable level of inter-rater reliability. Two subsequent studies examined the relationships between clinical assessments and SVRA-I scores, and additional two studies tested the validity of the inventory against criteria of repeated partner abuse. The inventory was found to be a valid and efficient tool for predicting recidivism of intimate partner violence (IPV). In the discussion, we review the limitations of devices aimed at predicting repeated IPV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We considered calculating the relationships between SVRA-I scores and investigators’ evaluation scores against prevalence of perpetrators’ repeated violence. However, there is no meaning to these analyses since the base rate of repeated abuse at the specified time frame (between 18 to 30 months after the first violence occurrence) is very small (see Rice and Harris 1995, 2005).

References

  • Au, A., Cheung, G., Kropp, R., Yuk-Chung, C., Lam, G. L. T., & Sung, P. (2008). A preliminary validation of the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER) in Hong Kong. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: a metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123–142.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, E. (2011). An overview of partner violence risk assessment and the potential role of female victim risk appraisals. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(3), 214–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, B. E. (2000). Children exposed to intimate partner violence: research findings and implications for intervention. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 1(4), 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd, L. W. (2009). Therapeutic groupwork with young children and mothers who have experienced domestic abuse. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(1), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. G., & Kropp, R. P. (2000). A review of domestic violent risk instruments. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 1, 171–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbogen, E. B. (2002). The process of violence risk assessment: a review of descriptive research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 591–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, E. L., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., McNulty, J. K., Pond, S. R., & Atkins, D. C. (2012). Using I3 theory to clarify when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 533–549.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gondolf, E. W., & Wernik, H. (2009). Clinician ratings of batterer treatment behaviors in predicting reassault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(11), 1792–1815.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. D. (1998). The role of psychopathy in assessing risk for violence: conceptual and methodological issues. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Houghton, R. E., & Eke, A. W. (2008). An in-depth actuarial assessment for wife assault recidivism: The Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 150–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Lang, C., Cormier, C. A., & Lines, K. J. (2004). A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 16, 257–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services (2011). Alimut Bamishpacha [Family violence]. Retrieved January, 26, 2012 from http://www.molsa.gov.il/MisradHarevacha/.

  • Kim, J. Y., & Lee, J. H. (2011). Factors influencing help-seeking behavior among battered Korean women in intimate relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2991–3012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kropp, P. R. (2004). Some questions regarding spousal assault risk assessment. Violence Against Women, 10(6), 676–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Litwack, T. R. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 409–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, L. G. (1998). Mandatory arrest and prosecution policies for domestic violence: a critical literature review and the case for more research to test victim empowerment approaches. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 306–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odeh, M. S., Zeiss, R. A., & Huss, M. T. (2006). Cues they use: clinicians’ endorsement of risk cues in predictions of dangerousness. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 147–156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paulozzi, L. J., Saltzman, L. E., Thompson, M. P., & Holmgreen, P. (2001). Surveillance for homicide among intimate partners – United States, 1981–1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, 50(3), 1–15.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 733–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005). “Violent recidivism: assessing predictive validity”: correction to Rice and Harris (1995). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(4), 762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. I., Miller, D. B., Guo, S., Slovak, K., & Frierson, T. (1998). The mental health consequences of children’s exposure to violence. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 507–521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. R., & Houghton, A. B. (2004). Assessing the risk of domestic violence reoffending: a validation study. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 437–455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. R., & Grant, S. R. (2006). Empirically examining the risk of intimate partner violence: the revised domestic violence screening instrument (DVSR-I). Public Health Reports, 121, 400–408.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zorza, J. (1992). Symposium on domestic violence: criminal law: the criminal law of misdemeanor domestic violence, 1970–1990. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83, 46–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Behavioral Science, Israeli Police, Bat-Yam, Israel

    Kobi Dayan & Michal Morag

  2. Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, 52900, Israel

    Shaul Fox

Authors
  1. Kobi Dayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shaul Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michal Morag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaul Fox.

Appendix

Appendix

The Final Items Comprising the SVRA-I

Critical Items

  1. 1.

    Did the perpetrator attack the complainant using a hot or cold weapon (firearm or any object that can be used as a weapon) in the past or during the present incident?

  2. 2.

    Are there signs of severe bodily injuries on the complainant or was she raped?

  3. 3.

    Did the subject stalk or follow the complainant?

  4. 4.

    Was the present offense a breach of a protection or restraining order?

  5. 5.

    Did the offence occur when the complainant expressed her wish to sever the relationship, while the perpetrator expressed strong disapproval, possessive behavior, and jealousy?

  6. 6.

    Did the perpetrator threaten the complainant, using a hot or cold weapon, in the past or during the present incident?

  7. 7.

    Did the perpetrator abuse his children physically, mentally or sexually?

  8. 8.

    Did the perpetrator threaten to hurt the complainant by a hot or cold weapon? (a verbal threat, not necessarily possessing the weapon).

  9. 9.

    Did the perpetrator behave violently in the presence of the investigator or any other professional personnel?

  10. 10.

    Is there an increase in the severity of the attacks and/or frequency of attacks?

  11. 11.

    Has there been any conviction of the perpetrator, for using a hot or cold weapon against other people in the last 5 years?

  12. 12.

    Has there been any conviction for inflicting severe injury against anyone within the last 5 years?

  13. 13.

    Does the complainant feel her life is in danger or threatened?

  14. 14.

    Did the perpetrator attempt or threaten to commit suicide during the past year?

  15. 15.

    Does the perpetrator threaten to act violently in the presence of the investigator or any other professional personnel?

  16. 16.

    Have there been previous convictions regarding threats to use a hot or cold weapon against anyone in the last 5 years?

Moderate Items

  1. 17.

    Were there signs of minor bodily injuries following the recent attack?

  2. 18.

    Was the recent attack inflicted in the presence of others?

  3. 19.

    Was the recent attack or attacks in the past inflicted when the complainant was pregnant?

  4. 20.

    Did the perpetrator cause property damage in the recent attack or in the past?

  5. 21.

    Were there any previous complaints against the perpetrator for violent offenses?

  6. 22.

    Did the perpetrator threaten the complainant not to file a complaint?

  7. 23.

    Did the perpetrator pressure the complainant to cancel her complaint?

  8. 24.

    Were the contents of the perpetrator’s threats specific, indicating location, time, means of attack, etc.?

  9. 25.

    Has the perpetrator threatened other complainants in the past or recently?

  10. 26.

    Has the recent offence included threatening other people?

  11. 27.

    Does the perpetrator possess a hot or cold weapon or have access to a lethal weapon (through a relative, friend, place of work, reserve army service, conscripted soldier, etc.?)

  12. 28.

    Has the perpetrator usually been obsessive about weapons?

  13. 29.

    Has the perpetrator been under mental distress, such as depression, etc.?

  14. 30.

    Are there other complaints against the perpetrator by an ex-spouse or another woman?

  15. 31.

    Has the perpetrator been socially isolated from friends, family, others?

  16. 32.

    Does the perpetrator refuse to receive community assistance?

  17. 33.

    Has the perpetrator been using drugs or is a chronic drinker?

  18. 34.

    Has the perpetrator tried or threatened to commit suicide in the past (along the last year)?

  19. 35.

    Is the perpetrator under financial distress or unemployed?

  20. 36.

    Has the perpetrator ever violated a court order, skipped bail or escaped custody?

  21. 37.

    Has the couple separated and lived apart?

  22. 38.

    Has the perpetrator displayed extreme jealousy or possessiveness towards the complainant?

  23. 39.

    Has the perpetrator displayed possessive behavior and a strong desire to control the complainants’ movements (prevented her from leaving the house\to work, calling too frequently, hanging up the phone, etc.)?

  24. 40.

    Has the perpetrator forced the complainant to have sex with him?

  25. 41.

    Following an assault, has the perpetrator prevented the complainant from receiving medical treatment or approach a caregiver/social worker?

  26. 42.

    Is there an atmosphere of fear and terror surrounding the complainant?

  27. 43.

    Does the perpetrator display psychological dependency on the complainant?

  28. 44.

    Has the perpetrator humiliated the complainant?

  29. 45.

    Has the perpetrator restricted the complainant financially (taking over salary and restricting pocket money)?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dayan, K., Fox, S. & Morag, M. Validation of Spouse Violence Risk Assessment Inventory for Police Purposes. J Fam Viol 28, 811–821 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9547-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9547-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation