Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 439–449 | Cite as

Validation and Calibration of the Spanish Police Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment System (VioGén)

  • Juan José López-OssorioEmail author
  • José Luis González-Álvarez
  • José Manuel Muñoz Vicente
  • Carlota Urruela Cortés
  • Antonio Andrés-Pueyo


This study describes the rationale, development, and validation of the intimate partner violence (IPV) police risk assessment forms of the VioGén System of the Spanish Ministry of Interior (VPR4.0 and VPER4.0), which promote greater predictive effectiveness and an improvement in the IPV law enforcement prevention. A validation study of the mentioned protocols is presented, including inter-observer reliability, estimated by the equivalence or inter-judge reliability method, while the convergent validity of these protocols was calculated with the RVD-BCN protocol. The sample consisted of 6613 new cases of IPV included in the VioGén System over a period of 2 months and which were longitudinally followed up for 6 months. The discrimination indexes are not only the summarized odds ratio (OR), area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity, but also the calibration indexes positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). The results show the suitability of using procedures which, in a coordinated manner, incorporate two risk assessment instruments, one for a first screening assessment and a second one to re-assess IPV danger situations on a regular basis. The values obtained are within the margins reported by different meta-analyses regarding this type of instruments, which supports their use for professional practice.


Intimate partner violence Police risk assessment Prediction tools Validation process VioGén system 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statement

This research was not funded. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. This research did not require any informed consent.


  1. Álvarez M, Andrés Pueyo A, Augé M, Choy A, Fernández C, Foulon H et al (2011) Protocolo de Valoración del Riesgo de Violencia contra la Mujer por parte de su pareja o ex pareja (RVD-BCN). Circuito Barcelona Contra la Violencia hacia las Mujeres, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrés Pueyo A, López S, Álvarez E (2008) Valoración del riesgo de violencia contra la pareja por medio de la SARA. Papeles del Psicólogo 29(1):107–122Google Scholar
  3. Arbach-Lucioni K, Andres-Pueyo A (2016) Violence risk assessment practices in Spain. In: Signh JP, Bjorkly S, Fazel S (eds) International perspectives in violence risk assessment. Chapter 19. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Arbach-Lucioni K, Desmarais S, Hurducas C, Condemarin C, Kimberlie D, Doyle et al (2015) La práctica de la evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España. Revista de la Facultad de Medicina 63(3):357–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belfrage H, Strand S, Storey J, Gibas A, Kropp P, Hart S (2012) Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide. Law Hum Behav 36(1):60–67. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan A, Binder R, Norko M, Swartz M (2012) Resource document on psychiatric violence risk assessment. Am J Psychiatry 169:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canales D, Macaulay A, McDougall A, Wei R, Campbell J (2013) A brief synopsis of risk assessment screening tools for frontline professionals responding to intimate partner violence. Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  8. Capdevila M (ed) (2015) Tasa de reincidencia penitenciaria 2014. CEJFE, Barcelona. Retrieved February 20, 2019 from:
  9. Carvajal A, Centeno C, Watson R, Martínez M, Sanz A (2011) ¿Cómo validar un instrumento de medida de salud? An Sist Sanit Navar 34(1):63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dayan K, Fox S, Morag M (2013) Validation of spouse violence risk assessment inventory for police purposes. J Fam Violence 28(8):811–821. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Becker G (1997) The gift of fear. Little, Brown y Co., BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. De Becker G et al (2000) Domestic violence method (DV MOSAIC). Retrieved February 20, 2019 from:
  13. Douglas KS, Shaffer C, Blanchard AJE, Guy LS, Reeves K, Weir J (2014) HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: overview and annotated bibliography, HCR-20 violence risk assessment white paper series, 1. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  14. Echeburúa E, Amor PJ, Loinaz I, De Corral P (2010) Escala de Predicción del Riesgo de Violencia Grave contra la Pareja-Revisada-(EPV-R). Psicothema 22(4):1054–1060PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fazel S, Singh J, Doll H, Grann M (2012) Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Br Med J 345:4692. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Folino JO (2015) Predictive efficacy of violence risk assessment instruments in Latin-America. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context 7(2):51–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hart S (2008) Preventing violence: the role of assessment and management. In: Constanza BA, Willem WF (eds) Intimate partner Violence prevention and intervention. Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York, pp 7–18Google Scholar
  18. Hilton Z, Harris G, Rice M, Houghton R, Eke A (2008) An indepth actuarial assessment for wife assault recidivism: the domestic violence risk appraisal guide. Law Hum Behav 32(2):150–163. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kroop P (2008) Intimate partner violence risk assessment and management. Violence Vict 2:202–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kropp P, Hart S, Webster CD, Eaves D (1995) Manual for the spousal assault risk assessment guide, 2nd edn. British Columbia Institute on Family Violence, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  21. Kropp P, Hart S, Belfrage H (2010) Brief spousal assault form for the evaluation of risk (B-SAFER) second edition. User manual. Proactive Resolutions, CanadáGoogle Scholar
  22. Llor-Esteban B, García-Jiménez JJ, Ruiz-Hernández JA, Godoy-Fernández C (2016) Profile of partner aggressors as a function of risk of recidivism. Int J Clin Health Psychol 16:39–46. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Loinaz I (2017) Manual de evaluación del riesgo de violencia. Metodología y ámbitos de aplicación. Madrid, PirámideGoogle Scholar
  24. López-Ossorio JJ, González JL, Andrés-Pueyo A (2016) Eficacia predictiva de la valoración policial del riesgo de la violencia de género. Psychosoc Interv 25:1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. López-Ossorio JJ, González JL, Buquerín S, García L, Buela-Casal G (2017) Risk factors related to intimate partner violence police recidivism in Spain. Int J Clin Health Psychol 17:107–119. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Martínez L (2016) Errores conceptuales en la estimación de riesgo de reincidencia. La importancia de diferenciar sensibilidad, valor predictivo y estimaciones de riesgo absolutas y relativas. Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica 14:1–31Google Scholar
  27. Messing J, Thaller J (2013) The average predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessment instruments. J Interpers Violence 28(7):1537–1558. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Muñoz JM, López-Ossorio JJ (2016) Valoración psicológica del riesgo de violencia: alcance y limitaciones para su uso en el contexto forense. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica 26(1):130–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neller D, Frederick R (2013) Classification accuracy of actuarial risk assessment instruments. Behav Sci Law 31:141–153. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nicholls TL, Pritchard MM, Reeves KA, Hilterman E (2013) Risk assessment in intimate partner violence: a systematic review of contemporary approaches. Partner Abuse 4(1):76–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Otto R, Douglas K (eds) (2010) Manual de evaluación del riesgo de violencia. Taylor & Francis Group, Nueva YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Rice M, Harris G, Lang C (2013) Validation of and revision to the VRAG and SORAG: the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide—Revised (VRAG-R). Psychol Assess 25(3):951–965. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Roaldset JO, Hartvig P, Bjørkly S (2017) Psychometric properties and predictive validity of a police version of a violence risk screen—a pilot study. Int J Law Psychiatry. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rossegger A, Gerth J, Seewald M, Urbaniok M, Singh J, Endrass J (2013) Current obstacles in replicating risk assessment findings: a systematic review of commonly used actuarial instruments. Behav Sci Law 31:154–156. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rossegger A, Endrass J, Gerth J, Singh JP (2014) Replicating the violence risk appraisal guide: a total forensic cohort study. PLoS One 9(3):e91845. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh J (2013) Predictive validity performance indicators in violence risk assessment: a methodological primer. Behav Sci Law 31:8–22. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Singh J, Grann M, Fazel S (2011) A comparative study of risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clin Psychol Rev 3:499–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singh J, Fazel S, Gueorguieva R, Buchaman A (2014) Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments. Br J Psychiatry 204:180–187. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh JP, Yang S, Mulvey E (2015) Reporting guidance for violence risk predictive validity studies: the RAGEE statement. Law Hum Behav 39:15–22. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. WAVE- Women Against Violence Europe (2011) Proyect—identifying and protecting high risk victims of gender based violence—an overview, Report of the DAPHNE Protect. Vienna. Retrieved February 20, 2019 from:
  41. WAVE- Women Against Violence Europe (2012) Proyect II—European network and European info CENTRE AGAINST VIOLENCE, Report of the DAPHNE Protect. Vienna. Retrieved February 20, 2019 from:

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Ciencias Forenses y de la Seguridad (Institute for Forensic and Security Sciences)Universidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Coordination and Studies Office of the Secretary of State for SecuritySpanish Ministry of InteriorMadridSpain
  3. 3.Supreme Court of MadridMadridSpain
  4. 4.Faculty of PsychologyUniversidad de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations