Dynamic Appraisal of Intimate Partner Violence Risk and Need: Results From an Outpatient Treatment Program

• Author: Mark E. Olver,Chantal Schafers,J. Stephen Wormith
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854820980498
• Published date: 01 April 2021
• Date: 01 April 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 4, April 2021, 481 –501.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820980498

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

481

DYNAMIC APPRAISAL OF INTIMATE PARTNER

VIOLENCE RISK AND NEED

Results From an Outpatient Treatment Program

CHANTAL SCHAFERS

Correctional Service of Canada

MARK E. OLVER

J. STEPHEN WORMITH

University of Saskatchewan

This study examined the psychometric, predictive, and dynamic properties of intimate partner violence (IPV) risk. The

sample consisted of 88 men attending an outpatient IPV correctional program. The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk

Assessment (ODARA) was rated at pretreatment using participant files. The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment–Version

3 (SARA-V3) was rated at pre- and posttreatment using collateral information (e.g., facilitator ratings, files) and par-

ticipant questionnaires. Recidivism data were obtained from a court database with an average follow-up of 15 months.

The SARA-V3 and ODARA demonstrated strong convergent validity and predicted violent and general recidivism with

moderate to high accuracy; SARA-V3 posttreatment ratings incremented the ODARA in the prediction of recidivism, yet

not vice versa. Noncompleters were higher risk and had higher recidivism rates. Changes on the SARA-V3’s Perpetrator

Risk Factors domain were significantly associated with decreased recidivism in bivariate analyses and some change

associations remained significant with stringent controls for risk. Implications for risk assessment/management, service

planning, and future research are discussed.

Keywords: intimate partner violence; dynamic risk; risk assessment; prediction; intervention

The World Health Organization has identified intimate partner violence (IPV) as an inter-

nationally widespread human rights and public health issue (García-Moreno et al.,

2013). Internationally, nearly one third of ever-partnered women have experienced physical

or sexual IPV (García-Moreno et al., 2013). In Canada, IPV accounted for almost a third of

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This manuscript won the inaugural J. Stephen Wormith Graduate Research Award

through the Canadian Psychological Association’s Criminal Justice Section. This research was financially sup-

ported in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council’s Joseph Armand Bombardier Canada

Graduate Master’s Scholarship and the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Sciences and Justice Studies’

Graduate Student Research Award. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chantal

Schafers, Correctional Service of Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 3X5; e-mail: chantal.scha-

fers@usask.ca.

980498CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820980498Criminal Justice and BehaviorSchafers et al. / Dynamic Appraisal of IPV Risk

research-article2020

482 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

all police-reported violent crime, having generated more than 99,000 victims in the year

2018 (Conroy et al., 2019). In a nationally representative sample of 530 American men,

19.2% admitted that they had perpetrated IPV at some point in their life (Singh et al., 2014).

Such a prolific problem is troubling, for victims of IPV suffer from not only direct physical

injury but also long-term health issues (e.g., chronic pain, brain injury; Campbell, 2002),

including mental health (depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use dis-

orders; García-Moreno et al., 2013; Golding, 1999). IPV is life-threatening, accounting for

approximately 45% to 60% of homicides of North American women (Campbell, 2002), as

well as increased odds of suicide (odds ratio [OR] = 4.54) among women who have expe-

rienced it (García-Moreno et al., 2013). The human costs associated with IPV are clear and

the need to accurately appraise risk for future IPV to inform case prioritization, service

delivery, risk management, and violence prevention is paramount.

STRUCTURED APPROACHES TO IPV RISK ASSESSMENT

Structured forensic assessment instruments that are general risk–need (e.g., Level of

Service Inventory–Revised [LSI-R]; Andrews & Bonta, 1995), IPV-specific (reviewed

below), or that assess clinical constructs with substantial criminal justice relevance (e.g.,

Psychopathy Checklist–Revised [PCL-R]; Hare, 1991, 2003) have been used to assess risk

for future IPV, with quantitative reviews broadly supporting their psychometric properties

to predict this and related outcomes (Helmus & Bourgon, 2011). IPV-specific measures

include the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA; Hilton et al., 2004),

Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) Versions 2 (Kropp et al., 1999) and 3 (Kropp &

Hart, 2015), Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (DVRAG; Hilton et al., 2008),

Danger Assessment (DA; Campbell et al., 2009), and Domestic Violence Screening

Instrument (DVSI; Williams, 2012; Williams & Houghton, 2004).

An advantage of purpose-built IPV measures is that they contain static and/or dynamic

risk variables that are general to offending (e.g., employment instability, relationship dys-

function) and specific to IPV (e.g., attitudes supportive of spousal assault, anger problems)

to not only inform risk for future IPV but also to prioritize key areas for intervention and

recidivism prevention. The ODARA and SARA are among the most frequently used and

widely researched IPV measures, with quantitative reviews demonstrating broadly moder-

ate to high predictive accuracy for IPV recidivism (d = .68, and .43–.48, respectively;

Hanson et al., 2007), violent recidivism (area under the curves [AUCs] = .666 and .628,

respectively; Messing & Thaller), and general recidivism. The ODARA is a 13-item static

actuarial scale with score bands linked to IPV recidivism estimates. The SARA is a struc-

tured professional judgment (SPJ) tool comprised of static and dynamic items, the informa-

tion from which is integrated to arrive at a summary risk rating.

Per the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of effective correctional intervention

(Bonta & Andrews, 2017), IPV risk tools can be used to inform service intensity (i.e., higher

risk cases receive more services, per the risk principle) and identify targets or dynamic risk

factors for risk management interventions (per the need principle). Within the context of a

comprehensive IPV risk assessment, case planning considerations that are client-specific

and impact response to services (e.g., cognitive ability, literacy level, motivation, culture)

can be evaluated (per the responsivity principle) to maximize engagement and minimize

client attrition. Despite these broad RNR-based applications beyond recidivism prediction,