Rapid access to accurate risk assessment information is essential for effective police responses to family violence (FV) calls for service. This study describes the predictive validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment (DYRA) for family violence and Static Assessment of Family Violence Recidivism (SAFVR), currently in use by the New Zealand Police. We used 1,817 police reports of FV episodes to predict recurrence (i.e., repeat call for police service) over three follow-up periods. Regardless of follow-up, the DYRA and SAFVR each displayed poor ability to discriminate between episodes with and without a recurrence. Both instruments substantially over-predicted recurrence and performed relatively consistently across subsamples (e.g., intimate partners vs. other family relationship; aggressor gender, ethnicity, age). The especially poor performance of the DYRA suggests further research on dynamic risk factors and their contribution to police responses for FV is needed to make these instruments more useful for agencies working with families.
BissieloA.KnightG. (2016). Family violence risk assessment redevelopment: Static risk score [New Zealand Police internal report]. New Zealand Police.
3.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2016). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
4.
ChanK. L. (2012). Evaluating the risk of child abuse: The Child Abuse Risk Assessment Scale (CARAS). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(5), 951–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511423252
5.
DouglasK. S.SkeemJ. L. (2005). Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11(3), 347–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.3.347
GondolfE. W. (2002). Batterer intervention systems: Issues, outcomes, and recommendations. SAGE.
10.
GrahamL. M.SahayK. M.RizoC. F.MessingJ. T.MacyR. J. (2019). The validity and reliability of available intimate partner homicide and reassault risk assessment tools: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 22(1), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018821952
HamelJ. (2011). In dubious battle: The politics of mandatory arrest and dominant aggressor laws. Partner Abuse, 2(2), 224–245. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.2.2.224
13.
HansonR. K. (2017). Assessing the calibration of Actuarial Risk Scales: A primer on the E/O index. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816683956
14.
HansonR. K.BourgonG.McGrathR. J.KronerD.D’AmoraD. A.ThomasS. S.TavarezL. P. (2017). A five-level risk and needs system: Maximizing assessment results in corrections through the development of a common language. National Reentry Resource Center. https://saratso.org/pdf/A_Five_Level_Risk_and_Needs_System_Report.pdf
HeckertD. A.GondolfE. W. (2005). Do multiple outcomes and conditional factors improve prediction of batterer reassault?Violence and Victims, 20(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2005.20.1.3
17.
HeisterJ. (2018). SAFVR reanalysis of Morris and Mossman (2015) [New Zealand Police internal report]. New Zealand Police.
18.
HeisterJ. (2019). The role of age, ethnicity and gender [New Zealand Police internal report]. New Zealand Police.
19.
HelmusL. M.BabchishinK. M. (2016). Primer on risk assessment and the statistics used to evaluate its accuracy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816678898
20.
HiltonN. Z.EkeA. W. (2016). Non-specialization of criminal careers among intimate partner violence offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1347–1363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816637886
21.
HiltonN. Z.HarrisG. T.RiceM. E. (2001). Predicting violence by serious wife assaulters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(5), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016005002
22.
HiltonN. Z.HarrisG. T.RiceM. E. (2010). Risk assessment for domestically violent men: Tools for criminal justice, offender intervention, and victim services. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12066-000
23.
Integrated Safety Response. (2018). 12 week review of cases referred to the Integrated Safety Response (ISR) pilot [Integrated Safety Response internal report].
24.
JonesA. S.HeckertD. A.GondolfE. D.ZhangQ.IpE. H. (2010). Complex behavioral patterns and trajectories of domestic violence offenders. Violence and Victims, 25(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.1.3
KroppP. R.HartS. D. (2000). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) guide: Reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005430904495
27.
López-OssorioJ. J.González-ÁlvarezJ. L.VicenteJ. M. M.CortésC. U.Andrés-PueyoA. (2019). Validation and calibration of the Spanish police intimate partner violence risk assessment system (VioGén). Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 34(4), 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-019-09322-9
28.
MagdolL.MoffittT. E.CaspiA.SilvaP. A. (1998). Developmental antecedents of partner abuse: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107(3), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.107.3.375
29.
MannR. E.HansonR. K.ThorntonD. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse, 22(2), 191–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210366039
30.
McEwanT. E.SheaD. E.OgloffJ. R. P. (2018). An actuarial instrument for police triage of Australian family violence reports. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(4), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818806031
31.
MessingJ. T.ThallerJ. (2013). The average predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessment instruments. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(7), 1537–1558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468250
32.
MossmanE. (2014). Evaluation of the use of ODARA in New Zealand [New Zealand Police internal report]. New Zealand Police.
NichollsT. L.PritchardM. M.ReevesK. A.HiltermanE. (2013). Risk assessment in intimate partner violence: A systematic review of contemporary approaches. Partner Abuse, 4(1), 76–168. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.4.1.76
39.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7
SinghJ. P.DesmaraisS. L.DornR. A. V. (2013). Measurement of predictive validity in violence risk assessment studies: A second-order systematic review. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 31(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2053
42.
SpivakB.McEwanT.LuebbersS.OgloffJ. (2020). Implementing evidence-based practice in policing family violence: The reliability, validity and feasibility of a risk assessment instrument for prioritising police response. Policing and Society, 1–20. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2020.1757668
43.
SteinerJ. J.JohnsonL.HetlingA.LinH.-F.PostmusJ. L. (2019). Creating a tool for assessing domestic violence risk and impact among TANF clients. Advances in Social Work, 19(1), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.18060/22606
44.
SvalinK.LevanderS. (2019). The predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessment conducted by practitioners in different settings: A review of the literature. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 35(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-019-09343-4
45.
van der PutC. E.AssinkM.van SolingeN. F. B. (2017). Predicting child maltreatment: A meta-analysis of the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments. Child Abuse and Neglect, 73, 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.016
46.
van der PutC. E.GubbelsJ.AssinkM. (2019). Predicting domestic violence: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of risk assessment tools. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 47, 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.03.008
47.
WaltonD.BrooksR. (2019). Whāngaia Ngā Pā Harakeke pilot: Counties Manukau District outcomes evaluation [New Zealand Police internal report]. New Zealand Police.
48.
WilliamsK. R. (2012). Family violence risk assessment: A predictive cross-validation study of the Domestic Violence Screening Instrument-Revised (DVSI-R). Law and Human Behavior, 36(2), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093977
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
