Chapter 4

Question 1

Why is intimate partner violence (IPV) the preferred term?

Answer 1

Domestic violence + spousal assault are other terms
but IPV specific to intimate relationships yet broad enough to include relationships beyond co-habitation or legal marriage

Question 2

How prevalent is IPV and its forms?

Answer 2

IPV in general around 15-71%

Physical IPV around 10-52%

Recidivism around 40 to 80% and therefore very common

Question 3

What are some common risk markers and estiation variations of IPV?

Answer 3

• Repeat vicitimization (most reliable risk marker for violence against women + children)
• Separation (most (attempted) murders and acts of seriuos crimes committed when partner tries to leave abuser)
• -> also happnes outside of separation (custody fight, visitation rights)
• numbers dependent on countries policies (e.g., Canadian social policy)

Question 4

What are the two most well-known risk assessments for IPV?

Answer 4

Danger Assessment Scale

Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA)

Question 5

What do risk assessments in IPV involve + what are benefits?

Answer 5

Assessment involves predicitng whether continued episodes of violence will occur

unique risk predictor factors fo each subtype

Benefits: informed response strategies, raise awareness, reduce risk, safety planning, prevention interventions

Question 6

What are the four risk factors tied to IPV?

Answer 6

Individual risk factors (e.g., younger age, alcohol use, depression, fear of rejection)

Relationship context (e.g., relationship conflict, dominance imbalance, economic distress, history of domestic violence, threats)

Community context (e.g., weak sanctions for IPV, poverty, low social capital)

Society context (e.g., traditional gender norms, social norms supportive of violence)

Question 7

Are IPV risk assessments applicable in court?

Answer 7

Yes, are seen as valid predicitons

should term judgements in relative terms and with reference to empirical risk factors

Question 8

Accodring to Bonta what are the gnerations of development of assessment scales?

Answer 8

1. Generation = unstrucutred + subjective -> lack accountability and replicability
2. Generation = combine primarily static risk factors, explicit rules, focus on static factor as limitation
3. Generation = criminogenic needs included, offender change possible, typically actuarial
4. Generation = comprehensive guide

Question 9

What is not adressed by Bonta`?

Answer 9

status of SPJs (offer more flexibility)

Bonta implies scales with explicit rules are always actuarial

Question 10

What are the risk factors / Personality traits for IPV?

Answer 10

• being married, older than other offenders (younger age in general), slow in responding to change
• pro-abuse attitudes (negative attitude towards conventional institutions, antisocial attitudes (sex roles + relationships), hostile, individualistic approach, tolerant of wife assault)
• deterrence (deterence theory, i.e., sanctions will make them fear punishment, but not true)
• motivation to change (acknowledging abusive behaviour + expressing change -> lower risk, similar recidivism in voluntary and mandated clients)
• marital distress (abuse –> marital unhappiness –> marital conflict –> abuse. partners marital dissatisfaction positively associated with recidivism)
• Negative family background (common in offenders, may facilitate development but not persistence)
• womens own predictions about their own future accurate for 4 months
• treatment compliance

Question 11

Can methods developed fo general offending be used for IPV?

Answer 11

factors associated with violent and general recidivism same factors associated with male batterers

LSI-R predicts violent and criminal recidivism in male batterers just as well

Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) predicted violent recidivism in wife assaulters

Question 12

What is a unique set of predictors in IVS?

Answer 12

Access to potential victim

has critical information about history and personality of perpetrator

Question 13

What are the three categories of riska assessments for Spousal Assault?

Answer 13

Reporting no past or current attempts

Inlcuded in evaluation and validity studies

Published validity data

Question 14

What is the DA Scale?

Answer 14

developed as form of statistical prediction
criterion was women’s perception of danger
seems to measure prior severity (four times more likely to be assaulted in future) rather than predict future

Question 15

What is the PAS?

Answer 15

comprehensive assessments to give to convicted batters
self-report scale (does not seem to be related to abusiveness at face-value)
focus primarily on emotional abuse (82% accuracy in discrimiating abusive men)
correlated to dominance and isolation, emotional abuse, use of threats, pyhsical violence, anger, and general dysphoria

Question 16

What is the PCL-R?

Answer 16

Measures Psychopathy (start crimial career early and are violent til 40s)
structured interview and set of ratings
two factors:
–> affective deviance (i.e., glibness, lack of empathy, and pathological lying)
–> Social deviance (i.e., antisocial behaviour)
PCL-SV was not able to discriminate between recidivsists and non-recidivsits regarding IVS -> likely because psychopaths do not form pathological clining attachments

Question 17

What is Straus list of criteria for idneitfying life threatening risk among violent men?

Answer 17

criteria associated with severe violence as measured by Conflict Tactics Scale
severe assaults not lethal –> title misleading
no weighting formula
tautological prediction (common in family violence literature)

Question 18

What is Daniel Sonkin*s list of risk factors?

Answer 18

inteded for use by treatment providers
factors discrimate lethality risk
assumption that womans fear is vertical predictor of lethal violence in partner
chances of being correct 50-50
best predictor of future is past
guide not a psychometric test

Question 19

Women as Perpetrators in IPV?

Answer 19

Big debate as data goes against feminist theory
3 different data about women
–> nationally representative surveys: men and women equally violent
–> couple-conflict studies –> women more physically aggressive
–> Bureau of Justice Statistics –> women 5 times more likely to have been victims
male vicitimization not taken seriously due to gender paradigm + culture –> law enforcement lax
female perpetrated abuse in IPV at least as commonly as male (often exeeds severity, serious negative outcomes, reflect common background causes)
women known to commit unilateral abuse
system should address perpetration and victimization needs of both
partner abuse preventions and interventions focused on males (maybe applicable to females)

Question 20

What is the SARA?

Answer 20

spousal assault = any acutal, attempted or threatened physical harm perpetrated by man or woman against someone with whom they are intimate, or in sexual relationship

SPJ tool

20 risk factors (general violence + spousal violence) –> static + dynamic

four domains (General Criminality, Psychosocial Adjustment, Spousal Assault History, Index Offenses, other considerations)

Question 21

How is the SARA rated?

Answer 21

items rated on 3 point scale
critical items defined
relevance rated on 2 scale
three scores calcualted:
--> total score (0-40)
--> number of items rated present (0-20)
..> number of critical items (0-20)

Total Score
–> Summary risk ratings (address risk of harm to spouse + other person), categorical, interviews with offender and victim, incomplete info explicitly stated)

–> Percentile scores (descriptive cut offs, make comparable; Gray Zone >20, or factors present > 8, White Zone) –> need to explain if you do not use applicable category (i.e., gray = high, white = low risk)

Question 22

Reliabilty and Validity of SARA?

Answer 22

moderately accurate
diverse offender sample
strong correlations with other measures
Limitations: not tested with females, often not used as intended, no formal revision (Item 4, 12, 18, 19 negatively predictive), Part 1 lower reliabilty, age >50 difficult, not tested with non-caucasion