Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a crucial social issue that affect the well-being and mental health of millions of females throughout the world. Intimate partner violence is a configuration of violence or a class of gender-based violence that involves physical violence like kicking and hitting; emotional abuse like embarrassment and intimidation; and sexual abuse like forced intercourse by a present or prior intimate companion (United Nations, 1993). As stated by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2005) intimate partner violence affect different class status, social group or ethnic group, and culture. Globally, it has been estimated that, in 2010 approximately 30% of females between fifteen years old and over had undergo intimate violence partner in their life span; for example, in United States only 25% of females had undergo a very serious IVP, and 22% of this female were perpetrated by present or prior intimate companion (Truman, 2011). Also, females who had encountered in domestic violence with their partner are more suitable to suffer from anxiety, substance abuse, depression, low self-esteem, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In 2007, it was reported that 1,640 females were killed by an intimate companion; this constitute 45% of all females who were murdered by a male they knew and 65% murdered by husbands, ex-husbands, or present intimate companion and only 5% of males have been murder by their spouse or intimate companion. (Violence Policy Center, 2012). In addition, females who survive from their intimate aggressor also experience physical pain or trauma due to brutally and gynecological issues due to forcible sex (Campbell, 2002).
Fortunately, many treatments for domestic violence and intimate violence partner risk assessment instruments has been developed and their predictive veracity has been assessed. Although, the tools are different in terms of structures, petitions, professional needs, and conceptual nature; the risk assessment instruments help to decide who is suitable for batterer`s therapy and to prevent future recidivism. For example, The Danger Assessment (DA), the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA), the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA), and the Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI). Many agencies relied in this IPV evaluation tool such as police officers, correction officers, social workers, health professionals, probation officers, and the justice system (Messing & Thaller, 2015). For instance, stating the fact and the negative consequences of intimate partner violence, it is possible for example, that social workers will meet face to face with victims of IVP in different practice setting such as hospitals, clinics or correctional facilities to provide assistant. For example, many professionals rely on IVP risk assessment instrument because provide the necessary information to predict if the abuser will re-attack, roughly attack, murder their intimate companion. In addition, the IPV victims are with support, psychological assistance and advise on how to be safe.
Even though many investigations have been done regarding domestic violence, it is hard to know how dangerous an IPV perpetrator can be or which treatment could be the most appropriated for this individual; still, the IPV perpetrators are to be deem as a dangerous group. For instance, in the Canadian federal prison one third of prisoners have been incarcerated for domestic violence toward their families and in New Zealand half of the males condemn to prison had physically abused their intimate companion (Hilton, Harris, Popham, & Lang 2010).
For example, the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) is an actuarial tool that help law enforcements such as police officers in evaluating and control the problem regarding men abusing committing any type of abuse toward women; police officers depend on the details obtained by the perpetrators, the person harmed, and the data collected. Also, ODARA has been classified as an accurate tool in terms of predicting future physical attack in IPV attackers and it can divide perpetrator in different levels such as perpetrators who are at risk to commit future assault, and acute injury to the harmed person (Hilton et at., 2010). For example, the 13-item pertaining this tool includes felon`s illegal past activities such as domestic past events, inability to comply with the law after release, details about present and recent domestic dispute. For example, possible threat such as kill or injury, imprisonment and attacks on females while pregnant.
The Danger Assessment (DA) was created to prognosticate serious harm such as murder against female; it used by professionals alongside with the female victims to teach them how to take control of their life, to have positive feelings, make own decisions and to seek safety. For example, the danger assessment also evaluate for twelve months abusive events and 20-items instruments are included to be scored by the evaluator. As it was mentioned, the DA is an excellent predictor of future murder in abusive intimate relationships. For example, in legal separation, some ex-husbands have the tendency to stalk their ex-wife. Therefore, it has been estimated that 70% to 90% of females were followed before they were killed by the ex-husbands (McFarlane et al.,1999). Also, Females whose aggressive intimate companion has accessibility to guns are five times at risk to be murder, females who were abused during their pregnancy time are three times in danger to get kill by their partners, females whose intimate companions were alcoholics are at risk of physical harm, and females whose were control and sexually abused also have been relate to homicide (Campbell & Soeken, 1999). For example, in cases where immigrant females from other countries are brought up to United States are deemed to be at risk for IVP because most of this female depend on their spouses financially because they are restricted to certain thigs suck as working, maintain relationship with other people, unable to go places due to the husband control. Another issue that this females encounter is the threat and physical action from the intimate companion such as deportation, renewal of immigration papers, biting, isolation, and custody pertaining the children. On of the first action that DA takes in those cases is to work with person who survive the dangerous situation by recoding the sequence of abuse over the past twelve months, help females to comprehend the severity of abuse used toward them (Campbell, 1986).
The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) initiated in Canada; intentionally made to be use in the criminal justice system, by case managers, and clinicians in the social service field (Kropp et al., 1995). For example, the SARA contain 20-item survey in which 10-items are related to a broad violence such as criminal history parts and 7- items evaluate the psychosocial adaptation of the felon and the last 10-items are related with the felon`s history of partner violence and 7-items that state the felon past assaultive conduct. in some cases, SARA might request to discuss the problem occurred with the felon and the survivor, and obtain entry to criminal and clinical records, the process allow clinical professionals to save time (Kropp et al., 1995).
and the Domestic Violence Screening Inventory (DVSI). Table 1 provides a summary of the information presented below.
Risk evaluations has begun to be usual procedure among professionals to decide what should be properly done to impede intimate partner violence. In fact, the process require official admi
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 and Human Behavior, 36(1), 60-67.
Messing, J. T., & Thaller, J. (2015). Intimate partner violence risk assessment: A primer for social workers. British Journal Of Social Work, 45(6), 1804-1820. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu012.jstor.org.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/stable/43598495
Rettenberger, M., & Eher, R. (2013). Actuarial Risk Assessment in Sexually Motivated Intimate-Partner Violence. Law and Human Behavior, 37(2), 75-86. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/stable/43587438
Williams, K., & Grant, S. (2006). Empirically Examining the Risk of Intimate Partner Violence: The Revised Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI-R). Public Health Reports (1974-), 121(4), 400-408. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/stable/20056981
Williams, K. (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. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/stable/43586835
Messing, J. T., Amanor-Boadu, Y., Cavanaugh, C. E., Glass, N. E., & Campbell, J. C. (2013). Culturally competent intimate partner violence risk assessment: Adapting the Danger Assessment for immigrant women. Social Work Research, 37(3), 263-275. doi:10.1093/swr/svt019
Messing, J. T., & Thaller, J. (2015). Intimate partner violence risk assessment: A primer for social workers. British Journal Of Social Work, 45(6), 1804-1820. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu012