Risk Assessments by Female Victims of Intimate Partner Violence: Predictors of Risk Perceptions and Comparison to an Actuarial Measure

Problem

The problem the study aimed to address: 

This study investigates how female victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) perceive risk, the predictors of their risk assessments, and how these assessments compare to an actuarial risk measure, the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA).

General impact on the system and/or public: 

Accurate IPV risk assessments are vital for resource allocation, safety planning, and informing decisions about leaving abusive relationships. The study highlights the unique insights victims bring to risk assessments and the value of combining victim-based and structured methods.

Research Questions:

1. What factors predict women’s perceptions of risk for future IPV?
2. How do victim assessments align or differ from actuarial risk assessments?
3. What implications do these differences have for safety planning and intervention strategies?
    

Method and Analysis

Program Evaluated or Gaps Addressed: 

The study addresses gaps in understanding the foundations of victims' risk assessments and their divergence from structured actuarial tools.
 

Data and Sample Size: 

Data were collected from 728 female IPV victims interviewed shortly after their partner’s arrest. The women provided qualitative and quantitative data on past abuse, offender behavior, and perceived risk of future violence.
 

Analysis Used:

• Quantitative: Logistic regression to identify predictors of perceived risk.
• Qualitative: Thematic coding of women’s explanations for their risk ratings.
• Comparative: Analyzed discrepancies between victim assessments and ODARA scores.
   

Outcome

Key Findings:

• Victim Perceptions:
  • Victim risk assessments strongly correlate with dynamic factors like escalating violence, emotional abuse, and partner substance abuse.
  • Static factors such as demographics or criminal history, emphasized in actuarial tools, had weaker associations.
• Discrepancies:
  • Victims often noted risks (e.g., dynamic or psychological abuse factors) overlooked by ODARA. Conversely, actuarial tools relied heavily on static markers like past arrests.
• Unique Contributions:
  • Victims' assessments captured nuanced situational and behavioral factors that structured tools missed, such as recent separation or ongoing threats.
     

Implications or Recommendations: 

• Policy and Practice: Combine victim and structured assessments for improved accuracy.
• Safety Planning: Tailor interventions to incorporate victims’ perceptions, particularly focusing on dynamic risk factors.
• Refinement of Tools: Develop hybrid measures that integrate both static and dynamic factors for a holistic assessment.

This study underscores the complementary strengths of victim insights and structured tools, advocating for integrated approaches in IPV risk management.