Domestic Violence Inventory

Review of the Domestic Violence Inventory by CAROL COLLINS, Family Counseling and Research Center, Caldwell, ID: The Domestic Violence Inventory (DVI) is a 155-question self-report instrument designed to measure the risk of committing domestic violence and to assess treatment needs. The publisher suggests the inventory would be helpful in evaluating violence prone offenders, alcohol or drug abusers, and the emotionally disturbed. The six separate scales produce truth-corrected scores in which the amount of error variance associated with untruthfulness is identified and automatically applied to each scale score. ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING. Respondents are presented a survey with 155 questions designed to assess level of risk of committing domestic violence. The test can be administered either individually or in groups. All answers are given as 'True' or 'False.' Answers are marked on a separate sheet with the pencil-and-paper version, and on the computer with the computerized version. If the pencil-and-paper version is used, the answers must be entered into the computer to generate scores. Once they are entered, scores are interpreted and available within 5 minutes. A thorough orientation and training manual gives instructions to the interviewer. Space is available on the form to enter subjective observations of the evaluator and to enter the evaluator's recommendations for treatment. The publisher cautions that results should be considered in conjunction with any significant observations by the evaluator. They acknowledge that treatment recommendations made as a result of DVI testing can have life and death implications. Percentile scores are given on each of the six measures. Each scale score is classified in terms of the range of risk it represents. Risk rank is identified as 'Low Risk,' 'Medium Risk,' 'Problem Risk,' and 'Severe Problem Risk.' NORMING INFORMATION. Detailed norming information and research history are provided with the test, which has been standardized on the domestic violence offender population. Several summaries of specific studies are included with the test package. Based on research identifying significant gender differences on two of the scales, gender-specific norms have been established for the Truthfulness Scale and the Violence Scale. Publishers are careful to note that gender differences may vary depending on the geographical area. One of the strong features of the test is the ongoing research program that allows annual updates to the norming information database. Each filled test diskette must be returned to the publisher before another can be purchased. This provides continual input to be added to their database and contributes to the ongoing improvement of the test. RELIABILITY. In summary of scientific findings, the publisher states that 'reliability refers to consistency of results regardless of who uses the instrument. DVI results are objective, verifiable and reproducible' (p. 13). Statistical data provided support the internal consistency of the DVI. In one study Cronbach alpha coefficients for the six scales ranged from .83 to .92. VALIDITY. Extensive research is cited summarizing validity studies of the DVI. In validity studies, each of the six scales is treated separately. For example, the Stress Coping measure was compared with scores from the Taylor Manifest Scale and with the Cornell Index. The correlations were significant in the predicted direction. Concurrent validity was examined by comparing scores from four DVI scales with scores on comparable scales on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Scales correlated were Truthfulness, Alcohol, Drugs, and Stress Coping. SUMMARY. The Domestic Violence Inventory (DVI) can be useful to evaluators attempting to determine the level of risk of offenders. It should be considered a tool to aid the evaluator, who must consider test results in conjunction with his or her subjective observations and professional judgment. A possible danger is that an evaluator who has many respondents to assess may use the test in an assembly-line fashion, taking the test scores at face value, without adding his or her own experiential wisdom and without considering significant information provided by the respondent. The test publisher cautions evaluators to consider the grave consequences of their recommendations. With these cautions in mind, the DVI is a convenient, easy-to-take test that provides immediate scoring results. This reviewer believes the DVI is a satisfactory and useful instrument for the purpose for which it is designed. Review of the Domestic Violence Inventory by DAVID M. KAPLAN, Professor and Director of the Graduate Program in Counseling, Alfred University, Alfred, NY, and MOLLY L. VANDUSER, Alfred University, Alfred, NY: The Domestic Violence Inventory (DVI) is a 155-question self-report instrument designed to assess both the risk and needs of perpetrators of physical, emotional, and verbal abuse. There are two versions: a juvenile form designed for ages 12-18, and an adult form designed for those over 18. Both versions are available in English and Spanish. The instrument can be completed by most individuals in 35-40 minutes and requires a sixth grade reading level. The DVI can be administered individually or in groups, and the client can use paper and pencil or computer. Scoring and interpretation are computer generated on-site within 4 minutes. DVI software must be run on an IBM-PC compatible computer with a minimum of 640K memory. The instrument comes with a computer disc, a 'Computer Operating Guide,' an 'Orientation and Training Manual,' an 'Inventory of Scientific Findings,' and a 'Community Corrections, Georgia Summary Report.' The DVI contains seven scales: Truthfulness, a lie scale; Violence, a measure of anger, hostility and lethality; Alcohol, a measure of frequency and magnitude of ethanol-related problems; Drugs, a measure of substance abuse and related problems; Control, a measure of attempts to control oneself and others; Stress Coping Ability, a measure of effectiveness in coping with stress, tension and pressure; and Treatment Needs, a needs assessment. Separate gender norms are utilized for Alcohol, Drugs, and Violence Scales. The DVI was developed by pooling items from experienced doctoral level psychologists at treatment agencies, shelters, and batterers programs. Final items were then selected by 'statistically relating' items to known domestic violence offender groups (the specific method for 'statistically relating' these items is not presented). Final items were then normed on 1,478 domestic violence offenders in Georgia. Demographics of this population are detailed in the 'Community Corrections, Georgia Summary Report.' Psychometric information is contained in the 'Inventory of Scientific Findings.' Reliability data focus on internal consistency. The Cronbach alpha ranges for each scale are solid: Truthfulness . 85-.87; Violence .81-.90; Alcohol .89-.94; Drugs .88-.92; Control .83-.88; and Stress Coping Ability .90-.93. No test-retest reliability information is provided. In addition to supporting internal consistency reliability, the Cronbach alpha correlations described above provide evidence for the construct validity of the DVI. The 'Inventory of Scientific Findings' also describes a number of studies that focus on concurrent validity. Perhaps the most important statement along these lines is that 'the DVI does differentiate between 'normals' and domestic violence offenders' (p. 8). However, no specifics are provided to support this declaration. Concurrent validity studies are reported that correlate the DVI with related instruments. Correlations of DVI scales with related MMPI scales range from . 31-.78. Correlations between DVI scales and related SAQ-Adult Probation scales range from . 34-.76. Correlations of professional staff ratings, following a screening interview, with DVI scales, were substantially lower, ranging from .03-.54. A shortcoming of the DVI is the lack of document organization. There is no traditional manual with discrete sections on inventory development, normative information, reliability data, and validity data. Instead, information is spread out among the 'Orientation and Training Manual,' 'Computer Operating Guide,' 'Inventory of Scientific Findings,' and 'Community Corrections, Georgia Summary Report.' The 'Computer Operating Guide' is fairly straightforward but requires a rather high degree of computer literacy. Testers unfamiliar with computer applications may become anxious when trying to read and implement the instructions contained within this document. The 'Orientation and Training Manual' contains much useful information. However, as stated above, this information would better serve the tester if it were organized along the lines of a traditional inventory manual. The 'Community Corrections, Georgia Summary Report' seems to report data on the norm group upon which the DVI was developed. However, this is inferred, and the document never makes this statement directly. Finally, the 'Inventory of Scientific Findings' provides important psychometric data. However, for some unknown reason, the data are presented chronologically, rather than grouped under the headings of 'Reliability' and 'Validity' and their subcategories, as is traditional. The chronological listings of studies makes it difficult to evaluate the overall worth of the instrument. SUMMARY. The DVI appears to be a promising instrument that focuses on not only evaluating, but also assisting, perpetrators of domestic violence. Data are provided that support the reliability and validity of the instrument (although additional data focusing on test-retest reliability, content validity, and predictive validity would be useful). The major shortcoming of the DVI is the lack of organization of accompanying materials. Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide

Review of the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide by IRA S. KATZ, Clinical Psychologist at California Department of Corrections,Salinas Valley State Prison, Soledad, CA, and Soledad Medical Clinic, Soledad, CA, and Private Practice, Salinas, CA: Family violence, especially against spouses-women in particular-is our society's 'dirty little secret' that is becoming less unknown and more problematic. More and more, we are faced with situations that will not be hidden in the shadows of shame. Domestic violence involving spouses and other family members is a growing and grisly social and psychological phenomenon. The development of the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide is a product of exciting research from Canada that has worldwide implications and uses. DESCRIPTION. The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA) is a very user-friendly psychometric checklist that can quickly screen risk factors of spousal assault, violence, and/or abuse. The SARA is adaptable to be of use to many diverse clinical populations. The SARA addresses the unique similarities and differences incumbent in criminal court referrals, probation, and inmate populations. The risk factors that are assessed are very helpful in the preparation of accurate and actionable evaluations. Much information is captured in relatively short order, allowing the clinician to provide help faster and to serve more clients. Different than a pure psychometric test, the SARA has unique qualities that make it far more user-friendly and faster to administer. Specifically, there are no cutoff scores or norms per se. In this way the SARA is similar to several other commonly used forensic assessment instruments (see Grisso, 1986). The reason the SARA should be understood as a checklist rather than a test is based on the fact that research that is addressing some of this instrument's psychometric properties is still ongoing. The diversity and applications of the SARA impress this writer, including pretrial application, pre-sentence applications, correctional intake applications, and correctional discharge applications. Additionally, there are other immediate applications: victim safety assessment, and civil justice matters-such as separation/divorce and custody/access hearings. Warning third parties is another application that is clearly connected to mandated reporting requirements in most jurisdictions. These duties do apply to mental health professionals, counselors, and social service providers (Dickens, 1985). The SARA results can be used as an 'independent check' of the professional judgment of service providers and help them support their intuitions and clinical judgments. Finally the SARA can serve as a routine quality assurance and post-critical incident review. The SARA is also a flexible tool. It can be used in two ways by various users. First, the evaluator has the opportunity to note specific client risk factors for violence. Second, the SARA allows for factors not included in the instrument. It is hoped this will result in the utilization of more clinical judgment and wisdom as opposed to a 'score.' DEVELOPMENT. In the development of the SARA there was a creation of a list of factors that would be relatively short and aimed at a moderate degree of specificity. The result was a list of 20 factors, referred to on the SARA as items, grouped into five content areas, and referred to as sections. The SARA consists of five sections. The first section includes Criminal History. Three factors are included: Past Assault of Family Members, Past Assault of Strangers or Acquaintances, and Past Violation of Conditional Release or Community Supervision. Evaluation of these factors can help validity of the instrument as a future behavior predictor. The next section deals with Psychosocial Adjustment. There are many items in this section that can be very helpful from a social learning intervention perspective (Widom, 1989). Other factors, such as mental disorder (Monahan, 1992), are included here. It is important to say here that the SARA does not suggest that mental illness is directly linked to the development of spousal abuse. The point of its inclusion is to make the clinician and the user aware of the fact that clients with mental disorders are more likely to make and act on poor decisions. The next section in the SARA is that of Spousal Assault History. There are seven items in the Spousal Assault History section. The first four deal with the nature and extent of past assaults whereas the last three pertain to behaviors/attitudes related to assaultive behaviors. Here we find Past Physical Assault, Past Sexual Assault/Sexual Jealousy, Past Use of Weapons and/or Credible Threats of Death, Recent Escalation in Frequency or Severity of Assaults, Past Violations of 'No Contact' Orders, Extreme Minimization or Denial of Spousal Assault History, and Attitudes that Support or Condone Spousal Assault, which covers a wide range of values and beliefs-personal, social, religious, political, and cultural-and encourages patriarchy (i.e., male prerogative), misogyny, and the use of physical violence or intimidation to resolve conflicts and enforce control. The next section deals with Alleged/Most Recent Offense (Index Offense). There are three items in this section. These items are based on the index (alleged, current, or most recent) offense: Severe and/or Sexual Assault, Use of Weapons and/or Credible Threats of Death, and Violation of 'No Contact' Order. The final section of the SARA does not contain any specific items. It allows the evaluator to include and note risk factors not included in the SARA that are present in the particular case that may result in a decision that the individual is at high risk for violence. Risk factors might include behaviors such as a history of stalking behavior (Cooper, 1994); a history of disfiguring, torturing, or maiming intimate partners; a history of sexual sadism; and so forth. One of the most admirable and salient features of the SARA is that, because it is not a controlled psychological test, it can be used in many contexts by many kinds of users. There is no single set of user qualifications. However, two caveats should be noted. First, when using the SARA to make decisions about an individual, the users are responsible to ensure that their evaluation conforms to relevant laws, regulations, and policies. Secondly, the users should meet the following minimal qualification: (a) expertise in individual assessment (e.g., formal training and/or work-related experience in psychological, psychiatric, social work, nursing, or correctional assessment), and (b) expertise in the area of spousal assault (e.g., formal coursework, knowledge of the relevant literature, or work-related experience). TECHNICAL. Normative data for the SARA primarily are from Canadian offenders. However, there is much research to support utilization with United States offender populations with respect to important criminal history and psychological characteristics despite the obvious demographic differences. SARA norms for offenders in the U.S. and Sweden should be available in the near future. There were some very interesting findings from the normative data. Probationers had lower scores than inmates. Many of the inmates had a known history of spousal assault, even though most of them were incarcerated for offenses unrelated to spousal assault (mostly robbery, drug, sex, and homicide offenses). Very few items were omitted by the norm group. About 20-35% of offenders were perceived by evaluators to be at high risk for spousal abuse. Finally, it was possible based on the data to establish descriptive cutoffs for SARA ratings that can be used. Reliability is always an important factor in evaluating any psychometric instrument. Various forms of reliability integrity support the soundness of this instrument including Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency. Good interrater reliability values were reported. Validity is another important psychometric property. The criterion-related validity of the SARA was examined in three ways. Concurrent validity was analyzed with respect to other measures related to risk for violence and criminality. These measures included the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV, Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995), a rating scale of psychopathic personality disorder that is predictive of violent reoffending and other measures. COMMENTARY AND SUMMARY. The developers of the SARA, to their credit, have produced a risk assessment instrument that can be administered, judged, and interpreted with predictive confidence in a relatively efficient and cost-effective manner. The SARA is a very valuable instrument with much social utility for doing great good; especially for the safety of potential victims. This is a well-researched instrument that has benefited from years of careful study and analysis of the relevant clinical and empirical knowledge in the criminal justice field. It is important to remember that the SARA is not a psychological test. A positive result of this is that the SARA is not limited to one particular professional group. The SARA does not replace professional judgment or responsibility. The SARA provides guidelines to direct risk management strategies. The SARA is a powerful tool in the right hands with the right risk management strategies. This reviewer still would like to see more data with U.S. population norms, as is indicated. There may be some need to modify the questions to ensure cultural accuracy. The SARA is a very valuable addition to the psychometric tool chests of many in the forensic and criminal justice and corrections fields. Not only is the SARA needed, but it will help keep many people potentially out of harm's way. What forensic instruments can easily make that claim? REVIEWER'S REFERENCES Cooper, M. (1994) Criminal harassment and potential for treatment: Literature review and annotated bibliography. Vancouver, BC: British Columbia Institute on Family Violence. Dickens, B. (1985). Prediction, professionalism, and public policy. In C. D. Webster, M. H. Ben- Aron, & S. J. Hucker (Eds.), Dangerousness: Probability and prediction, psychiatry and public policy (pp. 177-208). New York: Cambridge University Press. Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum Press. Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995) Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. Monahan, J. (1992). Mental disorder and violent behavior: Perceptions and evidence. American Psychologist, 47, 511-521. Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160-166. Review of the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide by MICHAEL J. SCHEEL, Associate Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Educational Psychology, Lincoln, NE: DESCRIPTION. The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA) is a paper-and-pencil 20- item checklist composed of risk factors that have been identified through a review of literature and during the Project for the Protection of Victims of Spousal Assault in British Columbia. The test manual description indicates that the instrument is a screening device to assess risk of spousal or family-related assault. The checklist is designed to be completed by mental health professionals based on information gained from interviews with victims, offenders, other pertinent individuals, police reports, and psychological tests and questionnaires. The test developers describe the SARA as 'not a test or scale in the usual sense' (user's manual, p. 1). They emphasize that it should not be relied upon as 'an absolute or relative measure of risk using cutoff scores or norms' (user's manual, p. 1). Instead it should be used as a 'means of ensuring that pertinent information is considered and weighed by evaluators' (user's manual, p. 1). Items appear as risk factors in five content areas, which are referred to as sections. The five sections are: (a) Criminal History (e.g., 'Past assault of family members'), (b) Psychosocial Adjustment (e.g., 'Recent suicidal or homicidal ideation/intent'), (c) Spousal Assault History (e.g., 'Past violation of 'no contact' orders'), (d) Alleged/Most Recent Offense (e.g., 'Use of weapons and/or credible threats of death'), and (e) Other Considerations. Each item in the first four sections is scored on a 3-point ordinal scale (0 = Absent, 1 = Sub-Threshold, or 2 = Present). The fifth section, Other Considerations, is not scored. The coding criteria for each category of items are specified in the manual. For example, in the 'Past Assault of Family Members' section, 2 corresponds to actual or attempted assault; 1 corresponds to threatened assault; and 0 corresponds to no actual, attempted, or threatened assault. Total scores and the number of factors present are obtained through the SARA assessment form. The SARA profile form is used to convert total scores and number of factors to percentile ranks. Scores falling in the shaded zone of the profile form are labeled 'high risk' and those in the unshaded area are designated as 'moderate to low risk.' DEVELOPMENT. Item development of the SARA consisted of a review of literature to identify risk factors that discriminated those who were violent toward spouses from those who were not. The review revealed similar risk factors for 'recidivistic violence among known spousal assaulters' (user's manual, p. 3) and the more general risk for violence. The intent in the creation of the SARA was to produce a relatively short checklist with a moderate level of specificity. Items were written with the purpose of identifying traits, characteristics, or incidents rather than isolated or specific behavioral acts. As can be discerned from the section headings, prior criminal history, psychosocial maladjustment, spousal assault history, and recent offenses were found to be the primary risk factors for spousal or family-related assault. The fifth section, 'Other Considerations' was included to allow the evaluator to include risk factors that are rare, but perhaps relevant for a specific case (e.g., history of stalking behavior; history of sexual sadism). The test developers state 'to date, the primary application of the SARA has been the assessment and management of risk for spousal assault in adult male offenders who are under community supervision (probationers) or who are currently incarcerated (inmates)' (user's manual, p. 35). TECHNICAL. Normative data were compiled in Canada, yet test developers state that 'SARA users in the US should feel confident relying on the norms' (user's manual, p. 35), because Canadian and U.S. offenders appear to be similar although the demographics of ethnicity and race differ. No details are provided about the ethnic/racial makeup of the normative sample. Norms were developed on two groups of offenders, probationers (N = 1,671) and inmates (N = 638), for a total sample of 2,309. All individuals in the normative sample have a history of spousal assault. Findings from the normative sample were used to establish cutoff scores. Total scores of 20 (82nd percentile) or above and risk factors of 8 or greater (84th percentile) indicate high risk. Using these cutoffs, 23.6% of the normative sample would be classified as at risk. The test manual provides a comparison between those individuals from the normative sample that scored in the critical area, and the summary risk ratings of professionals. In 18% of the cases, the evaluation of risk by professionals did not match the evaluation of risk derived from the SARA. Tables of normative scores for each of the 20 risk factors are also provided in the test manual. Interrater reliability estimates are somewhat questionable due to the means by which they were estimated. The paired raters of the SARA utilized differing information to form judgments about each of the risk factor items, and therefore there remains some uncertainty about whether two different raters with access to the same information would produce similar codings. Internal consistency reliability was estimated by considering the instrument to have a Part 1 (General Violence) and Part 2 (Spousal Violence). This division seems conceptually odd, because four content areas were identified during test development. Alpha levels of the two parts were modest, .66 and .73 respectively, with an overall Cronbach alpha of .78. Interitem correlations were acceptable and ranged from .16 to .43 in Part 1 and from .21 to .48 in Part 2. A factor analysis might have provided a better means of assessing the structure of the instrument. Three different validity studies were conducted. In a known groups study, offender inmates were compared to nonoffender inmates yielding significant differences between the two groups on 17 of the 20 risk factor items. Moderate support for the concurrent validity of the SARA was gained through comparison with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (r = .44; p < .05), the General Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale (GSIR; r = -.07; p > .05), and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; r = .29; p > .05). The GSIR and the VRAG were significantly correlated with Part 1 of the SARA (General Violence) but not Part 2, and seem to indicate convergent and divergent validity evidence. In a third study, SARA scores were compared between a recidivistic and a nonrecidivistic group. Part 2 (Spousal Violence) discriminated significantly between those individuals who tended to re-offend and those who did not. COMMENTARY. The stated purpose of the SARA is to provide a systematic method of assessing and considering risk factors, but not for use as a more typical psychological test in which individual interpretations are derived through comparisons with established normative samples. Even though the test developers do not promote the instrument as a tool for psychological practice, normative samples are provided and a means of comparing individual scores to the norm group of known offenders is also provided through the scoring sheet. Hence, some confusion exists concerning the purpose of the instrument. Despite this confusion, the psychometric properties of the SARA seem adequate, and allow the comparison of an individual score to the normative sample. Hence, this instrument is appropriate both as a means of conducting a systematic assessment, and as a tool to evaluate risk of recidivism in comparison to other offenders. In addition, the SARA is an excellent tool for research to build predictive models of factors that are related to spousal assault and repeated assault. SUMMARY. The SARA is an efficient instrument for the assessment of risk to re-offend through spousal assault that has benefited from a well-constructed development plan. The mental health professional completes the checklist based on information gained about the offender from other sources. Criteria for coding each item are clear and easily applied. The items represent risk factors that were derived through an extensive literature review. The SARA utilizes an extensive normative sample of past offenders who are incarcerated or on probation. The checklist would benefit from factor analysis to more clearly understand the nature of the constructs being measured. As it is, the SARA seems to be divided into two parts, spousal assault risk factors and more general risk factors for violence. The instrument possesses adequate reliability and an impressive amount of evidence supporting its predictive, concurrent, and convergent/divergent validity.