Citation

Yaxley R, Norris K, Haines J. Psychiatry Psychol. Law. 2018; 25(2): 237-256.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, Publisher Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/13218719.2017.1356211

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Risk assessment is a controversial area of forensic practice, yet it has become an integral part of responding to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Given lethal consequences can arise from judicial decisions based on poorly executed risk assessments, it is incumbent on mental health practitioners to utilise best-practice methods and form evidence-based determinations of risk and intervention strategies. This article provides a best-practice guide to IPV risk assessment and summarises available information on the most prevalent IPV risk assessment measures for male and female offenders. The research indicates that caution is warranted as most risk assessment measures have not been normed for use outside North America or for female offenders, have small to moderate effect sizes, and a lack of adherence to administrative procedures and methodical rigour has undermined research findings. Nevertheless, structured risk assessment enhances the defensibility of expert opinion and is recommended.

Language: en

Keywords

best-practice guidelines; evidence-based assessment; family violence; intimate partner violence; offender; partner abuse; recidivism; risk assessment