TRAUMA,

Dutton, VIOLENCE,
Kropp & ABUSE / April 2000
/ RISK INSTRUMENTS

A REVIEW OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RISK INSTRUMENTS

DONALD G. DUTTON
University of British Columbia

P. RANDALL KROPP
British Columbia Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission

The problem of domestic violence has been well documented with respect to its so-
cial, psychological, and economic costs. Proactive arrest and sentencing policies
have resulted in an increasing, and in some cases, overwhelming number of
spousal batterers being processed through the criminal justice system. Scarce cor-
rectional and treatment resources necessitate that difficult decisions be made about
the management of domestic violence perpetrators. In an effort to make better deci-
sions, many jurisdictions have adopted a risk assessment approach. Spousal as-
sault risk assessment now serves to inform those making decisions about
sentencing (e.g., community release vs. incarceration), treatment placement, and
supervision intensity. With these developments, researchers and clinicians have
begun to discuss the appropriate content and process of spousal assault risk assess-
ment. There have been a number of efforts in recent years to develop theoretically
and scientifically sound risk assessment instruments and procedures. This article
attempts to review state-of-the-art instruments in this rapidly expanding field.

Key words: spouse assault, domestic violence, risk prediction

THERE HAS BEEN A LONG-EXISTING DE-
BATE about the validity of violence prediction
(Cocozza & Steadman, 1976; Grove & Meehl,
1996; Monahan, 1981; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, &
Cormier, 1998). Much of the controversy has fo-
cused on the distinction between actuarial and
clinical prediction, with many authors express-
ing pessimism about the ability of clinicians to
predict violence accurately (Cocozza & Stead-
man, 1976; Grove & Meehl, 1996; Quinsey et al.,
1998). However, recent reviews have taken a
more optimistic tone. Monahan and Steadman
(1994) discussed problems that have hobbled re-
search on the prediction of violence, including
impoverished predictor variables, weak crite-
rion variables, and constricted validation sam-
ples. These authors note that if such methodo-
logical problems are addressed, “the rejuve-
nated field of risk assessment may yield results
quite different than those to which we have
become inured” (Monahan & Steadman, 1994,
p. 13). Borum (1996) observed that, despite the
debate about the ability of mental health profes-
sionals to predict violence, the courts have con-
tinued to rely on such assessments. He de-
scribed several advances in the field that have
provided a foundation for enhancing the valid-
ity of risk assessment. Although Melton, Petrila,

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE, Vol. 1, No. 2, April 2000 171-181

© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

171
172 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2000
KEY POINTS OF THE
RESEARCH REVIEW
• History of violence prediction shows gradual im-
provements with time.
• Relatively high baserates for spousal assault
makes prediction more accurate.
• Predicting spousal homicide, a much more rare
event, is not nearly as accurate.
• The Danger Assessment Scale, the Spousal As-
sault Risk Scale, the propensity for Abusiveness
Scale, and the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised all
predict risk for future spouse assault with some
accuracy.
Poythress, and Slobogin (1997) caution against
using conclusive terms about dangerousness,
they suggest that if clinicians express their judg-
ments in relative terms (e.g., relatively high risk),
with reference to empirically valid risk factors,
risk assessment can play a valuable role for the
courts. Many have suggested that the renewed
optimism is due to improvements in research
methodology employing more comprehensive
assessment techniques (S. D. Hart, 1998) and
better follow-up procedures to measure vio-
lence in the community (Borum, 1996; Douglas,
Cox, & Webster, 1999; Steadman et al., in press).
Assessing Future Probability
of Spousal Assault
It is within this atmosphere of rejuvenation,
as Monahan and Steadman (1994) described it,
that efforts to design spousal assault risk instru-
ments have arisen. When the task of assessing
risk for general violence is narrowed specifi-
cally to spousal assault, there are additional rea-
sons to be optimistic about achieving success.
First, the base rates for repeated spousal physi-
cal assaults are relatively high, probably 25% to
50% (Dutton, 1995a; Dutton, Ogloff, Hart, Bod-
narchuk, & Kropp, 1997). This serves to reduce
the false-positive error rate or the rate of falsely
predicting that violence will occur. Second, in
the course of a spousal assault risk assessment,
the evaluator often has access to the potential
victim, who is a source of critical information
about the history and personality of the perpe-
trator. Third, Monahan and Steadman high-
lighted the traditional limitation of weak crite-
rion variables that are either too broadly defined
(e.g., all violent behavior) or unreliably mea-
sured. They noted that there might be unique
sets of predictors for various subtypes of vio-
lence. Indeed, research over the past 20 years
has identified several risk factors that are
uniquely related to spousal violence.
Risk Factors for Spousal Assault
There have been a number of studies that
have attempted to identify factors associated
with spousal violence (Cooper, 1993). Many
studies have reported risk factors that discrimi-
nated those who were violent toward their
spouses from those who were not (e.g., Hotaling
& Sugarman, 1986; Tolman & Bennett, 1990).
Other studies highlight factors associated with
risk for recidivistic violence among known
spousal assaulters—those arrested, convicted,
or in treatment (e.g., Gondolf, 1988; Saunders,
1992a, 1992b, 1993). Many of these studies inter-
sect with those discussing risk for violence in
general, with many of the same factors emerg-
ing (e.g., Hall, 1987; Monahan, 1981; Monahan &
Steadman, 1994; Webster, Harris, Rice, Cormier, &
Quinsey, 1994). There are also several important
works that have discussed the assessment of
risk for future violence in spousal assaulters,
sometimes described as a lethality or a need-to-
warn assessment (e.g., Goldsmith, 1990; Saun-
ders, 1992b, 1995; Sonkin, 1987; Sonkin, Martin, &
Walker, 1985). Finally, there have been some
extremely useful studies on factors associated
with the more specific act of domestic homicide
(Campbell, 1995, 1999).
There is considerable consensus among these
studies with regard to the important factors to
consider when assessing risk for spousal
assault. Many risk assessment lists have been
published. Most of these include factors related
to a history of assaultive behavior, generally
antisocial behaviors and attitudes, stability of
relationships, stability of employment, mental
health and personality disorder, childhood
abuse, motivation for treatment, and attitudes
toward women (B. Hart, 1990; Pence & Lizdas,
1998; Roehl & Guertin, 1998; Sonkin, 1987; Sug-
arman, Aldorondo & Boney-McCoy, 1995; Sug-
 Dutton, Kropp / RISK INSTRUMENTS 173

TABLE 1: List of Criteria for Identifying Life-Threatening toward you by your partner” (for a critique, see
Risk Among Violent Men
Dutton, 1995a).
Three or more instances of violence in the previous year The second example of a risk factor list is one
Two or more instances of violence in the previous year initiated developed by Daniel Sonkin (1997) in The Perpe-
by the man
trator Assessment Handbook, intended for use by
Wife needed medical treatment for assault
Police called during previous 12 months treatment providers. As
Man was drunk more than three times a year part of this guide, Sonkin There is considerable
Man abused drugs in past year outlines factors that dis- consensus among
Man threatened to kill
Man threatened his partner with a weapon in his hand criminate lethality risk, these studies with
Man owns a gun and threatens to use it including the man’s fre- regard to the
Extreme male dominance or attempts to use it quency of violence, sever- important factors to
Physical abuse of a child
ity of violence, frequency consider when
Attitudinal acceptance of violence
Physically forced sex of intoxication, drug use, assessing risk for
Extensive destruction of property
a
threats to kill, forced or spousal assault. Many
Threats or actually killing a pet risk assessment lists
threatened sexual acts,
History of psychological problems
Assault on a nonfamily person or other violent crime and the woman’s suicide have been published.
Severe violence between parents threats. However, Sonk- Most of these include
Verbal aggression toward partner in’s factors were derived factors related to a
SOURCE: Straus (1991). on the basis of factors that history of assaultive
a. Cruelty to pets should probably also be considered. behavior, generally
g e n e ra te d le th a l
responses by battered antisocial behaviors
arman & Hotaling, 1986). It is important to women in the Browne and attitudes, stability
remember that these risk markers are not neces- (1987) study. Hence, it of relationships,
sarily causal predictors; rather, they are factors a g a in re qu ire s th e stability of
that consistently co-occur with abusiveness. a s s u mp tion th a t th e employment, mental
woman’s fear, which led health and
Two examples of risk marker lists are offered
her to kill, was a veridical personality disorder,
here. Straus (1991) developed a “list of criteria
predictor of impending childhood abuse,
for identifying life threatening risk among vio-
lethal violence by her motivation for
lent men” from the 1985 National Family Vio-
male partner. As compel- treatment, and
lence Survey (see Table 1). These criteria were attitudes toward
ling as Browne’s case
associated with severe violence as measured by women.
studies are, we do not
the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus & Gelles,
know whether this ulti-
1990) and thus have some concurrent construct mate outcome was always inevitable. In a recent
validity from one sample. The problem of study, Dutton and Kerry (1999) found that
course is that Straus is calling these “life threat- spousal homicide perpetrators were more likely
ening risk criteria” when, in fact, they are crite- to be overcontrolled dependent men than psy-
ria for severe assault. Most severe assaults are chopathic or borderline men. These latter
not lethal; hence, the term life threatening is groups with more flagrant personalities may be
somewhat misleading. more likely to terrorize but not necessarily to
Straus (1991) offers no weighting formula for kill.
this lengthy list of factors, which, on closer Sonkin (1997) rightly alerts his readers to two
inspection, is a list of extreme scores from the points about the clinical assessment of risk: The
CTS used to predict another extreme score on chances of being correct are about 50-50, but the
the CTS. This form of tautological prediction is best predictor of future behavior is past behav-
common in family violence literature, especially ior. He thus advocates a comprehensive assess-
in the literature on dating violence, in which ment of both psychological and physical abu-
predictors of dating violence are listed as “pre- siveness. Sonkin emphasizes that his checklist is
vious dating violence” or “violence directed a guide, not a psychometric test. In effect, it
 174 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2000
combines the frequency and severity of physical
and sexual violence, threats, intoxication, drug
use, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (American Psychiatric Association,
1994) diagnosis, severity of current psychoso-
cial stressors, global assessment of functioning,
proximity of victim and offender, prior criminal
convictions of offender, prior criminal behav-
iors and abuse of children, and attitudes toward
violence (see Table 2). Of all the risk assessment
inventories reviewed, it was probably the
lengthiest and most comprehensive.
RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS
Until recently, there
Until recently, there were very few efforts to
were very few efforts empirically validate any
to empirically of the risk assessment
validate any of the schemes. This state of
risk assessment affairs is changing rap-
schemes. This state of idly, with several evalua-
affairs is changing tion studies underway.
rapidly, with several Roehl and Guertin (1998)
evaluation studies and Campbell (1999)
underway. have conducted useful
surveys of dangerous-
ness assessment instru-
ments currently in use in North America. It
appears that there has been a proliferation of
instruments and scales in the past several years,
ranging in their degree and scope of develop-
ment. To the best of our knowledge, there
appear to be three general categories of instru-
ments. The first includes instruments for which
the developers report no past or current
attempts to establish validity. These include the
Domestic Violence Risk Assessment Form used
in Delaware, the Mosaic-20 developed by Gavin
de Becker (Trone, 1999), and the Risk Assess-
ment and Lethality Assessment used in Hawaii
(Roehl & Guertin, 1998). The second category of
instruments contains those that are currently
included in evaluation and validity studies but
have not yet been reported in the scientific lit-
erature. These include the Domestic Violence
Inventory (DVI) (as cited in Roehl & Guertin,
1998), the Domestic Violence Screening Instru-
ment (DVSI) used in Colorado (Williams &
TABLE 2: Domestic Violence Risk Assessment: Man’s
Frequency of Violence
Man’s severity of violence
Man’s frequency of intoxication
Man’s drug use
Man’s threats to kill
Man’s forced or threatened sexual acts
Woman’s suicide threats
SOURCE: Sonkin (1997).
Houghton, 1999), the Kingston Screening
Instrument for Domestic Violence (K-SID)
(Gelles, 1998), the Navy Risk and Safety (as cited
by Campbell, 1999), and the Pre-Sentence Inves-
tigation (PSI) Domestic Violence Supplement
associated with the Domestic Abuse Interven-
tion Project in Duluth, Minnesota (Roehl &
Guertin, 1998). We had difficulty locating many
of the instruments in the first two categories, so
it is difficult to provide a detailed analysis. The
interested reader is referred to the Roehl and
Guertin (1998) review for more information on
some of these projects.
The remainder of this article will focus on a
third category of instruments selected because
we were able to locate published validity data.
We have focused on four such instruments: the
Danger Assessment (DA) Scale (Campbell,
1995, 1998, 1999), the Spousal Assault Risk
Assessment (SARA) (Kropp, Hart, Webster, &
Eaves, 1995, 1998), the Propensity for Abusive-
ness Scale (PAS) (Dutton, 1995b, 1999), and the
Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) (Hare,
1991).
The DA Scale
Campbell (1995) developed the DA Scale,
which she described as a “form of statistical pre-
diction, contrasted with clinical prediction,
because it is based on prior research and has
some preliminary evidence of reliability and
validity” (p. 103). Campbell’s criterion was
“women’s perception of the danger of being
killed by their partners.” However, the relation-
ship of the fear of their partner to the actual dan-
ger is unknown. Furthermore, Campbell’s
validity data appear not to be measures of part-
ner violence taken subsequent to the interview

with the female respondent but measures of
prior severity of partner violence. Hence, her
study is retrospective and presents some inter-
pretative problems. Goodman, Dutton, and
Bennett (2000) have completed a study using
the DA to predict short-term misdemeanor wife
assaults. An increment of one standard devia-
tion on the DA was related to a fourfold increase
in the likelihood of repeat abuse (22% of the
entire sample reoffended). Some methodologi-
cal problems were pointed out by the authors.
The sample was small (n = 92), and only 53%
could be recontacted. This smaller group (n =
47) may, of course, not be representative of the
original sample. The authors called for replica-
tion with a larger sample and more detailed out-
come measures.
Weisz, Tolman, and Saunders (2000) studied
the victims’ prediction of future violence as a
legitimate predictor. Data were supplied by 177
women partnered with men in court-ordered
batterers’ treatment. The authors found that vic-
tims who predicted no violence or a strong like-
lihood of subsequent violence were likely to be
correct for a 4-month period following the pre-
diction. A bivariate analysis of women’s reports
found that the following items were also signifi-
cantly related to recidivism: kicked, bit or hit
with a fist (from the CTS), forced sex, choked or
strangled, woman obtained protection order
before man’s first arrest, woman sustained inju-
ries before first arrest, violent disputes between
first arrest and court date, man threatens her to
drop charges, man tells her she cannot leave or
see certain people, man restricts her use of
phone or car, man accuses her of an affair. The
authors included the DA in their prediction
package. A multiple regression comprising the
DA and the above items yielded an R2 of .22. In
other words, the combined instruments
accounted for 22% of the variance in repeat
violence.
The SARA
The SARA (Kropp et al., 1995; Kropp, Hart,
Webster, et al., 1998) is a set of guidelines for the
content and process of a thorough risk assess-
ment. It is composed of 20 items identified by a
Dutton, Kropp / RISK INSTRUMENTS 175
TABLE 3: Areas Covered by the Spousal Assault Risk
Assessment
Childhood abuse and neglect experiences
Occupational and social history
Relationship history
Physical and mental health history
Current mental status
History of assaultive or abusive behavior
Criminal history
Current life stressors
Current social support network
review of the empirical literature on wife
assault and the literature written by clinicians
that evaluates male wife abusers. The authors
point out that the SARA is not a test. Its purpose
is not to provide absolute or relative measures
of risk using cutoff scores or norms but rather to
structure and enhance professional judgments
about risk. Because the SARA is not a formal
psychological test, professionals other than psy-
chologists can use it. The authors list several
potential applications of the SARA: pretrial
assessment, presentence, correctional intake,
correctional discharge, civil justice matters,
warning third parties, and as an instrument to
review spousal risk assessments given by
others.
The item selection for the SARA was carefully
based on relevant factors reported in the litera-
ture. The SARA procedure includes interviews
with the accused and the victims, standardized
measures of physical and emotional abuse and
drug and alcohol abuse, and a review of collat-
eral records such as police reports, victim state-
ments, criminal records, and other psychologi-
cal procedures. If the user is not a psychologist,
the authors recommend appropriate referrals or
a review of existing psychological or psychiatric
reports. The authors recommend that any risk
assessment interview should cover the areas
listed in Table 3.
The Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assess-
ment Guide (Kropp et al., 1995) describes the
rationale and scoring system for each of these
areas. The items can be scored 0 (absent), 1
(subthreshold), or 2 (present). The SARA has an
override and makes use of critical items, which
are defined as follows: “those, given the circum-
stances of the case at hand, are sufficient on their
176 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2000
own to compel the evaluator to conclude that
the individual poses an imminent risk of harm.”
The manual provides case management strate-
gies appropriate to various risk factors.
The authors have evaluated the reliability
and validity of judgments concerning the risk
for violence made using the SARA (Kropp &
Hart, in press; Kropp, Hart, Webster, et al., 1998;
Kropp, Hart, Whittemore, & Bodnarchuk,
1998). The SARA ratings were analyzed in six
samples of adult male offenders (N = 2,681). The
distribution of ratings indicated that offenders
were quite heterogeneous with respect to the
presence of individual risk factors and to the
overall perceived risk. Structural analyses of the
risk factors indicated moderate levels of inter-
nal consistency and item homogeneity. Interra-
ter reliability was high for judgments concern-
ing the presence of individual risk factors and
for the overall perceived risk. The SARA ratings
significantly discriminated between offenders
with and without a history of spousal violence
in one sample and between recidivistic and non-
recidivistic spousal assaulters in another sam-
ple. Finally, the SARAratings showed good con-
vergent and discriminant validity with respect
to other measures related to the risk for general
and violent criminality (Kropp & Hart, in press).
Another large-scale study involving the
SARA is underway in Colorado. The project is
jointly supported by the Department of Justice,
Violence Against Women Grants Office, the
Colorado State Court Administrator’s Office,
and the Center for the Study and Prevention of
Violence at the University of Colorado. The
Colorado group has developed and imple-
mented a process for the evaluation of domestic
violence offenders. The process uses two instru-
ments, the DVSI and the SARA. The DVSI is a
structured criminal history screening com-
pleted before an offender’s first appearance in
court. The SARA is completed as a presentence
evaluation. Data have not yet been published,
but the project will test the reliability and valid-
ity of the instruments standing alone and in
combination. Preliminary results indicate that
the SARA is superior to the DVSI in predicting
future assaults, but both instruments predict
reoffense above chance levels (Williams &
Houghton, 1999).
The PAS
The PAS (Dutton, 1995b) was empirically
developed by assessing the items in a compre-
hensive assessment given to convicted batterers
and nonviolent controls (n = 206) that best pre-
dicted their female partners’ reports of abusive-
ness. It is a self-report scale that, at face value,
appears unrelated to abusiveness because it
taps into background factors such as parental
treatment, attachment style, anger response,
trauma symptoms, and stability of self-concept.
The scale has focused primarily on emotional
abuse and can correctly discriminate abusive
men with 82.2% accuracy. Social desirability fac-
tors do not appreciably alter its relationship to
women’s scores of abusiveness.
The PAS has been cross-validated on men in
community groups (n = 500+), and its predictive
accuracy remained at the same level as with the
original sample. Although the PAS is a good
predictor of abusiveness, its main research focus
has been on emotional abuse. The PAS corre-
lated .51 with victims’ reports of dominance and
isolation by the perpetrator and .37 with emo-
tional abuse. Using the Severity of Violence
Against Women Scale (Marshall, 1992), the PAS
correlated .76 with use of threats toward the vic-
tim and .30 with physical violence. All correla-
tions were statistically significant. The PAS cor-
related significantly with men’s anger and
general dysphoria ratings when listening to
audiotaped abandonment scenarios (Dutton &
Parkin, 1999). It should be noted that the PAS is
probably more suitable for noncriminal popula-
tions in which the main objective is to predict
emotional abuse and the risk for physical abuse.
Instruments such as the SARA, on the other
hand, include factors related to prior assaultive
behavior and may therefore be better suited for
assessment in a different population than the
PAS (see Figure 1).
The Psychopathy Checklist
Psychopathy is a personality disorder charac-
terized by deficits in empathy and persistent,
frequent, and varied antisocial behavior start-
ing at an early age (S. D. Hart & Hare, 1997). Psy-
chopathy is assessed using the Psychopathy

Figure 1: PAS in a Demographically Controlled Sample
NOTE: PAS = Propensity for Abusiveness Scale. EMBU = Enga
Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran (Recollections of Early Childhood
Rearing). BPO = Borderline Personality Organization. MAI = Multi-
dimensional Anger Scale. PMWI = Psychological Maltreatment of
Women Inventory. TSC = Trauma Symptoms Inventory. RSQ = Re-
lationship Style Questionnaire. N = 45.
**r < .40, p < .01. ***r < .44, p < .001.
Checklist (PCL) (Hare, 1980), which was later
revised to the 20-item PCL-R (Hare, 1991)
designed for male forensic populations and
eventually to the 12-item Psychopathy Check-
list: Screening Version (PCL: SV). It is included
in this discussion because it has been demon-
strated to be a robust predictor of violent behav-
ior in general, with many of its validity studies
including domestic violence perpetrators (S. D.
Hart & Hare, 1997; Quinsey et al., 1998). The
PCL-R is a structured interview and set of rat-
ings based on the interview and corroboration
based on case history reviews, institutional files,
interviews with family members and employ-
ers, and criminal and psychiatric records (see
Table 4). The PCL-R has generated two factors
labeled affective and social deviance. The first has
to do with glibness, lack of empathy, and patho-
logical lying. The second has to do with antiso-
cial behavior. A newer version of the scale, the
PCL: SV, has been developed for use with both
criminal and noncriminal populations.
Psychopaths have criminal careers that start
early (in their teens) and generate high rates of
violent offending until at least their mid-40s.
They are the most likely group to engage in vio-
lence while incarcerated, to recidivate after
release, and to constitute treatment failure from
prison programs.
Dutton, Kropp / RISK INSTRUMENTS 177
In a meta-analytic review of the prediction of
recidivism, Hemphill, Templeman, Wong, and
Hare (1998) compared the predictive ability of
the PCL with other predictor variables. They
conclude that “the PCL and PCL-R by them-
selves are significant predictors of re-offending.
However, an important issue is their ability to
add to the predictive validity of other more tra-
ditional variables” (p. 381). The PCL, in other
words, contributed unique information beyond
that offered by demographic and criminal his-
tory variables.1
The PCL and PCL-R are more strongly related
to recidivism than any personality diagnosis
including the antisocial personality. Finally, the
PCL and PCL-R have
shown incremental pre- Psychopathy is a
dictive validity in com- personality disorder
parison to the following characterized by
actuarial risk scales: Base deficits in empathy
Expectancy Score (Gott- and persistent,
fredson & Bonds, 1961), frequent, and varied
the Salient Factor Score antisocial behavior
(Hoffman, 1983), the Gen- starting at an early
eral Statistical Informa- age.
tion on Recidivism Scale
(G-SIR) (Nuffield, 1982),
and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (V-RAG)
(Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993).
Dunford (in press) assessed 850 men who
completed their treatment for wife assault in
San Diego. A random sample of treatment suc-
cesses (no violence reported by the wife) and
treatment failures revealed that unsuccessful
men were more than six times as likely to have
PCL: SV scores above 12 (the scale ranges from 0
to 24).
Kropp, Hart, Whittemore, Webster, and Eaves
(1998) included the PCL: SV in a study following
back 50 spousal assault recidivists and 50 nonre-
cidivists. Raters coded the SARA and the PCL: SV
blind to the outcome status. Although the SARA
discriminated between the two groups, the PCL:
SV did not. This is an intriguing finding given
how effective the PCL has proven to be when pre-
dicting violence in general. In some ways, how-
ever, we do not expect the psychopath to be the
most likely type of spousal assaulter to recidivate.
Fundamental to the psychopath’s personality is
178 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2000
TABLE 4: Items in the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised
Factor 1: Interpersonal of Affective Factor 2: Social Deviance
Glibness or superficial charm Need for stimulation or proneness to boredom
Grandiose sense of self-worth Parasitic lifestyle
Pathological lying Poor behavioral controls
Conning or manipulative Early behavioral problems
Lack of remorse or guilt Lack of realistic long-term goals
Shallow affect Impulsivity
Failure to accept responsibility Irresponsibility
for own actions Juvenile delinquency
Revocation of conditional release
SOURCE: Hare (1991).
NOTE: The rater uses specific criteria, interview, and file information to score each item on a 3-point scale ranging from 0 to 2.
a. These are items that do not load on either factor.
the tendency to not form attachments to other
people: He may roam from partner to partner.
Psychopaths do not form the pathological cling-
ing attachments that some other batterers
exhibit (e.g., the dysphoric or borderline bat-
terer, see Dutton, 1995a; Holtzworth-Monroe &
Stuart, 1994). Regardless, the Kropp, Hart,
Whittemore, Webster, and Eaves data suggest
that the PCL may not be the best instrument to
use, at least not on its own, when assessing the
risk for repeated spousal violence.
CONCLUSIONS
Clinicians, correctional personnel, police,
and victim service workers have for many years
been asked to make judgments about risk and
dangerousness in spousal assaulters. Until
recently, however, there were few guidelines or
tools to assist them in this task. This has
changed with the proliferation of spousal
assault risk instruments in production. Unfor-
tunately, there is still relatively little published
research on the reliability and validity of these
tools. This situation is likely to improve if the
number of in-progress validation studies
located is any indication. The results of these
studies will be welcome, as the science and
practice of spousal assault risk assessment is
obviously still in its infancy. There exists no sin-
gle assessment instrument that would infallibly
predict recidivist domestic violence, and there
never will be. Yet there are, among the instru-
ments we reviewed above, several that show
promising advances in recognizing factors rele-
vant to domestic violence and making empirical
Additional Itemsa
Promiscuous sexual behavior
Many short-term marital relationships
Criminal versatility
attempts to predict domestic violence based on
these factors.
Empirically validated risk assessment instru-
ments should constitute one part of the constel-
lation of decision factors used to make determi-
nations of risk. Quality risk assessment,
instruments that are actuarially based, inter-
nally and externally valid and reliable, longitu-
dinally verified, peer reviewed, and based on
quality research should be an important part,
but not all, of the assessment process. The qual-
ity of the information on which the assessment
is based is also extremely critical. Assessments
should use multiple methods and multiple
sources—including the victim(s)—for data col-
lection. Although validation studies are needed,
longitudinal outcome research is difficult due to
practical and ethical considerations. For exam-
ple, to truly know if our predictions for violence
are accurate, we would need to release high-risk
offenders to the community, without interven-
tion or restraints, to determine if they reoffend
(i.e., that they are true-positive predictions).
This strategy is ill advised, therefore any predic-
tive study in this area must attempt to control
for the level of supervision, access to treatment,
and so forth. In the absence of such carefully
controlled research, it might still be useful to
have risk assessment guidelines that (a)
improve the reliability of assessments, (b) intro-
duce accountability into the assessment process,
and (c) allow more effective communication
with regard to the risk to the courts, victims, and
so forth. Many of the reviewed instruments,
especially those that offer structured guidelines
for gathering and reporting information, can

serve these purposes presently. That said, any
risk assessment device must be appropriate to
the level of expertise of the assessment users,
who in turn should be sensitive to any legal
issues that could arise from its use.
We emphasize that, regardless of which risk
measure is being used, the evaluator should
always consider the implications for risk man-
agement. The process of risk assessment should
not conclude with a prediction of dangerous-
ness or lethality—this is only the beginning. The
evaluator should then formulate a risk manage-
ment plan aimed at specific risk assessment
variables, particularly those dynamic variables
that might change over time. Such a plan can be
linked to the risk factors that are present and
absent (i.e., the perpetrator’s strengths or pro-
tective factors). It is important to remember that
the true goal of the evaluator is to prevent vio-
lence, not predict it. This can only be achieved
through sound planning based on a comprehen-
sive and informed risk assessment.
For the purposes of this review, we attempted
to find studies that addressed the risk for any
form of spousal violence. Therefore, our defini-
tion of spousal violence was any actual,
attempted, or threatened violence in the context
of an intimate relationship. As the field of
domestic violence risk assessment evolves, it
will be useful to make distinctions with regard
to the risk for various forms of spousal assault.
Campbell (1999) has made advances in our
understanding of factors associated with the
more narrow issue of domestic homicide, but it
might prove possible to isolate specific risk indi-
cators for different levels of violence severity,
type (e.g., emotional abuse vs. sexual violence),
frequency, and imminence. We believe that it is
premature to make such
Risk assessment has distinctions given the
become a well-used state of the literature.
term in the literature. Risk assessment has
Properly applied, the become a well-used term
practice of risk in the literature. Prop-
assessment can serve erly applied, the practice
as a paradigm for of risk assessment can
effective case serve as a paradigm
management of for effective case man-
spousal assaulters. a g e men t of sp o u s a l
Dutton, Kropp / RISK INSTRUMENTS 179
assaulters. It can serve as the basis for release
planning, treatment placement, and safety
assessment for the victim. Improperly applied,
it can mislead the courts, victims, and offenders
into falsely believing in an infallible science that
does not yet exist. However, we believe that the
accumulation of 25 years of research on domes-
tic violence allows us to make informed deci-
sions about factors related to spousal violence.
The judicious, ethical, and professional applica-
tion of risk assessment instruments has a valu-
able role to play in the protection of spousal vio-
lence victims.
NOTE
1. This was determined by forcing demographic and criminal
history variables into a hierarchical multiple regression and al-
lowing the Psychopathy Checklist and Psychopathy Checklist–
Revised to enter the regression equation only if it added unique in-
formation to the prediction of the outcome.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
Borum, R. (1996). Improving the clinical practice of vio-
lence risk assessment. American Psychologist, 51,
945-953.
Browne, A. (1987). When battered women kill. New York:
Free Press.
Campbell, J. C. (1995). Prediction of homicide of and by
battered women. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing dan-
gerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child
abusers (pp. 96-113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Campbell, J. C. (1998, October). Commentary. In D.
McGrogan (Chair), Lethality and risk assessment for family
violence cases. Symposium presented at the Fourth Inter-
national Conference on Children Exposed to Family
Violence, San Diego, CA.
Campbell, J. C. (1999, November). Issues in risk assessment
in the field of intimate partner violence. Keynote address
presented at the Conference on Risk Assessment and
Risk Management: Implications for the Prevention of
Violence, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Cocozza, J. J., & Steadman, H. J. (1976). The failure of psy-
chiatric predictions of dangerousness: Clear and con-
vincing evidence. Rutgers Law Review, 29, 1084-1101.
Cooper, M. (1993). Assessing the risk of repeated violence
among men arrested for wife assault: A review of the litera-
ture. Vancouver, Canada: British Columbia Institute on
Family Violence.
180 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2000
Douglas, K. S., Cox, D. N., & Webster, C. D. (1999). Violence
risk assessment: Science and practice. Legal and Crimino-
logical Psychology, 4, 149-184.
Dunford, F. W. (in press). The San Diego Navy Experiment:
An assessment of interventions for men who assault
their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Dutton, D. G. (1995a). The domestic assault of women. Van-
couver, Canada: UBC Press.
Dutton, D. G. (1995b). Ascale for measuring the propensity
for abusiveness. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 203-221.
Dutton, D. G. (1999). Perpetrator personality effects on
post-separation victim reactions in abusive relation-
ships. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 193-204.
Dutton, D. G., & Kerry, G. (1999). Modus operandi and per-
sonality disorder in incarcerated spousal killers. Inter-
national Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 287-300.
Dutton, D. G., Ogloff, J.R.P., Hart, S. D., Bodnarchuk, M., &
Kropp, R. (1997). Wife assault treatment and criminal
recidivism: An eleven-year follow up. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
41, 9-23.
Dutton, D. G., & Parkin, C. M. (1999). Personality predictors
of dysphoria in response to intimate conflict scenarios.
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology,
University of British Columbia, Canada.
Gelles, R. J. (1998, October). Commentary. In D. McGrogan
(Chair), Lethality and risk assessment for family violence
cases. Symposium conducted at the 4th International
Conference on Children Exposed to Family Violence,
San Diego, CA.
Goldsmith, H. R. (1990). Men who abuse their spouses: An
approach to assessing future risk. Journal of Offender
Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 15, 45-56.
Gondolf, E. W. (1988). Who are those guys? Toward a
behavioral typology of batterers. Violence and Victims, 3,
187-203.
Goodman, L. A., Dutton, M. A., & Bennett, L. (2000). Pre-
dicting repeat abuse among arrested batterers. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 15, 63-74.
Gottfredson, D. M., & Bonds, J. A. (1961). A manual for intake
base expectancy scoring. San Francisco: California
Department of Corrections.
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency
of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal
(mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The
clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 2, 293-323.
Hall, H. V. (1987). Violence prediction: Guidelines for the foren-
sic practitioner. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of
psychopathy in criminal populations. Personality and
Individual Differences, 1, 111-119.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.
Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1993). Violent
recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The
development of a statistical prediction instrument.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 315-335.
Hart, B. (1990). Assessing whether batterers will kill. Read-
ing, PA: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic
Violence.
Hart, S. D. (1998). The role of psychopathy in assessing risk
for violence. Conceptual and methodological issues.
Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 121-137.
Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1997). Psychopathy: Assessment
and association with criminal behavior. In D. Stoff, J. Breil-
ing, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior
(pp. 32-40). New York: John Wiley.
Hemphill, J. F., Templeman, R., Wong, S., & Hare, R. D.
(1998). Psychopathy and crime: Recidivism and crimi-
nal careers. In D. Cooke, A. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.),
Psychopathy: Theory, research and implications for
society (pp. 375-397). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Klu-
wer Academic Publishers.
Hoffman, P. B. (1983). Screening for risk: A revised salient
factor score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 539-547.
Holtzworth-Monroe, A., & Stuart, G. (1994). Typologies of
male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences
among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476-497.
Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of
risk markers in husband-to-wife violence: The current
state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101-124.
Kropp, P. R., & Hart, S. D. (in press). The Spousal Assault
Risk Assessment guide (SARA): Reliability and validity
in adult male offenders. Law and Human Behavior.
Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. W., & Eaves, D. (1995).
Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide
(2nd ed.). Vancouver, Canada: B.C. Institute on Family
Violence.
Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. W., & Eaves, D. (1998).
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment: User’s guide. Toronto,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Whittemore, K., & Bodnarchuk,
M. A. (1998, March). Spousal Assault Risk Assessment
Guide: Validation and implementation research. Paper pre-
sented at the biannual meeting of the American Psy-
chology & Law Society, Redondo Beach, CA.
Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Whittemore, K., Webster, C. W., &
Eaves, D. (1998). The SARA guide: Validation and imple-
mentation research. Redondo Beach, CA: American Psy-
chology & Law Society.
Marshall, L. (1992). Development of the Severity of Vio-
lence Against Women Scale. Journal of Family Violence, 7,
103-121.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C.
(1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook
for mental health professionals and lawyers (2nd ed.). New
York: Guilford.
Monahan, J. (1981). Predicting violent behavior: An assess-
ment of clinical techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Monahan, J., & Steadman, H. J. (1994). Violence and mental
disorder: Developments in risk assessment. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Nuffield, G. L. (1982). Parole decisions making in Canada:
Research towards decision guidelines. Ottawa: Ministry of
Supply and Services Canada.

Pence, E., & Lizdas, K. (1998). The Duluth safety and account-
ability audit: A guide to assessing institutional responses to
domestic violence. Minneapolis, MN: MPDI.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C.
(1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Roehl, J., & Guertin, K. (1998). Current use of dangerousness
assessments in sentencing domestic violence offenders: Final
report. State Justice Institute: CA
Saunders, D. G. (1992a). A typology of men who batter
women: Three types derived from cluster analysis.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 264-275.
Saunders, D. G. (1992b). Woman battering. In R. T. Ammer-
man & M. Hersen (Eds.), Assessment of family violence: A
clinical and legal sourcebook (pp. 208-235). New York:
Wiley.
Saunders, D. G. (1993). Husbands who assault: Multiple
profiles requiring multiple responses. In N. Z. Hilton
(Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and
evaluation (pp. 9-34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Saunders, D. G. (1995). Prediction of wife assault. In J. Camp-
bell (Ed.), Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual
offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 173-196). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sonkin, D. G. (1987). Assessment of court mandated batter-
ers. In D. G. Sonkin (Ed.), Domestic violence on trial: Psy-
chological and legal dimensions of family violence (pp. 174-
196). New York: Springer.
Sonkin, D. G. (1997). The perpetrator assessment handbook.
Sausalito, CA: Volcano.
Sonkin, D. G., Martin, D., & Walker, L.E.A. (1985). The male
batterer: A treatment approach. New York: Springer.
Steadman, H. J., Silver, E., Monahan, J., Appelbaim, P. S.,
Mulvey, E. P., Grisso, T., Roth, L. H., & Banks, S. (in
press) Aclassification tree approach to the development
of actuarial violence risk assessment tools. Law and
Human Behavior.
Straus, M. A. (1991, July). Factors predicting serious violence
towards wives. Paper presented at the International Con-
ference for Research on Family Violence, Durham, NH.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in
American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in
8145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Sugarman, D., Aldorondo, E., & Boney-McCoy, S. (1995).
Risk marker analysis of husband to wife violence: A contin-
uum of aggression. Unpublished manuscript, Family
Violence Research Lab, University of New Hampshire.
Sugarman, D., & Hotaling, G.T. (1986). An analysis of risk
markers for husband to wife violence. Violence & Vic-
tims, 1, 101-124.
Tolman, R. M., & Bennett, L. W. (1990). A review of research
on men who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5,
87-118.
Trone, J. (1999). Calculating intimate danger: Mosaic and the
emerging practice of risk assessment. New York: Vera Insti-
tute of Justice.
Dutton, Kropp / RISK INSTRUMENTS 181
Webster, C. D., Harris, G. T., Rice, M., Cormier, C., & Quin-
sey, V. L. (1994). The violence prediction scheme: Assessing
dangerousness in high risk men. Unpublished manuscript,
Centre for Criminology, University of Toronto, Canada.
Weisz, A., Tolman, R. M., & Saunders, D. G. (2000). Assess-
ing risk of severe domestic violence. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 15, 75-90.
Williams, K., & Houghton, A. (1999, November). Com-
mentary. In P. R. Kropp (Chair), Developments in Spousal
Assault Risk Assessment. Symposium conducted at the
Conference on Risk Assessment and Risk Management:
Implications for the Prevention of Violence, Vancouver,
Canada.
Donald G. Dutton received his doctorate
in social psychology from the University of
Toronto in 1970. He cofounded the Assaul-
tive Husbands Project, a court-mandated
treatment program for men convicted of wife
assault. In the course of providing therapy for
these men, he drew on his background in both social and
clinical psychology to develop a psychological model for
perpetrators of intimate abuse. He has published more
than 100 papers and three books, including The Domes-
tic Assault of Women, The Batterer: A Psychological
Profile, and The Abusive Personality. Dutton has
served as an expert witness in civil trials involving domes-
tic abuse and in criminal trials involving family violence,
including his work for the prosecution in the O. J. Simpson
trial. He is currently a professor of psychology at the Uni-
versity of British Columbia.
P. Randall Kropp is a clinical and forensic
psychologist specializing in the assessment
and management of violent offenders. He
works for the Forensic Psychiatric Services
Commission of British Columbia, is a
research consultant with the British
Columbia Institute against Family Violence,
and is an adjunct professor of psychology at Simon Fraser
University. He has conducted over 100 training
workshops for mental health professionals, police officers,
and corrections staff throughout North America. This
training focuses on risk for violence, psycholegal
assessments (including psychopathy), and criminal
harassment (stalking). He has frequently consulted with
provincial, state, and federal government ministries on
matters related to violence against women and children,
and the assessment and treatment of violent offenders. He
has published journal articles, book chapters, and research
reports; and he is the coauthor to two works on risk
assessment, the Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk
Assessment Guide and the Manual for the Sexual Violence
Risk-20.