Intimate Partner Violence and Homicide Risk Assessment Tools: A Systematic Review

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a widespread and costly public health and safety issue associated with numerous detrimental outcomes, including death. Approximately 70-80% of intimate partner homicide (IPH) victims were abused by their partner prior to the homicide (Campbell, Webster, & Glass, 2009). The serious danger of IPH and research on related risk factors have led to the development of numerous IPV re-assault and IPH risk assessment tools. However, a comprehensive review of these tools’ has yet to be conducted. To address this gap, we sought to (a) identify which IPH and IPV risk assessment tools have been studied and published in peer-reviewed journals; (b) identify and describe how, with which populations, and in which settings these tools have been empirically investigated for their validity, reliability, and feasibility of use; and (c) synthesize the research methods with which these tools have been tested to assess the rigor of the IPH and IPV risk assessment knowledge base overall.

Methods: Using 10 electronic databases, we conducted a rigorous search and analysis of IPH or IPV re-assault risk assessment tools. Studies were required to (a) be published in English; (b) be peer-reviewed; (c) assess the reliability, predictive validity, and/or feasibility of at least one IPH or IPV risk assessment tool in its full form; and (d) test a tool that is available for practitioners and/or researchers. After title, abstract, and full text review, 41 studies reported in 37 articles fully met inclusion criteria. For each study, we systematically extracted, analyzed, and synthesized data on (a) study aims; (b) sample details; (c) data collection location; (d) study design; (e) data collection and analysis methods; (f) the tools studied; (g) tested psychometric properties; and (f) feasibility of use.

Results: Findings indicate that researchers in seven countries have developed and used IPH or IPV re-assault risk assessment tools. Studies tested 15 distinct tools designed to be used by various professionals, including law enforcement, first responders, and social workers. The majority of studies focused on assessing the risk of male offenders though, a minority of studies included female offenders. Most tools were developed for and tested with people in mixed-sex relationships. Data collection and analysis methods used for testing scale reliability and validity varied widely in terms of quality and rigor. Few studies examined tools’ feasibility of use in real world settings.

Implications: Reliable and valid instruments that accurately and feasibly assess the risk of IPH and IPV re-assault in community settings may improve public safety and reduce violent deaths. To help inform practice and policy on IPH and IPV re-assault risk assessment, we will provide findings on the instruments’ validity, reliability, and feasibility of use from all reviewed studies. We will also highlight recommendations for future research, including (a) adapting and developing IPH and IPV risk assessment tools for individuals experiencing IPV in same-sex relationships, (b) strategies for enhancing the rigor of future studies, and (c) additional feasibility and acceptability testing in social work research to ensure these tools’ value in real world settings.