Victim-reported risk factors for continued abusive behavior: Assessing the dangerousness of arrested...

VICTIM-REPORTED RISKFACTORS FOR CONTINUEDABUSIVE BEHAVIOR: ASSESSINGTHE DANGEROUSNESS OFARRESTED BATTERERS

Lauren Bennett CattaneoUniversity of Maryland

Lisa A. GoodmanBoston College

�

Policy changes have dramatically increased the number of domesticviolence cases entering criminal courts, creating a critical need forcompetent risk assessment. This study adds to the knowledge base aboutrisk factors important to consider in such assessments, using a prospectivedesign and follow-up through victim interview. Participants were 169primarily African American women who appeared at a court intake centerfollowing the arrest of an abusive partner. We reached over half of theseparticipants for follow-up 3 months later. Questionnaires administered atintake elicited information about demographics, substance abuse, thehistory of physical and psychological abuse in the relationship, thebatterer’s general violence, and the victim’s own assessment of her level ofendangerment. All variables were measured through victim report,combined with official records when relevant. Significant predictors ofcontinued abusive behavior were the batterer’s history of alcohol abuse, theseverity of abuse in the relationship, the batterer’s general violence, the

This study was a doctoral dissertation, supported in part by the Milton Dean Havron Social Sciences Awardfor excellence in graduate study, and supervised by the second author. It would not have been possiblewithout the cooperation and support of the staff of the Domestic Violence Intake Center at the District ofColumbia’s Superior Court and the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Domestic Violence Unit. In particular, we wouldlike to express our gratitude to Charlotte Clarke, Caroline Han, Diane Myint, and Robert Spagnoletti. Manythanks also to our indispensable research assistants, especially Lisa Ades, Rebecca Rios, Andrea Mazocco,and Monique Droussard. Thanks also to Margret Bell and finally to Tom Kocot, for many months ofcollaboration, persistence, and moral support.Correspondence to: Lisa A. Goodman, Boston College School of Education, Campion Hall, 140 Common-wealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. E-mail: [email protected]

A R T I C L E

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 31, No. 4, 349–369 (2003) © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jcop.10056

level of psychological abuse in the relationship, and, notably, the victim’sown assessment of the dangerousness of her case. Most variables werestronger in their sensitivity, or ability to correctly identify reabusers, thantheir specificity, or ability to correctly identify nonreabusers. Implicationsfor practice and research are discussed. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In the past several decades, the legal response to domestic violence has become farmore aggressive, resulting in an enormous increase in the number of domestic vio-lence cases in the criminal justice system ~e.g., Epstein, 1999!.1 Because this system haslimited resources, understanding which cases are most dangerous has become criticalnot only for the purpose of counseling victims, but also for the purpose of triage.However, research exploring which kinds of batterers are most likely to abuse again islimited.

This study, approved by the University of Maryland Institutional Review Board,was a prospective investigation of the relative predictive utility of an important groupof risk factors for continued abusive behavior among batterers who had been arrestedfor domestic assault. More specifically, we investigated the demographic, substanceabuse, and prior violence-related variables that a number of studies have alreadyshown to be important predictors of repeat abuse ~e.g., Chaudhuri & Daly, 1992;Hamberger & Hastings, 1990; Harrell & Smith, 1996; Klein, 1996; Murphy, Musser &Maton, 1998!, and we compared their predictive utility with that of a variable that ispotentially important but has traditionally not been considered in this type of research:the level and type of psychological abuse in the relationship. A pilot study by theauthors supported the potential utility of this variable ~Bennett, Goodman, & Dutton,2000!. Finally, the study compared the predictive power of these more objective riskfactors to another key variable that has not traditionally been represented in theliterature: the victim’s own assessment of her risk.

We assessed the utility of these variables for predicting continued abusive behaviorwithin 3 months of the original assault and arrest. Although 3 months is a relativelyshort follow-up period, other studies have found it to be sufficient for a significantamount of reabuse to occur ~Bennett et al., 2000; Gondolf, 1997; Harrell & Smith,1996!. Three months is also a policy relevant period of time within the criminal justicesystem: in the District of Columbia, where this study was conducted, the first sched-uled trial date for a misdemeanor domestic violence case takes place 3 to 5 monthsfrom arrest ~Clarke & Epstein, 1997!. Finally, in his study following batterers for 15months, Gondolf ~1997! found that those who reassaulted within the first 3 monthswere significantly more likely to reassault repeatedly, suggesting that early reassaultersare a particularly high-risk group.

Abusive behavior was defined more broadly in this study than it has been inothers: as physical or sexual abuse, destruction of the victim’s property, threats to killher, or making contact with her against her will. The breadth of this definitiondeserves explanation. As other studies have done ~e.g., Bybee & Sullivan, 2002;

1In the District of Columbia, for example, in 1989 the prosecutor’s office filed charges in fewer than 40misdemeanor cases out of 19,000 calls to police. From 1996–1997, after mandatory arrest and no-dropprosecution policies were put in place, the prosecutor’s office pressed charges in approximately 6,000 cases~Epstein, 1999!.

350 • Journal of Community Psychology, July 2003

Gondolf, 1997!, this study defined continued abuse as any of the physically or sexuallyabusive behaviors included on the Conflict Tactics Scales, described later. However, inthis study, continued abuse also included other behaviors aimed at the victim andagainst the law, such as destruction of the victim’s property, threats to kill her, orcontact with her against her will.2 At least one other similar study has includedunwanted contact as an outcome ~Harrell & Smith, 1996!. Clearly, such a definition ofabuse includes a continuum of behaviors, ranging from letter writing to physicalassault. What all of these behaviors have in common, however, is the persistence of thebatterer in the face of court sanctions. Batterers who exhibit such persistence areconsidered in this study to be more dangerous than those who do not.

Notably, this study included only risk factors that could be assessed throughinterviewing the victim.3 As in the criminal justice system, where prosecutors arebarred from speaking directly to defendants once they are represented by counsel~American Bar Association, 1997!, access to information is limited in many of thecontexts where danger assessments take place ~e.g., shelters, emergency rooms, pro-bation offices!. The argument that risk assessment tools must be pragmatic for therelevant contexts ~BC Institute on Family Violence, 1993; Webster, Eaves, Douglas, &Wintrup, 1995!, suggests that not only is it acceptable but it is important that researchexplore predicting abuse with information gleaned from limited sources. This studyfocuses on the victim as that source.

RISK FACTORS FOR CONTINUED ABUSIVEBEHAVIOR

This study based its selection of potential risk factors on several bodies of literature,including studies of domestic violence recidivism, studies of recidivism and violence inthe general population, and studies of batterers who engage in severe violence.

Demographic Risk Factors

Sherman, Smith, Schmidt, and Rogan ~1992! have argued that one who is closely tiedto conventional society may refrain from criminal behavior to avoid social stigma orthe loss of relationships. Illustrating this point, they showed that being unemployedand unmarried were linked with higher recidivism rates among batterers arrested fordomestic violence. Other studies of domestic violence recidivism have reported simi-lar results ~Chaudhuri & Daly, 1992; Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987; Hamberger & Has-tings, 1990; Thistlethwaite, Wooldredge, & Gibbs, 1998!. Similarly, in the generalpopulation, people with criminal records are more likely to be violent ~Hastings &Hamberger, 1997!. In this respect, Chaudhuri and Daly ~1992!, Klein ~1996!, andShepard ~1992! found that men who assault their wives are no different than otherkinds of criminals. In this study, we hypothesized that men who were unemployed,unmarried, or had criminal records would be more likely to continue their abusivebehavior.

2 When the court presses charges against a batterer, he is ordered to stay away from the victim, makingunwanted contact illegal.3 A small exception to this rule was information about the batterer’s criminal history, which was gleanedfrom court records. This information supplemented victims’ reports of batterers’ general violence, detailedlater.

Victim-Reported Risk Factors for Continued Abuse • 351

Lower socioeconomic status has also been identified as a predictor of violence inthe general population ~Hastings & Hamberger, 1997!, and of domestic violencerecidivism in particular ~Thistlethwaite et al., 1998!. Perhaps among those of lowersocioeconomic status, where there is a greater level of involvement in public systemsand in the court system in particular, there is less of a social stigma connected witharrest. Lower socioeconomic status was hypothesized to predict continued abuse inthis study.

Finally, youth has been found to be predictive of violence in the general commu-nity and of recidivism in batterers specifically ~Hastings & Hamberger, 1997; Klein,1996; Murphy et al., 1998!. Among those who engage in criminal or deviant behavior,there is a trend, consistent across cultures and demographic groups, in which crimeincreases until the mid or late teens, and then declines throughout the life span~Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1994!. In this study, youth was expected to be predictive ofcontinued abuse.

Substance Abuse

Substance abuse has consistently been linked with recidivism among batterers ~Chaud-huri & Daly, 1992; DeMaris & Jackson,1987; Hamberger & Hastings,1990; Klein, 1996;Shepard, 1992!, and specifically among batterers who have been arrested ~Bennettet al., 2000!. There is also convincing evidence that substance abuse is a risk factor forviolence in the general population ~Hastings and Hamberger, 1997; Steadman et al.,1998!.

Prior Violence/Abuse

Violence against people outside of the family has consistently been identified as adimension along which batterers vary, and as a correlate of more severe violence~Gondolf, 1988; Holtzworth-Monroe & Stuart, 1994; Saunders, 1992!. It has not gen-erally been considered in studies of recidivism, with the exception of a pilot studyconducted by the authors ~Goodman, Dutton, & Bennett, 2000!. The results of thatstudy provided evidence for the predictive utility of a brief risk assessment measure,the Danger Assessment Scale ~Campbell, 1986, 1995; Stuart & Campbell, 1989! amongarrested batterers. Items on that brief scale correspond with several of the risk factorsinvestigated here, although the scale does not assess them in any in depth way. Forexample, general violence is measured with the item: “Is he violent outside the home?”In the current study, we hypothesized that those batterers who have been moregenerally violent in the past would be more likely to continue their abusive behaviortoward the victim.

There is consistent support for the importance of considering the severity ofviolence in the prediction of continued abuse ~BC Institute on Family Violence, 1993;Browne, 1987; Douglas & Webster, 1999; Feld & Straus, 1989; Goodman et al., 2000;Harrell & Smith, 1996; Quigley & Leonard, 1996!. In this study, batterers who hadused more severe violence against the victim were expected to be more likely toreabuse her.

Chang ~1995! defines psychological abuse as “any nonphysical behavior that con-trols through the use of fear, humiliation, and verbal assault” ~p. 133!. By definition,then, a batterer’s use of psychological abuse may be a good indication of his need tocontrol, and as such may be useful in predicting continued abuse. Research on therole of psychological abuse in domestic violence has found that it is associated with


more long-term, severe physical abuse ~Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek,1990; Gondolf, 1988!, and that it is a precursor to physical violence ~Murphy &O’Leary, 1989!. Jacobson, Gottman, Gortner, Berns, & Shortt. ~1996! showed thatmore severe emotional abuse at the initial point of assessment predicted either thebreak up of the relationship or higher levels of physical abuse 2 years later. Finally, inthe only one of these studies to be conducted in a criminal justice context, the authorsfound that among a small sample of arrested batterers ~n � 49!, the severity ofpsychological abuse, particularly dominance-isolation tactics, was a significant predic-tor of reassault ~Bennett et al., 2000!. The current study expands on those findings,hypothesizing that a history of more severe psychological abuse would be predictive ofcontinued abusive behavior despite arrest.

Victim Assessment

The final question this study examined is an important yet rarely addressed one in thefield of risk assessment: whether the consideration of empirically validated risk factorsare any more useful than an assessment of risk made by the victim herself. In onestudy, Weisz, Tolman, and Saunders ~2000! conducted a secondary data analysis andreported that survivors’ predictions added significantly to the accuracy of more estab-lished risk factors in the prediction of severe assault in a 4-month follow-up period.The current study differs from the Weisz et al. study, adding to this critical researcharea, in a number of ways. Most importantly, in the Weisz et al. study victims wereasked to assess dangerousness after the disposition of their case, a median of 17.5weeks after the offense that brought them into court. In the current study, victimswere asked to assess dangerousness soon after the initial offense, often within 24hours. Further, the sample of batterers in the Weisz et al. study was narrower than thesample we used in the current study; it included only those found guilty of a misde-meanor and given deferred sentences or probation, while the current study includedbatterers arrested for domestic violence regardless of whether they were charged witha misdemeanor or felony.

Hypotheses

In sum, this study tested the following hypotheses:

1. Batterers who are unemployed will be more likely to reabuse.

2. Batterers who are not married to their victims will be more likely to reabuse.

3. Batterers who have a criminal record will be more likely to reabuse.

4. Batterers who are of lower socioeconomic status will be more likely to reabuse.

5. Batterers who are younger will be more likely to reabuse.

6. Batterers who abuse drugs and alcohol will be more likely to reabuse.

7. Batterers who are more generally violent will be more likely to reabuse.

8. Batterers who have used more severe physical abuse in the relationship will bemore likely to reabuse.

9. Batterers who have used more severe psychological abuse in the relationshipwill be more likely to reabuse.

10. Victim assessments of greater dangerousness will be related to a greater like-lihood of reabuse.


METHOD

Participants

Participants were 169 women over the age of 18 who presented at the United StatesAttorney’s Office ~USAO! Domestic Violence Intake Center ~DVIC! at the District ofColumbia’s Superior Court following the arrest of an intimate partner who had assaultedthem. The DVIC is the primary entry point for all domestic violence criminal cases inWashington, DC. An eligible participant was female, spoke English, had access to atelephone and had come to the DVIC because a current or former male intimatepartner had been arrested for committing a domestic violence offense against her.

Procedures

A research assistant was in the DVIC approximately 5 days a week for 9–102 months,and attempted to recruit each victim who came to the DVIC and met criteria for thestudy. Research assistants approached potential participants in the waiting room,described the study, and explained that refusal to participate would have no bearingon their court case. As part of informed consent, each potential participant wasadvised that a researcher would contact her by telephone in approximately 3 monthsto ask if she was still having difficulties with her partner or former partner.

After reading and signing an informed consent form, those who agreed to par-ticipate filled out a telephone protocol, giving detailed information about the best wayto reach them at follow-up. Participants were then given questionnaires to be filledout before leaving the DVIC. Administration of the questionnaires took approximately45 minutes, and participants were paid $10.00 for their time.

Starting 3 months after the date of intake, interviewers attempted to contactparticipants over the course of 1 month. To maximize the safety of participants, allinterviewers were female, and the participants’ instructions for making the follow-upcalls were adhered to strictly. Interviewers never left messages in trying to contactparticipants. Upon reaching a participant, the interviewer asked immediately if it wasa safe time to talk. The interviewer then reiterated the confidential nature of theinterview and gave the participant an opportunity to decline to be interviewed.

Measures

The questionnaire packet administered to participants elicited information on each ofthe predictor variables described above. The follow-up phone call asked about con-tinued abuse.

Demographic Variables. Participants were asked to report demographic information aboutthemselves, for descriptive purposes, and about their abusive partners. Although Sher-man et al. ~1992! originally identified marriage as a variable indicating strong socialties, marriage is relatively rare in the population that participated in this study ~seeresults!, and may not indicate strong ties to the relationship to the same extent that itmight in other communities. Therefore, we used length of cohabitation as the variablebest reflective of the strength of ties to a partner. To assess socioeconomic status,batterers’ job titles, provided by victims on the demographic questionnaire, were givenan occupational prestige rank using a coding scheme that is standard in sociologicalresearch ~Nam & Terrie, 1988!. This prestige score was then converted into a z-score,as were the level of education and income. The average of the z-scores indicated


batterers’ socioeconomic status ~Nam & Terrie, 1988!. For descriptive purposes, thesame coding procedure was employed to obtain participants’ socioeconomic status.The batterer’s criminal history was assessed by reviewing court records that documentarrests and convictions in the District of Columbia for the 4 years prior to the study.

Substance Abuse. Using Gondolf’s method of assessing batterer substance abuse throughvictim report ~personal communication, July 8, 1998!, we asked participants to reportthe frequency with which their partner is drunk and the frequency with which he isunder the influence of illegal drugs. Participants rated frequency on a scale from oneto six, where one was “never” and six was “every day or almost every day.” The resultwas an ordinal measure of drug and alcohol use.

Prior Violence0Abuse. To assess violence generality, participants completed a four-itemGeneral Violence Scale. Gondolf ~1988! developed this scale to create a typology ofbatterers based on a cluster analysis of victim-reported variables. Items ask whether, tothe victim’s knowledge, the batterer has destroyed property, been violent toward otherpeople outside of the home, toward animals, or toward himself. Each type of violenceoutside the home is ranked in terms of severity and is scored accordingly. Violencetoward others is the most severe item, and is given a score of four; destruction ofproperty is the least severe item, and is given a score of one. Sum scores range from0–10 ~personal communication, Edward Gondolf, July 28, 1998!. Any informationgleaned from the batterer’s criminal record that the victim did not report was alsoincluded in the score.

The study measured the severity of violence using the Revised Conflict TacticsScales ~CTS2-Form A; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996!. The items ineach of three subscales ask if, in the past year, the respondent has experiencedspecific kinds of abuse ~Physical Abuse and Sexual Coercion Subscales!, or ramifica-tions of abuse ~Injury Subscale!. Participants respond to each item with a frequencyrating ~0–6!, indicating how often such an event has occurred, and the scores for theitems on each subscale are summed. Alpha coefficients for the three subscales in thissample ranged from .81 to .94.

To measure the history of psychological abuse in the relationship, the study usedthe Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory ~PMWI!—Short Form ~Tolman,1989, 1999!. Each of its two subscales, Dominance-Isolation and Emotional-Verbalpsychological abuse, has been shown to successfully discriminate battered and non-battered women ~Tolman, 1999!. The total score on each of the two subscales was usedas a separate predictor variable. Alpha coefficients for this study were .87 for theDominance-Isolation Subscale and .91 for the Emotional-Verbal Abuse Subscale.

Victim Assessment. Participants were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, the likelihoodof the batterer hurting them, threatening them or destroying their property in thenext three months.

Repeat Abuse over the Course of 3 Months. During the follow-up interview participantswere asked several questions to ascertain whether abuse had continued since intake.Interviewers asked about unwanted contact by saying, “Have there been times sinceyou came into the intake center when he contacted you or tried to contact you whenyou didn’t want him to?” They then asked if there had been conflict between battererand victim that had “involved physical fighting including grabbing, pushing or throw-ing things,” whether there had been any sexual contact because of “force, threats, or


being afraid of what would happen if you didn’t give in,” and whether at any timesince intake the batterer had “threatened you with physical harm or destroyed yourproperty.” A positive response to any of these questions was considered continuedabuse.

Data Analysis

As a first step, we dealt with missing data in several ways, depending on the nature ofthe variable. Ideally, missing data is handled through multiple imputation. However,multiple imputation requires parametric analyses, and the main analyses of this study,described below, were nonparametric. Therefore, we were limited to single imputationmethods ~Schafer & Graham, 2002!.

Missing data connected to scale scores were handled one of two ways: if a respon-dent had answered less than 75% of the items on a scale, their missing scale score wasreplaced by the mean of all other respondents’ scores on that scale. If a respondenthad answered at least 75% of the items on a scale, missing responses were replaced bythe mean of that respondent’s other answers on that scale ~Schafer & Graham, 2002!.Missing responses on four of the single-item variables ~length of cohabitation, drugand alcohol abuse, and victim assessment! were also replaced with the sample mean.For the general violence scale, a missing response was replaced with a zero, indicatingthat the victim gave no information about that behavior. Finally, socioeconomic statuswas calculated by averaging at least two of the three relevant variables ~income, edu-cation and job status!. Those who reported less than two of the variables were droppedfrom the bivariate analysis. We attempted two other methods of replacing missing datawith socioeconomic status, one more conservative and one less conservative, andachieved the same results reported below.

It is important to note that, as reported below, there was relatively little missingdata in this study. When the proportion of missing data is small ~0–5%!, the differ-ences among the various procedures for single imputation are negligible ~Schafer,1999!. In other words, it is unlikely that our results were impacted by the methods ofreplacing missing data we chose. However, if there was an impact, the conservativenature of those methods would have led to underestimates of the relationships betweenvariables.

As a second step after addressing missing data, we generated descriptive statistics foreach of the variables in the study. Third, differences between those participants we wereand were not able to contact at follow-up were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U-testor the chi-square test, depending on whether the variable was continuous or categorical.A nonparametric test was used for continuous variables because most variables in thisstudy were not normally distributed. Fourth, ODA was used to evaluate the usefulness ofeach of the predictors in discriminating between the reabuse and no-reabuse outcomegroups. There are two components to ODA: the Monte Carlo procedure which yields ap-value for the ODA model, and the “leave-one-out” analysis.

In the Monte Carlo procedure, ODA first identifies the cut point in a continuousvariable that maximizes the average of sensitivity and specificity of prediction.4 Itcalculates the percentage of cases accurately classified ~PAC! using this cut point. ODAthen shuffles the sample data to produce a random set of predictor values one might

4 The procedure with a dichotomous variable is identical, except that there is no need to identify a cutpoint.


expect if the predictor and the outcome had no relationship. The Monte Carloprocedure does this “shuffling” 1,000 times, creating a distribution of PACs that onemight expect if there were no relationship between the predictor and the outcome.Using this custom-made distribution, ODA then yields the p-value associated with thePAC calculated for the real sample data. This p-value is the probability of observingthis PAC if there were no relationship between the predictor and outcome. If thep-value is less than or equal to .05, it is possible to investigate the robustness of thepredictor variable with the “leave-one-out” analysis.

The “leave-one-out” analysis takes one subject out of the sample data and, usingthe remaining data, identifies the optimal cut point for predicting the outcome asdescribed above. This optimal cut point model is then applied to the subject that wasremoved from the sample, and the ability of the model to predict the outcome of thatparticular subject is calculated. Each subject in the sample is removed and her groupmembership predicted in this fashion. This method is designed to approximate theusefulness of the variable in samples other than that used for the Monte Carlo pro-cedure described above.

ODA produces five statistics relevant for this study. For all predictors, we reportthe p-value associated with the optimal cut point for the sample data. For thosepredictors with p-values less than or equal to .05, we report sensitivity, specificity,positive predictive value, and mean PAC. In this study, sensitivity is the ability of thepredictor to correctly identify reabusers. Specificity is the ability of the predictor tocorrectly identify nonreabusers. Positive predictive value is the probability that thebatterer will reabuse, given that the predictor has identified him as a reabuser. MeanPAC is the average percent accurately classified by the predictor, taking all types ofaccuracy into account.

RESULTS

Sample Description

Over the course of 9–102 months, 254 potential participants were invited to partici-pate in the study. Thirty-eight refused participation, 25 agreed but did not returnquestionnaires, and 191 participants returned questionnaires. Demographic data forthose refusing to participate or not returning questionnaires was largely unavailable.Ethnicity was assumed based on the participant’s appearance. Of the 63 participantswho were invited to participate but did not complete questionnaires, ethnicity wasroughly analogous to demographic data for the final sample. Twenty-two question-naires were eliminated from analysis because: ~a! a preponderance of participant’sdata was missing; ~b! participant did not meet criteria for the study, ~c! participantfilled out more than one questionnaire; or ~d! participant indicated at follow-up thatthe batterer had been incarcerated for the entire follow-up period, making the pre-diction of reabuse nonsensical. Of the original 254 potential participants asked toparticipate in the study, 169 were retained for analyses ~67%!.

Differences Between Participants Who Were and Were Not Contacted by Phone. Out of theoriginal sample of 169 participants, we were able to reach 96 participants ~56.8%! byphone between 3 and 4 months after intake. The average length of time in thefollow-up period was 14.5 weeks ~SD � 1.29 weeks!, or just over 3–102 months. Therewere no significant demographic differences between participants who were and werenot reached for a follow-up interview. However, analyses revealed that those who


were not reached for follow-up had more prior system involvement, such that theywere more likely to have been involved with a prior criminal prosecution of thebatterer ~x2 � 5.09; df � 1; p � .02!, and batterers in this group were more likely tohave arrest records ~x2 � 6.04; df � 1; p � .01!. In addition, those who were notreached for follow-up had higher scores on the physical abuse subscale on the CTS2~U � 2748; p � .02!. The two groups did not differ with respect to the other twoseverity of violence subscales or any other variable measured for this study.

Demographics. Because there were no demographic differences between those whowere reached and not reached for follow-up, Table 1 gives descriptive data for the

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Characteristic Number Percent

EthnicityAfrican American 154 91.1Caucasian 3 1.8Latina 2 1.2Missing0other 10 5.9

Relationship with battererMarried 32 18.9Dating 79 46.7Separated0divorced0broken up 42 24.9Other 15 8.9

Living with batterera 95 56.2Children

With batterer 81 47.9Only with other father 40 23.7No children 44 26.0

Currently pregnantBy batterer 10 5.9By other father 1 .6

EmployedFull-time 82 48.5Part-time 14 8.3Unemployed 62 36.7

EducationNone 1 .61st–8th grade 4 2.4Some high school 34 20.1Completed high school 60 35.5Some college 53 31.4Completed 4-year college 4 4.1Attended graduate school 8 4.7

Participant’s income in past yearLess than $5000 51 30.2$5000–$14,999 35 20.7$15,000–$19,999 24 14.2$20,000–$24,999 17 10.1$25,000–$49,999 24 14.2$50,000 and above 5 3.0

aParticipants were asked if they were living with the batterer at thetime of the assault.


whole sample of 169 participants, and Table 2 summarizes demographic data for allbatterers. Information was not always available on all three socioeconomic statusvariables ~ job, income, and education!. Therefore, the final z-score was calculated byaveraging together at least two of these variables, and all three when possible. Thefinal z-scores for batterers’ socioeconomic status ranged from �1.6 to 1.99. For par-ticipants, scores ranged from �1.84 to 1.41. Court records were available for 158 ofthe 169 batterers ~93.5%!.

Substance Abuse. About a third of the total sample ~37.3%! reported that the battererwas never or rarely drunk. A similar proportion ~34.3%! reported that the batterer wasdrunk every day or almost every day. About half of the participants ~47.9%! checkedfive or higher out of six on the frequency scale, meaning that the batterer was drunkonce a week or more. Close to half of the sample reported that the batterer never orrarely used illegal drugs ~44.4%!, while less than a third ~27.2%! reported that he used

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Batterers

Characteristic Number Percent

EthnicityAfrican American 155 91.7Caucasian 2 1.2Latino 3 1.8Missing0Other 9 5.3

EmployedFull-time 83 49.1Part-time 9 5.3Unemployed 57 33.7

EducationNone 1 .61st–8th grade 14 8.3Some high school 45 26.6Completed high school 64 37.9Some college 29 17.2Completed 4-year college 3 1.8Attended graduate school 2 1.2

Batterer’s income in past yearLess than $5000 37 21.9$5000–$14,999 26 15.4$15,000–$19,999 25 14.8$20,000–$24,999 11 6.5$25,000–$49,999 28 16.6$50,000 and above 4 2.4

Criminal record ~n � 158!At least one prior arrest 75 47.5Three or more prior arrests 25 15.9At least one prior conviction 39 24.7At least one prior domestic violence arrest 45 26.6At least one prior domestic violence conviction 21 13.3Arrested only for nonviolent offenses 43 27.2Arrested for a violent offense that was not domestic 18 10.7At least one drug-related arrest 20 12.7


drugs every day or almost every day, and 73 participants ~43.2%! reported that thebatterer was “high or under the influence of drugs” once a week or more.

Prior Violence/Abuse

When items were summed to produce a score on the General Violence Scale, 45 bat-terers ~26.6%! had a score of zero, indicating that there was no evidence of nondomesticviolence either by victim report or criminal record. In other words, using this relativelybroad definition, 73.4% of the batterers were generally violent to some degree.

Table 3 displays descriptive data for the physical violence, injury, and sexualcoercion subscales of the CTS2. A prior study that collected data from the samepopulation of women found similar levels of physical violence and injury ~Goodman,Bennett, & Dutton, 1999!.

Descriptive data for the psychological abuse variables is also shown in Table 3.These statistics are slightly lower than those reported in a prior study drawing fromthe same population of women. M.A. Dutton, Goodman and Bennett ~1999! reportedmean scores of 25.04 and 21.96, respectively.

Table 3 also reports the number of participants missing more than 75% of theitems for each of the above subscales. As described earlier, for participants who weremissing less than 75% of the items for any scale, we used their own mean to imputea scale score. This method of imputation was used in 13 cases in the Physical AbuseSubscale ~7.7%!, in three cases in the Injury Subscale ~1.8%!, in four cases in theSexual Coercion Subscale ~2.4%!, in eight cases in the Dominance-Isolation Subscale~4.7%!, and in three cases in the Emotional-Verbal Abuse Subscale subscale ~1.8%!.

Victim Assessment. As detailed in Table 3, participants’ average assessment of risk fellroughly in the middle of the scale. Twenty-three victims ~13.6%! rated the possibility

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, and Missing Data for Continuous Predictor Variables

Predictor n Mean Median SD Range Missing Dataa

His age 169 32.56 31.00 9.35 18–61 0Together 169 25.04 3.00 43.84 0–240 1 ~.6%!SES 146 �.01 �.19 .83 �1.6–2.58 23 ~13.6%!Drunk 169 3.81 3.91 2.00 1–6 5 ~2.9%!High 169 3.43 3.00 2.11 1–6 9 ~5.3%!Gen viol 169 3.60 3.50 2.93 0–10 15 ~8.9%!CTS-P 169 18.78 13.09 16.24 0–72 2 ~1.1%!b

CTS-I 169 5.27 3.00 5.65 0–36 1 ~.6%!CTS-S 169 4.10 0 6.98 0–38 3 ~1.8%!Psyabu-DI 169 19.28 17.75 8.24 7–35 0Psyabu-EV 169 21.78 21.00 9.12 7–35 0Vict assess 169 6.05 6.00 3.11 1–10 2 ~1.1%!

Note. Together � months living together at time of the incident; SES � the batterer’s socioeconomic status; Drunk � howoften is he drunk; High � how often is he under influence of illegal drugs; Gen viol � score on general violence scale;CTS-P � physical abuse subscale of CTS2; CTS-I � injury subscale of CTS2; CTS-S � sexual abuse subscale of CTS2;Psyabu-DI � psychological abuse, Dominance-Isolation Subscale; Psyabu-EV � psychological abuse, Emotional-Verbal Sub-scale; Vict assess � the victim’s assessment of the likelihood of further abuse.aSee Data Analysis section for method related to missing data. Method varied for different predictors. For example, thosemissing more than one of the variables comprising SES were dropped, leading to the sample size of 146 for that predictor.bIn scale scores, figure refers to the number of participants missing more than 75% of the items, so that their scale scorewas replaced with the mean of the entire sample.


of reabuse one or extremely unlikely, and an equal number rated the likelihood ten,or extremely high.

Continued Abusive Behavior Reported by Victims. Eleven out of the 96 participants ~11.5%!reached for follow-up reported that there had been new assaults, threats, or destruc-tion of property since intake. This is slightly lower than the reabuse rate in Gondolf’s~1997! large and rigorous study of batterer treatment programs. Of his sample of 662battered women, 14% reported a new assault in the 3 months after batterer treatmentprogram intake.

Out of the 83 participants who were asked about unwanted contact during thefollow-up period,5 22 ~26.5%! answered yes. Unwanted contact ranged from harassingphone calls to letters threatening suicide to loitering in a park near the victim’s houseand approaching relatives of the victim. When unwanted contact and reassault werecombined, 23 ~27.7%! cases fell into the reabuse group; this rate of reabuse is similarto that found in the pilot study conducted by the authors ~Bennett et al., 2000!. It isimportant to note that all but one of the participants who reported reabuse alsoreported unwanted contact, supporting the logic of merging these two groups.6

Bivariate Correlations Among Predictors

Table 4 shows significant correlations between predictors. A Bonferonni correctionwas applied to this analysis, such that the significance threshold was p ≤ .0002. Withtwo exceptions, no correlation between predictors is high enough to indicate substan-tial redundancy. The exceptions are the correlation between the two subtypes of

5 The lower sample size is the result of the fact that the question about unwanted contact was added afterfollow-up calls had begun.6 In sum, 10 participants reported reabuse and unwanted contact, one reported reabuse only, and 12reported unwanted contact only, totaling 23 participants in the reabuse group.

Table 4. Significant Correlations Between Predictors

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. His age —2. Together .32 —3. SES —4. Gen viol —5. CTS-P .30 —6. CTS-I .77 —7. CTS-S .55 .53 —8. Psyabu-DI .58 .52 .45 —9. Psyabu-EV .58 .50 .38 .80 —

10. Vict assess .31 .29 .37 .41 —11. Any job .37 —

Note. The following predictors were not significantly correlated with any other predictors, and therefore, were excludedfrom this table: the batterer’s alcohol use, the batterers drug use, and whether or not the batterer had a criminal record.Together � months living together at time of the incident; SES � the batterer’s socioeconomic status; Gen viol � score ongeneral violence scale; CTS-P � physical abuse subscale of CTS2; CTS-I � injury subscale of CTS2; CTS-S � sexual abusesubscale of CTS2; Psyabu-DI � psychological abuse, Dominance-Isolation Subscale; Psyabu-EV � psychological abuse,Emotional-Verbal Subscale; Vict assess � the victim’s assessment of the likelihood of further abuse; Anyjob � batterer’semployment status.


psychological abuse ~r � .80! and the correlation between the injury and physicalabuse subscales of the CTS2 ~r � .77!. For theoretical reasons, it remains important toinclude all of these variables separately, as has been done in other research.

Results of Hypothesis Testing

Results of hypothesis testing are displayed in Table 5. For continuous variables, theoptimal cut-point derived from ODA is displayed, and medians and 25th–75th per-centile ranges are given for the two outcome groups. For those with ODA p-values lessthan or equal to .05, information on sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value,and Mean PAC ~overall average percent accurately classified! is given in Table 6.

Of the variables suggested by prior research, alcohol abuse, general violence, andall three subscales of the CTS2 were useful predictors of continued abuse in 3 months.Although not significantly related to continued abuse, length of time living togetheras of the assault and the batterer’s socioeconomic status showed a trend towardsignificance at p � .06 and p �.07, respectively. Unemployment, having a criminalrecord, youth, and drug abuse were not significant predictors. Psychological dominance-isolation, and not emotional-verbal abuse, was a significant predictor of the outcome.Finally, the victim’s assessment of the dangerousness of the case was a significantpredictor of continued abuse.

The low base rate of the outcome precluded multivariate statistical techniquesthat would have evaluated the relative strength of the predictors. Instead, Table 6reports the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and mean PAC of each ofthe significant predictors of continued abuse, allowing for comparison.

Table 5. Results of Hypothesis Tests

Reabuse Group No Reabuse Group

Predictor ODA Cut Point p Median25th–75th

Percentile Median25th–75th

Percentile

Drunk 4.5 .01 6.0 2.0–6.0 3.41 2.0–6.0High 5.9 .13 5.0 1.0–6.0 3.0 1.0–5.56Gen viol 4.5 .01 5.52 4.0–8.0 4.0 0–5.0CTS-P 7.5 .05 15.0 9.0–41.0 9.0 3.0–19.75CTS-I 3.5 .05 5.0 2.0–11.0 2.5 0–6.0CTS-S 4.38 .01 4.67 0–9.0 0 0–4.0His age 33.5a .15 29.0 24.0–33.0 32.0 25.0–39.75Together 4a .06 0 0–12 7.5 0–40.5Anyjob N0Aa .58 52.9% N0A 56.7% N0APrior N0A 1.00 39.1% N0A 37.5% N0ASES �.48a .07 �.55 �.96–.09 �.15 �.47–.65Psyabu-EV 17.5 .08 21.0 18.0–33.0 17.5 10.5–28.0Psyabu-DI 18.5 .03 21.0 16.0–27.0 16.0 9.75–23.0Vict assess 5.5 .01 9.0 6.0–9.0 5.0 3.0–9.0

Note. Drunk � how often is he drunk; High � how often is he under influence of illegal drugs; Gen viol � score on generalviolence scale; CTS-P � physical abuse subscale of CTS2; CTS-I � injury subscale of CTS2; CTS-S � sexual abuse subscaleof CTS2; Together � months living together at time of the incident; Anyjob � is batterer employed; Prior � does battererhave a criminal record; SES � the batterer’s socioeconomic status; Psyabu-EV � psychological abuse, Emotional-VerbalSubscale; Psyabu-DI � psychological abuse, Dominance-Isolation Subscale; Vict assess � the victim’s assessment of thelikelihood of further abuse. ODA cutpoints with a subscript indicate a negative relationship between the outcome and thepredictor, such that predictor values below the cut point predict an outcome of one ~reabuse!.


DISCUSSION

Limitations

The results of this study should be considered in the context of a number of limita-tions. First, the sample size in this study was relatively small. Although the smallsample size and consequently low power suggests confidence in the positive findings,it means that variables not found to be significant here should not be ruled out ofconsideration in future research. In addition, some measures were limited in that theycontained only a single item, such as those assessing substance abuse.

Another limitation is the relatively low base rate of reabuse reported by victims, acommon problem in risk assessment research ~Douglas & Webster, 1999!. Follow-upinterviews were conducted over the phone, not face-to-face, which may have affectedvictims’ openness with interviewers. Also, despite assurances from the interviewers,participants may have been concerned that reports of reabuse would be relayed to thecourt. Perhaps also because of the perception of a connection between the interview-ers and the court, or because of an overall higher level of fear, it is possible that thosewho were reabused were less likely to accept phone calls from interviewers at all. Weknow that those who were not reached had more past involvement with the systemthan had those who were reached, and that there was a history of more severe physicalabuse among those who were not reached. Therefore, it is likely that the groupincluded in the study was somewhat less endangered than were those who had to beexcluded because they could not be reached. In risk assessment research, it is oftenthe case that variability is restricted because the most dangerous cases are excludedfrom analysis for various reasons, including the incapacitation of the most dangerouspeople through prison or civil commitment ~Douglas & Webster, 1999!.

Clearly, the length of the follow-up period is also a limitation of this study. Manyof the victims noted in the follow-up calls that they felt the batterer’s behavior wouldchange at the end of their court involvement. Ideally, the study would have been ableto follow the sample for a longer period of time.

Although the study’s focus on data collectible from victims may increase the policyrelevance of the study, as discussed in the introduction, there are limitations that stemfrom this data source as well. First, parts of the interview protocol involved askingparticipants about the behavior of someone other than themselves, leaving open the

Table 6. Accuracy of Significant Predictors

Predictor Sensitivity Specificity PPV Mean PAC

Drunk 74% 60% 41% 67%Gen viol 70% 47% 33% 58%CTS-P 87% 45% 38% 66%CTS-I 65% 63% 41% 64%CTS-S 52% 63% 52% 58%Psyabu-DI 65% 67% 43% 66%Vict assess 74% 58% 40% 66%

Note. PPV � positive predictive value; Drunk � how often is he drunk; Gen viol �score on general violence scale; CTS-P � physical abuse subscale of CTS2; CTS-I �injury subscale of CTS2; CTS-S � sexual abuse subscale of CTS2; Psyabu-DI �psychological abuse, Dominance-Isolation Subscale; Vict assess � the victim’s assess-ment of the likelihood of further abuse.


possibility that their judgment might be inaccurate or based on few observations.Thus, it is important to remember that we are exploring the predictive value of thevictim’s report of the batterer’s behavior. Also, relying only on victim report makes itimpossible to consider some potentially interesting variables, such as those pertainingto the batterer’s subjective experience. For example, there is evidence to suggest thatthe batterer’s perception of fairness in the system is associated with less reabuse~Paternoster, Bachman, Brame, & Sherman, 1997!.

Finally, the generalizability of the results of this study should be considered.Participants were a subset of the domestic violence victims who use the criminal justicesystem in the District of Columbia. They were victims who chose to come into courtafter calling the police, whose cases resulted in arrest, and who chose to fill out thesurvey while at the court. Further, data in this study was collected primarily from aselect demographic group—relatively low-income African American women. This groupof women might be different from a more diverse sample in a number of ways. Mostrelevant to this study, research has suggested that women from this population arelikely to have experienced higher levels of trauma and violence over the course oftheir lives ~e.g., Hein & Bukszpan, 1999!, which might impact their perceptions of risk.Because of the lack of diversity in this sample, the study could not explore theimplications of such differences. However, it is important to emphasize that this is thedemographic group to which the results of this study should be generalized.

Findings

In contrast to most of the research in this area, which is retrospective and reliant onofficial records rather than victim interview, this study explored predictors of contin-ued abuse prospectively, and drew upon victim follow-up interviews in addition torecords. Thus, despite its limitations, it makes a useful contribution to the field andprovides food for thought for research and policy.

Demographic Variables and Substance Abuse. The relationship between alcohol abuse anddomestic violence is well established in the literature ~e.g., Kantor & Straus, 1987;Tolman & Bennett, 1990!, and is further supported by this study, which suggests thata pattern of alcohol abuse is associated not only with domestic violence generally butwith the continuation of abuse in the face of sanctions.

The failure of the demographic and drug abuse variables to predict repeat vio-lence is puzzling. Specific limitations of the study may be partly to blame: for example,participants may have been reluctant to accurately report the batterer’s drug use on aquestionnaire filled out in a court setting, and the age range of batterers in this studywas limited. Another possible reason for the failure of some of these variables is that,as in other research, they might interact with each other in complex ways to predictrecidivism ~e.g., Carlson, Harris, & Holden, 1999!. As explained earlier, this study wasunable to investigate interactions.

Prior Violence0Abuse. The batterer’s history of abuse aimed at the victim and aimed atother targets were significant predictors of continued abuse, suggesting among otherthings that these men have difficulty controlling violent impulses toward a range oftargets.

The Dominance-Isolation Subscale of the psychological abuse measure was also asignificant predictor of continued abuse, with about equal sensitivity ~65%! and spec-ificity ~67%!. The Emotional-Verbal Subscale was not a significant predictor. This


finding fits with the notion that the batterer’s need for control can be a key compo-nent of his drive to abuse ~e.g., Pence & Paymar, 1992!, and that there are individualdifferences in the strength of this need ~Dutton & Starzomski, 1993; Prince & Arias,1994!. Batterers who are the most desperate to control their partners may be partic-ularly loath to give up their abusive relationship, whatever the cost. Indeed, whenthese batterers’ power is challenged by arrest, they may feel even more motivated touse violence to reestablish control. Other abusive men may have an easier time,comparatively, in changing their behavior.

Clearly, the Dominance-Isolation Subscale measures the component of psycholog-ical abuse that is most related to control ~e.g., controlling the victim’s use of thetelephone, watching over the victim’s activities, and insisting she tell him where she isat all times!, and thus is not surprisingly the most useful predictor of continued abuse.This type of psychological abuse has also been specifically tied to more severe violence~Sackett & Saunders, 1999! and drop out from batterer treatment ~Brown, O’Leary, &Feldbau, 1997!. The Emotional-Verbal Subscale measures behaviors that are less con-sistent with a need to control ~e.g., blaming the victim for his problems, calling thevictim names!.

Victim Assessment. Victims were able to assess their own risk of continued abuse withrobust sensitivity ~74%!, but with lower specificity ~58%!. In other words, victims wereable to predict who would reabuse quite well—better than they were able to predictwho would not. The finding that victims’ assessments might be important to considerin gauging risk echoes the findings of the Weisz et al. ~2000! secondary analysis,described earlier. As mentioned earlier, an important difference between these twostudies is that in the current study, victims made their assessments very close to thetime they had been assaulted, whereas in the Weisz et al. study, women were inter-viewed after the batterers’ court cases were over. The implication of this difference isthat victims’ assessments are valuable in the prediction of repeat violence, whether ornot they are in a time of crisis when they are asked to make the assessment. However,it is important to emphasize this study’s finding while victims were good at identifyingthose who would reabuse, they were less accurate in identifying those who would not.

In sum, this study found partial support for its hypotheses. It provides furtherevidence for the predictive utility of several variables suggested by prior research:alcohol abuse, the history of abuse in the relationship, and a history of generalviolence. The study adds to the literature by confirming a prior pilot study showingthat psychological abuse is important to include in assessing risk, and that amongpsychologically abusive behaviors, controlling behaviors are particularly important toconsider. Finally, the victim’s own assessment was a sensitive predictor of continuedabuse.

Implications for Practice

In considering how to think about the predictive utility of the risk factors identifiedhere, it is important to note that none of the indices of accuracy ~sensitivity, specific-ity, positive predictive value, and mean PAC! is intrinsically more important than theothers. Instead, the importance of one of these indices over any other is based on thecontext within which predictions are to be made. In some contexts, such as thosewhere the victim is the focus of the intervention, sensitivity ~the accurate identifica-tion of as many reabusers as possible! is the most important parameter. Settings thatmight fall into this category would be emergency rooms, health and mental health


providers, and intake centers like the one in this study, where victims are counseledabout their legal options and where there is information about and access to othercommunity resources. Defining good sensitivity as 70%, or 20% above chance, thesensitive predictors of reabuse in this study are alcohol abuse, general violence, thehistory of physical abuse, and the victim’s assessment of risk.7

For most variables in this study, positive predictive value is much lower thansensitivity. In other words, if one were to base the expenditure of resources onpredictions made by these variables, one would overspend. False positives are a mostgrave concern in contexts where decisions are being made about the batterer, such assentencing or conditions of release. For example, it would not be logical to concludethat all batterers who abuse alcohol should receive longer sentences, or have higherbail. None of the predictors in this study had above 70% specificity, although the useof dominance and isolation tactics came close at 67%.

Finally, the victim’s assessment of her own risk should be highlighted as a valuablepiece of information for both victims and practitioners. One can imagine it might beempowering to impart to a victim the importance of attending to her own sense of thedanger of her case. However, it is important to remember that both this study and thatconducted by Weisz et al. ~2000! used as a sample women who had already reached outto the criminal justice system for help. Clearly, all of these women were above a certainthreshold in their perception of their risk. It is possible that the assessments of womenwho are in a different stage of the relationship, perhaps one where they might min-imize their perception of risk to cope with a situation that feels inescapable ~M.A.Dutton, 1996!, might be less accurate.

Although the risk factors identified in this study appear to be useful, they are farfrom perfect. It is much too early to rely exclusively on the risk factors that have beenestablished by research so far, particularly in settings where wrongly identifying some-one as high or low risk has significant costs. It is also too early for this study or anyother to comfortably offer cut-off scores to be used in risk assessment, if indeed anactuarial approach is the ultimate goal. An important recommendation made in otherreviews of this literature is that at this point in the field, practitioners should maketheir assessments with as broad an array of information as is feasible ~e.g., Roehl &Guertin, 1998!. What this study suggests is that the risk factors identified here shouldbe included in that array.

Implications for Research

Given the pressure to conduct efficient and accurate risk assessments, more researchin this area is sorely needed. Results from this study should be replicated, preferablywith a larger sample and with more resources to achieve a higher follow-up rate.Research is also needed to explore the predictive validity of existing risk assessmenttools, and to compare their utility ~see Goodman et al., 2000; Kropp & Hart, 2000, forbeginning efforts in this area!. An exciting area for future research is victim assess-ment of risk. Clinicians and policy makers might learn from what victims perceive tobe the most salient indicators of risk, as well as what they view as the most effectiveinterventions. It also seems essential to consider some of the factors that inhibit abuse.

7 It is important to emphasize here that the indices of accuracy in this study are imprecise, given the size ofthe sample and the low base rate of the outcomes. Findings should be viewed as tentative, requiringreplication.


A few studies have been conducted exploring predictors of desistance ~Feld & Straus,1989; Jacobson et al., 1996; Quigley & Leonard, 1996!; this is a particularly policyrelevant area for study. Especially interesting variables to explore would be those thatare dynamic rather than static, such as the nature of the batterer’s environment orsupport system. Conducting research in this area poses significant challenges, butpotential applications of the research are too important to ignore. As the knowledgebase expands, communication between practitioners and researchers will continue tobe key.

REFERENCES

American Bar Association. ~1997!. Model rules of professional conduct. Washington, DC: Author.BC Institute on Family Violence. ~1993!. Assessing the risk of repeated violence among men

arrested for wife assault: A review of the literature. Vancouver: Author.Bennett, L.E., Goodman, L.A., & Dutton, M.A. ~2000!. Risk assessment among batterers arrested

for domestic assault: The salience of psychological abuse. Violence against Women, 6~11!,1190–1203.

Brown, P.D., O’Leary, K.D., & Feldbau, S.R. ~1997!. Dropout in a treatment program for self-referring wife abusing men. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 365–387.

Browne, A. ~1987!. Battered women who kill. New York: Free Press.Bybee, D.I., & Sullivan, C.M. ~2002!. The process through which an advocacy intervention

resulted in positive change for battered women over time. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 30~1!, 103–132.

Campbell, J.C. ~1986!. Assessment of risk of homicide for battered women. Advances in NursingScience, 8~4!, 36–51.

Campbell, J.C. ~1995!. Prediction of homicide of and by battered women. In J.C. Campbell ~Ed.!,Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers ~pp. 96–113!. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carlson, M.J., Harris, S.D., & Holden, G.W. ~1999!. Protective orders and domestic violence: Riskfactors for reabuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14~2!, 205–226.

Chang, V.N. ~1995!. Interaction patterns that threaten the self. Transactional Analysis Journal,25~2!, 133–140.

Chaudhuri, M., & Daly, K. ~1992!. Do restraining orders help? Battered women’s experience withmale violence and the legal process. In E.S. Buzawa & C.G. Buzawa ~Eds.!, Domestic violence:The changing criminal justice response ~pp. 227–252!. Westport, CT: Auburn House.

Clarke, C., & Epstein, D. ~1997!. Know your rights: A victim’s guide to the domestic violencejustice system. District of Columbia: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the United StatesAttorney.

DeMaris, A., & Jackson, J.K. ~1987, October!. Batterers’ reports of recidivism after counseling.Social Casework, 68, 458–465.

Douglas, K.S., & Webster, C.D. ~1999!. Predicting violence in mentally and personality disor-dered individuals. In R. Roesch, S.D. Hart, & J.R. Ogloff ~Eds.!, Psychology and law: Thestate of the discipline; Perspectives on law and psychology ~vol. 10, pp. 175–239!. New York:Plenum Publishers.

Dutton, D.G., & Starzomski, A.J. ~1993!. Borderline personality in perpetrators of psychologicalabuse. Violence and Victims, 8~4!, 327–337.

Dutton, M.A. ~1996!. Battered women’s strategic response to violence: The role of context. In J.Edleson & Z. Eiskovitz ~Eds.!, Future interventions with battered women and their families~pp. 105–124!. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Dutton, M.A., Goodman, L.A., & Bennett, L. ~1999!. Court-involved battered women’s responsesto violence: The role of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. Violence and Victims,14~1!, 89–104.

Epstein, D. ~1999!. Effective intervention in domestic violence cases: Rethinking the rolesof prosecutors, judges, and the court system. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 11~1!,3–50.

Feld, L.S., & Straus, M. ~1989!. Escalation and desistance of wife assault in marriage. Criminol-ogy, 27~1!, 141–161.

Follingstad, D.R., Rutledge, L.L., Berg, B.J., Hause, E.S., & Polek, D.S. ~1990!. The role ofemotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 107–120.

Gondolf, E.W. ~1988!. Who are these guys? Toward a behavioral typology of batterers. Violenceand Victims, 3~3!, 187–203.

Gondolf, E.W. ~1997!. Patterns of reassault in batterer programs. Violence and Victims, 12~4!,373–387.

Gondolf, E.W., & Hanneken, J. ~1987!. The gender warrior: Reformed batterers on abuse,treatment, and change. Journal of Family Violence, 2~2!, 177–191.

Goodman, L.A., Bennett, L.E., & Dutton, M.A. ~1999!. Obstacles to domestic violence victims’cooperation with the criminal prosecution of their abusers: The role of social support.Violence and Victims, 14~4!, 427–444.

Goodman, L.A., Dutton, M.A., & Bennett, L.E. ~2000!. Predicting repeat abuse among arrestedbatterers: Use of the Danger Assessment Scale in the criminal justice system. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 15~1!, 63–74.

Hamberger, L.K., & Hastings, J.E. ~1990!. Recidivism following spouse abuse abatement coun-seling: Treatment program implications. Violence and Victims, 5~3!, 157–170.

Harrell, A., & Smith, B.A. ~1996!. Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims. InE.S. Buzawa & C.G. Buzawa ~Eds.!, Do arrests and restraining orders work? ~pp. 214–242!.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hastings, J.E., & Hamberger, L.K. ~1997!. Sociodemographic predictors of violence. Anger,Aggression, and Violence, 10~2!, 323–335.

Hein, D., & Bukszpan, C. ~1999!. Interpersonal violence in a “normal” low-income controlgroup. Women and Health, 29~4!, 1–16.

Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M.R. ~1994!. The generality of deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-action Publishers.

Holtzworth-Monroe, A., & Stuart, G.L. ~1994!. Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes andthe differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116~3!, 476–497.

Jacobson, N.S., Gottman, J.M., Gortner, E., Berns, S., & Shortt, J.W. ~1996!. Psychological factorsin the longitudinal course of battering: When do the couples split up? When does the abusedecrease? Violence and Victims, 11~4!, 371–392.

Kantor, G.K., & Straus, M.A. ~1987!. The “drunken bum” theory of wife beating. Social Prob-lems, 34~3!, 213–230.

Klein, A.R. ~1996!. Re-abuse in a population of court-restrained male batterers: Why restrainingorders don’t work. In E.S. Buzawa & C.G. Buzawa ~Eds.!, Do arrests and restraining orderswork? ~pp. 192–213!. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kropp, R.P., & Hart, S.D. ~2000!. The spousal assault risk assessment ~SARA! guide: Reliabilityand validity in adult male offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24~1!, 101–118.

Murphy, C.M., Musser, P.H., & Maton, K.I. ~1998!. Coordinated community intervention fordomestic abusers: Intervention system involvement and criminal recidivism. Journal ofFamily Violence, 13~3!, 263–284.

Murphy, C.M., & O’Leary, K.D. ~1989!. Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression inearly marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57~5!, 579–582.


Nam, C.B., & Terrie, E.W. ~1988!. 1980-based Nam-Powers occupational status scores ~WPS88–48!. Tallahassee, FL: Center for the Study of Population, Florida State University.

Paternoster, R., Bachman, R., Brame, R., & Sherman, L.W. ~1997!. Do fair procedures matter?The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Society Review, 31~1!, 163–204.

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. ~1992!. Power and control tactics of men who batter. New York: Springer.Prince, J.E., & Arias, I. ~1994!. The role of perceived control and the desirability of control

among abusive and non-abusive husbands. American Journal of Family Therapy, 22~2!126–134.

Quigley, B.M., & Leonard, K.E. ~1996!. Desistance of husband aggression in the early years ofmarriage. Violence and Victims, 11~4!, 355–370.

Roehl, J., & Guertin, K. ~1998!. Current use of dangerousness assessments in sentencing domes-tic violence offenders: Final report. Pacific Grove, CA: Justice Research Center, State JusticeInstitute.

Sackett, L.A., & Saunders, D.G. ~1999!. The impact of different forms of psychological abuse onbattered women. Violence and Victims, 14~1!, 105–117.

Saunders, D.G. ~1992!. A typology of men who batter: Three types derived from cluster analysis.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62~2!, 264–275.

Schafer, J.L. ~1999!. Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8,3–15.

Schafer, J.L., & Graham, J.W. ~2002!. Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. PsychologicalMethods, 7, 147–177.

Shepard, M. ~1992!. Predicting batterer recidivism five years after community intervention.Journal of Family Violence, 7~3!, 167–178.

Sherman, L.W., Smith, D.A., Schmidt, J.D., & Rogan, D.P. ~1992!. Crime, punishment, and stakein conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American SociologicalReview, 57, 680–690.

Steadman, H.J., Mulvey, E.P., Monahan, J., Robbins, P.C., Appelbaum, P.S., Grisso, T., Roth,L.H., & Silver, E. ~1998!. Violence by people discharged from acute psychiatric inpatientfacilities and by others in the same neighborhoods. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55,393–401.

Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D.B. ~1996!. The Revised ConflictTactics Scales ~CTS2!: Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of FamilyIssues, 17, 283–316.

Stuart, E.P., & Campbell, J.C. ~1989!. Assessment of patterns of dangerousness with batteredwomen. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 10, 245–260.

Thistlethwaite, A., Wooldredge, J., & Gibbs, D. ~1998!. Severity of dispositions and domesticviolence recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 44~3!, 388–398.

Tolman, R.M. ~1989!. The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of womenby their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4~3!, 159–177.

Tolman, R.M. ~1999!. The validation of the psychological maltreatment of women inventory.Violence and Victims, 14~1!, 25–37.

Tolman, R.M., & Bennett, L.W. ~1990!. A review of quantitative research on men who batter.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5~1!, 87–118.

Webster, C.D., Ben-Aron, M.H., & Hucker, S.J. ~1985!. Dangerousness: Probability, prediction,psychiatry and public policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Webster, C.D., Eaves, D., Douglas, K., & Wintrup, A. ~1995!. The HCR-20 scheme: The assess-ment of dangerousness and risk. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser Uni-versity and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission of British Columbia.

Weisz, A.N., Tolman, R.M., & Saunders, D.G. ~2000!. Assessing the risk of severe domestic violence:The importance of survivors’ predictions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15~1!, 75–90.


Victim-reported risk factors for continued abusive behavior: Assessing the dangerousness of arrested...

Documents

Transcript of Victim-reported risk factors for continued abusive behavior: Assessing the dangerousness of arrested...