Validation and Calibration of the Spanish Police Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment System (VioGén)

Abstract

This study describes the rationale, development, and validation of the intimate partner violence (IPV) police risk assessment forms of the VioGén System of the Spanish Ministry of Interior (VPR4.0 and VPER4.0), which promote greater predictive effectiveness and an improvement in the IPV law enforcement prevention. A validation study of the mentioned protocols is presented, including inter-observer reliability, estimated by the equivalence or inter-judge reliability method, while the convergent validity of these protocols was calculated with the RVD-BCN protocol. The sample consisted of 6613 new cases of IPV included in the VioGén System over a period of 2 months and which were longitudinally followed up for 6 months. The discrimination indexes are not only the summarized odds ratio (OR), area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity, but also the calibration indexes positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). The results show the suitability of using procedures which, in a coordinated manner, incorporate two risk assessment instruments, one for a first screening assessment and a second one to re-assess IPV danger situations on a regular basis. The values obtained are within the margins reported by different meta-analyses regarding this type of instruments, which supports their use for professional practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Álvarez M, Andrés Pueyo A, Augé M, Choy A, Fernández C, Foulon H et al (2011) Protocolo de Valoración del Riesgo de Violencia contra la Mujer por parte de su pareja o ex pareja (RVD-BCN). Circuito Barcelona Contra la Violencia hacia las Mujeres, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andrés Pueyo A, López S, Álvarez E (2008) Valoración del riesgo de violencia contra la pareja por medio de la SARA. Papeles del Psicólogo 29(1):107–122

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arbach-Lucioni K, Andres-Pueyo A (2016) Violence risk assessment practices in Spain. In: Signh JP, Bjorkly S, Fazel S (eds) International perspectives in violence risk assessment. Chapter 19. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arbach-Lucioni K, Desmarais S, Hurducas C, Condemarin C, Kimberlie D, Doyle et al (2015) La práctica de la evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España. Revista de la Facultad de Medicina 63(3):357–366. https://doi.org/10.15446/revfacmed.v63n3.48225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Belfrage H, Strand S, Storey J, Gibas A, Kropp P, Hart S (2012) Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide. Law Hum Behav 36(1):60–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buchanan A, Binder R, Norko M, Swartz M (2012) Resource document on psychiatric violence risk assessment. Am J Psychiatry 169:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.169.3.340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Canales D, Macaulay A, McDougall A, Wei R, Campbell J (2013) A brief synopsis of risk assessment screening tools for frontline professionals responding to intimate partner violence. Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  8. Capdevila M (ed) (2015) Tasa de reincidencia penitenciaria 2014. CEJFE, Barcelona. Retrieved February 20, 2019 from: http://cejfe.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/recerca/cataleg/crono/2015/taxa_reincidencia_2014/tasa_reincidencia_2014_cast.pdf

  9. Carvajal A, Centeno C, Watson R, Martínez M, Sanz A (2011) ¿Cómo validar un instrumento de medida de salud? An Sist Sanit Navar 34(1):63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dayan K, Fox S, Morag M (2013) Validation of spouse violence risk assessment inventory for police purposes. J Fam Violence 28(8):811–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9547-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. De Becker G (1997) The gift of fear. Little, Brown y Co., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  12. De Becker G et al (2000) Domestic violence method (DV MOSAIC). Retrieved February 20, 2019 from: https://www.mosaicmethod.com

  13. Douglas KS, Shaffer C, Blanchard AJE, Guy LS, Reeves K, Weir J (2014) HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: overview and annotated bibliography, HCR-20 violence risk assessment white paper series, 1. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  14. Echeburúa E, Amor PJ, Loinaz I, De Corral P (2010) Escala de Predicción del Riesgo de Violencia Grave contra la Pareja-Revisada-(EPV-R). Psicothema 22(4):1054–1060

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fazel S, Singh J, Doll H, Grann M (2012) Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Br Med J 345:4692. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Folino JO (2015) Predictive efficacy of violence risk assessment instruments in Latin-America. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context 7(2):51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hart S (2008) Preventing violence: the role of assessment and management. In: Constanza BA, Willem WF (eds) Intimate partner Violence prevention and intervention. Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York, pp 7–18

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hilton Z, Harris G, Rice M, Houghton R, Eke A (2008) An indepth actuarial assessment for wife assault recidivism: the domestic violence risk appraisal guide. Law Hum Behav 32(2):150–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9088-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kroop P (2008) Intimate partner violence risk assessment and management. Violence Vict 2:202–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kropp P, Hart S, Webster CD, Eaves D (1995) Manual for the spousal assault risk assessment guide, 2nd edn. British Columbia Institute on Family Violence, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kropp P, Hart S, Belfrage H (2010) Brief spousal assault form for the evaluation of risk (B-SAFER) second edition. User manual. Proactive Resolutions, Canadá

    Google Scholar 

  22. Llor-Esteban B, García-Jiménez JJ, Ruiz-Hernández JA, Godoy-Fernández C (2016) Profile of partner aggressors as a function of risk of recidivism. Int J Clin Health Psychol 16:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.05.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Loinaz I (2017) Manual de evaluación del riesgo de violencia. Metodología y ámbitos de aplicación. Madrid, Pirámide

    Google Scholar 

  24. López-Ossorio JJ, González JL, Andrés-Pueyo A (2016) Eficacia predictiva de la valoración policial del riesgo de la violencia de género. Psychosoc Interv 25:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2015.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. López-Ossorio JJ, González JL, Buquerín S, García L, Buela-Casal G (2017) Risk factors related to intimate partner violence police recidivism in Spain. Int J Clin Health Psychol 17:107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.12.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Martínez L (2016) Errores conceptuales en la estimación de riesgo de reincidencia. La importancia de diferenciar sensibilidad, valor predictivo y estimaciones de riesgo absolutas y relativas. Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica 14:1–31

    Google Scholar 

  27. Messing J, Thaller J (2013) The average predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessment instruments. J Interpers Violence 28(7):1537–1558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Muñoz JM, López-Ossorio JJ (2016) Valoración psicológica del riesgo de violencia: alcance y limitaciones para su uso en el contexto forense. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica 26(1):130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apj.2016.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Neller D, Frederick R (2013) Classification accuracy of actuarial risk assessment instruments. Behav Sci Law 31:141–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nicholls TL, Pritchard MM, Reeves KA, Hilterman E (2013) Risk assessment in intimate partner violence: a systematic review of contemporary approaches. Partner Abuse 4(1):76–168. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.4.1.76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Otto R, Douglas K (eds) (2010) Manual de evaluación del riesgo de violencia. Taylor & Francis Group, Nueva York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rice M, Harris G, Lang C (2013) Validation of and revision to the VRAG and SORAG: the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide—Revised (VRAG-R). Psychol Assess 25(3):951–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Roaldset JO, Hartvig P, Bjørkly S (2017) Psychometric properties and predictive validity of a police version of a violence risk screen—a pilot study. Int J Law Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rossegger A, Gerth J, Seewald M, Urbaniok M, Singh J, Endrass J (2013) Current obstacles in replicating risk assessment findings: a systematic review of commonly used actuarial instruments. Behav Sci Law 31:154–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rossegger A, Endrass J, Gerth J, Singh JP (2014) Replicating the violence risk appraisal guide: a total forensic cohort study. PLoS One 9(3):e91845. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091845

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Singh J (2013) Predictive validity performance indicators in violence risk assessment: a methodological primer. Behav Sci Law 31:8–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Singh J, Grann M, Fazel S (2011) A comparative study of risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clin Psychol Rev 3:499–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Singh J, Fazel S, Gueorguieva R, Buchaman A (2014) Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments. Br J Psychiatry 204:180–187. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.131938

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Singh JP, Yang S, Mulvey E (2015) Reporting guidance for violence risk predictive validity studies: the RAGEE statement. Law Hum Behav 39:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-011-9278-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. WAVE- Women Against Violence Europe (2011) Proyect—identifying and protecting high risk victims of gender based violence—an overview, Report of the DAPHNE Protect. Vienna. Retrieved February 20, 2019 from: http://fileserver.wave-network.org/trainingmanuals/PROTECTI_Protecting_High_Risk_Victims_2011_English.pdf

  41. WAVE- Women Against Violence Europe (2012) Proyect II—European network and European info CENTRE AGAINST VIOLENCE, Report of the DAPHNE Protect. Vienna. Retrieved February 20, 2019 from: http://fileserver.wave-network.org/trainingmanuals/PROTECTII_Risk_Assessment_and_Safety_2012_English.pdf

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan José López-Ossorio.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statement

This research was not funded. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. This research did not require any informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

López-Ossorio, J.J., González-Álvarez, J.L., Muñoz Vicente, J.M. et al. Validation and Calibration of the Spanish Police Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment System (VioGén). J Police Crim Psych 34, 439–449 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-019-09322-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intimate partner violence
  • Police risk assessment
  • Prediction tools
  • Validation process
  • VioGén system