Yaxley Robyn, Norris Kimberley, Haines Janet
School of Medicine (Psychology), University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Australia.
Salamanca Psychology, Hobart, Australia.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2017 Aug 28;25(2):237-256. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2017.1356211. eCollection 2018.
Risk assessment is a controversial area of forensic practice, yet it has become an integral part of responding to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Given lethal consequences can arise from judicial decisions based on poorly executed risk assessments, it is incumbent on mental health practitioners to utilise best-practice methods and form evidence-based determinations of risk and intervention strategies. This article provides a best-practice guide to IPV risk assessment and summarises available information on the most prevalent IPV risk assessment measures for male and female offenders. The research indicates that caution is warranted as most risk assessment measures have not been normed for use outside North America or for female offenders, have small to moderate effect sizes, and a lack of adherence to administrative procedures and methodical rigour has undermined research findings. Nevertheless, structured risk assessment enhances the defensibility of expert opinion and is recommended.
风险评估是法医实践中一个颇具争议的领域,但它已成为应对亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)不可或缺的一部分。鉴于基于执行不力的风险评估做出的司法决定可能产生致命后果,心理健康从业者有责任采用最佳实践方法,并基于证据确定风险和干预策略。本文提供了一份IPV风险评估的最佳实践指南,并总结了关于男性和女性罪犯最普遍的IPV风险评估措施的现有信息。研究表明,由于大多数风险评估措施未针对北美以外地区或女性罪犯进行规范,效应量小到中等,且缺乏对行政程序和方法严谨性的遵守削弱了研究结果,因此需要谨慎对待。尽管如此,结构化风险评估增强了专家意见的可辩护性,因此被推荐使用。