A meta-analysis considered a total of 18 studies that examined the predictive accuracy of different approaches and instruments used to assess the risk of spousal offender recidivism. The studies were conducted in the United States (10 studies), Canada (6 studies), and Sweden (2 studies) [1].
Approaches focused on predicting recidivism in domestic violence cases showed, on average, a moderate predictive accuracy, with levels similar to those seen in the results presented by tools designed to predict general or violent recidivism and global risk assessments provided by female partners.
As a condition to be included in this meta-analysis, studies must have examined the ability of risk assessments to predict domestic violence or recidivism into any type of violence (including spousal) among male offenders (the follow-up periods ranged from 2.7 months to 82.5 months in the 15 studies that reported this information).
The most common sources of information on recidivism were local (state or provincial) criminal justice registries (50% of the studies) and national registries (50%). Six studies (33%) used partner reports. These percentages add up to more than 100% because some studies used multiple sources.
The most accurate tools are those that were developed empirically. However, the authors of the meta-analysis point out that not all empirically established risk factors are equally useful for case management. In this case, the most useful risk scales would be those that identify risk determinants and suggest ways to reduce risk.
Last but not least, the meta-analysis concludes that there are still many opportunities to advance the research and practice of spousal assault risk assessment. Research is needed to identify the specific characteristics of batterers and their partners that are related to recidivism and susceptible to deliberate intervention.