scholarly journals Predictive Analytics and Risk Assessment: A Logical Response to Intimate Partner Homicide

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 01-03 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee E. Ross ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. 2573-2598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Soares Cunha ◽  
Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves

Intimate partner homicide (IPH) is a major social problem, and it is important to determine the predictors of this violent behavior. The purpose of this study was to examine the differences between intimate partner violence (IPV) and IPH and to identify the variables that predict IPH. The sample was composed of 35 perpetrators of IPH, who were compared with 137 perpetrators of IPV. The data were collected using the Spousal Abuse Risk Assessment. The data suggest that IPH presents different dynamics from IPV. Being older, exhibiting suicidal and/or homicidal ideation/intent, and the use of weapons and/or credible threats of death substantially increase a man’s risk of committing IPH. Inversely, not being single, violating conditional release, and being victimized in childhood decrease the likelihood of committing IPH. These findings reinforce the assumption that IPV and IPH have both commonalities and differences and challenge the view that IPV and IPH are different phenomena and that intimate partner murder is an inexplicable event. Implications for preventing IPV and IPH are discussed.


Author(s):  
Jacquelyn C. Campbell ◽  
Phyllis Sharps ◽  
Nancy Glass

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie M. Graham ◽  
Kashika M. Sahay ◽  
Cynthia F. Rizo ◽  
Jill T. Messing ◽  
Rebecca J. Macy

At least one in seven homicides around the world is perpetrated by intimate partners. The danger of intimate partner homicide (IPH) associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) has led to the development of numerous IPV reassault and IPH risk assessment tools. Using 18 electronic databases and research repositories, we conducted a systematic review of IPH or IPV reassault risk assessment instruments. After review, 43 studies reported in 42 articles met inclusion criteria. We systematically extracted, analyzed, and synthesized data on tools studied, sample details, data collection location, study design, analysis methods, validity, reliability, and feasibility of use. Findings indicate that researchers in eight countries have tested 18 distinct IPH or IPV reassault risk assessment tools. The tools are designed for various professionals including law enforcement, first responders, and social workers. Twenty-six studies focused on assessing the risk of male perpetrators, although eight included female perpetrators. Eighteen studies tested tools with people in mixed-sex relationships, though many studies did not explicitly report the gender of both the perpetrators and victims/survivors. The majority of studies were administered or coded by researchers rather than administered in real-world settings. Reliable and valid instruments that accurately and feasibly assess the risk of IPH and IPV reassault in community settings are necessary for improving public safety and reducing violent deaths. Although researchers have developed several instruments assessing different risk factors, systematic research on the feasibility of using these instruments in practice settings is lacking.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-55
Author(s):  
Juan J. López-Ossorio ◽  
José L González-Álvarez ◽  
Ismael Loinaz ◽  
Ana Martínez-Martínez ◽  
David Pineda

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela W. Eke ◽  
N. Zoe Hilton ◽  
Grant T. Harris ◽  
Marnie E. Rice ◽  
Ruth E. Houghton

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacomina Gerbrandij ◽  
Barry Rosenfeld ◽  
Alicia Nijdam-Jones ◽  
Michele Galietta

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document