Psychometric properties of the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment from samples of people having perpetrated intimate partner violence.

IF 5.4 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Trauma Violence & Abuse Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-23 DOI:10.1177/15248380241262275
Victoria Allard, Tamsin Higgs, Maéva Slight
{"title":"Psychometric properties of the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment from samples of people having perpetrated intimate partner violence.","authors":"Victoria Allard, Tamsin Higgs, Maéva Slight","doi":"10.1177/15248380241262275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since it was first published in 1995, the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) Guide has become one of the most used and researched intimate partner violence (IPV) risk measures worldwide. Yet, no recent review has formally and systematically established the psychometric properties of this measure. Furthermore, the third version of the SARA (SARA-V3) was published in 2015, with no psychometric critique to date. This review aimed to provide an inclusive and exhaustive literature review of all psychometric properties (i.e., predictive validity, convergent validity, internal consistency, and inter-rater) of the SARA, including V3. A systematic search of 17 databases was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Academic journals, book chapters, and gray literature were included but conference presentations were not. To be included studies had to report a psychometric property of any version of the SARA and be composed of individuals having committed IPV. The search identified 28 records published between 1997 and 2022. Results showed that although the literature on the SARA is mostly positive, it is much more varied in terms of both results and research quality than its widespread implementation might suggest. Most studies were conducted using case files in a research context with non-diverse samples, undermining ecological validity. Results for convergent and predictive validity were mostly positive. However, reliability statistics were under-researched and showed poorer results. Lastly, little research has gone into validating the SARA-V3, with what is available suggesting poorer reliability and validity than its predecessor. Practitioners are cautioned against transitioning to the newer version before further validation research has occurred.</p>","PeriodicalId":54211,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","volume":" ","pages":"3777-3795"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545129/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241262275","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since it was first published in 1995, the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) Guide has become one of the most used and researched intimate partner violence (IPV) risk measures worldwide. Yet, no recent review has formally and systematically established the psychometric properties of this measure. Furthermore, the third version of the SARA (SARA-V3) was published in 2015, with no psychometric critique to date. This review aimed to provide an inclusive and exhaustive literature review of all psychometric properties (i.e., predictive validity, convergent validity, internal consistency, and inter-rater) of the SARA, including V3. A systematic search of 17 databases was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Academic journals, book chapters, and gray literature were included but conference presentations were not. To be included studies had to report a psychometric property of any version of the SARA and be composed of individuals having committed IPV. The search identified 28 records published between 1997 and 2022. Results showed that although the literature on the SARA is mostly positive, it is much more varied in terms of both results and research quality than its widespread implementation might suggest. Most studies were conducted using case files in a research context with non-diverse samples, undermining ecological validity. Results for convergent and predictive validity were mostly positive. However, reliability statistics were under-researched and showed poorer results. Lastly, little research has gone into validating the SARA-V3, with what is available suggesting poorer reliability and validity than its predecessor. Practitioners are cautioned against transitioning to the newer version before further validation research has occurred.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从亲密伴侣施暴者样本中得出的配偶攻击风险评估的心理计量特性。
自 1995 年首次发布以来,《配偶侵犯风险评估(SARA)指南》已成为全球使用和研究最多的亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)风险测量方法之一。然而,最近并没有对该测量方法的心理测量特性进行正式、系统的评估。此外,第三版 SARA(SARA-V3)于 2015 年发布,迄今为止尚未对其心理测量学特性进行评论。本综述旨在对 SARA(包括 V3)的所有心理测量特性(即预测效度、收敛效度、内部一致性和评分者间)进行全面、详尽的文献综述。按照《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》(PRISMA)指南对 17 个数据库进行了系统检索。其中包括学术期刊、书籍章节和灰色文献,但不包括会议报告。被纳入的研究必须报告任何版本 SARA 的心理测量属性,并且研究对象必须是实施过 IPV 的个人。搜索发现了 1997 年至 2022 年间发表的 28 条记录。结果表明,虽然有关 SARA 的文献大多是正面的,但其结果和研究质量的差异要比其广泛应用可能带来的影响大得多。大多数研究都是在非多元化样本的研究背景下使用病例档案进行的,这削弱了生态效度。收敛效度和预测效度的结果大多是正面的。然而,可靠性统计研究不足,结果较差。最后,对 SARA-V3 进行验证的研究很少,现有研究表明其可靠性和有效性都不如前者。建议从业人员在进一步验证研究之前不要过渡到新版本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
7.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is devoted to organizing, synthesizing, and expanding knowledge on all force of trauma, abuse, and violence. This peer-reviewed journal is practitioner oriented and will publish only reviews of research, conceptual or theoretical articles, and law review articles. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is dedicated to professionals and advanced students in clinical training who work with any form of trauma, abuse, and violence. It is intended to compile knowledge that clearly affects practice, policy, and research.
期刊最新文献
A Scoping Review of the Intimate Partner Violence Literature Among Afghans Across Contexts. Bias-Based Cyberaggression Related To Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Weight: Systematic Review of Young People's Experiences, Risk and Protective Factors, and the Consequences. Racial/Ethnic Differences in Adverse Childhood Experiences and Health-Related Outcomes: A Scoping Review. Understanding the Dynamics of Domestic Violence During the First Year of the Pandemic: An Integrative Review. Parental Resilience in Contexts of Political Violence: A Systematic Scoping Review of 45 Years of Research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1