Exploration of the risk factors contained within the UK’s existing domestic abuse risk assessment tool (DASH): do these risk factors have individual predictive validity regarding recidivism?
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore risk factors contained in the existing UK domestic abuse (DA) risk assessment tool: domestic abuse, stalking and harassment and honour-based violence (DASH) for individual predictive validity of DA recidivism using data from Devon and Cornwall Constabulary. Design/methodology/approach: In total, 1,441 DA perpetrators were monitored over a 12-month period, and 270 (18.7 per cent) went on to commit a further DA offence. The individual risk factors which were associated and predictive of increased risk of recidivism were identified. Findings: Only four of the individual risk factors were significantly associated with an increased risk of DA recidivism: “criminal history”, “problems with alcohol”, “separation” and “frightened”. Therefore, 21 of the risk factor items analysed could not discriminate between non-recidivist and recidivist perpetrators. Only two risk factors were able to significantly predict the recidivist group when compared to the non-recidivist group. These were identified as “criminal history” and “separated”. Of those who did commit a further DA offence in the following 12 months, 133 were violent and 137 were non-violent. The risk factors associated with these types of recidivism are identified. Practical implications: The implications for UK police practice and the DASH risk assessment tool are discussed. By identifying key individual factors that can prioritise those individuals likely to recidivate and the severity of that recidivism, this could assist police decision making regarding the response and further prevention of DA incidents. The validation of association between individual factors and DA recidivism should improve the accuracy of risk levels. Originality/value: This is the first large-scale validation of the individual risk factors contained within the UK’s DA risk assessment tool. It should be noted that the validity of the DASH tool itself was not examined within the current study.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The finding that Q27 was the largest predictor of deadly offenders is consistent with the findings of Almond et al. and Turner et al.
“The present study found that Q27 (criminal history) was the largest predictor of a deadly offender, which is consistent with the findings of Almond et al. [3] and Turner et al. [10].”
Previous studies have shown that many of the DASH items are not useful in predicting future violence.
“Previous studies have also shown that many of the DASH items are not useful in terms of predicting future violence [3,10].”
Almond et al. calculated Q18 to have an odds ratio of 2.00 in identifying violent recidivists compared to non-recidivists.
“Almond et al. [3] calculated it to have an odds ratio of 2.00 in identifying violent recidivists, compared to non-recidivists.”
Almond et al. found an odds ratio of 2.23 of having been separated from their victim.
“This is also consistent with the findings of Almond et al. [3], who found an odds ratio of 2.23 of having been separated from their victim.”
Almond et al. did not find Q15 to have an effect in predicting outcomes in any of their groups of offenders.
“Almond et al. [3] also did not find this item to have an effect in predicting outcomes in any of their groups of offenders.”
Cites
How Big is a Big Odds Ratio? Interpreting the Magnitudes of Odds Ratios in Epidemiological Studies
Chen, H., Cohen, P., & Chen, S. (2010) · Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · doi:10.1080/03610911003650383 · Cited by 1,952 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dashing hopes? The predictive accuracy of domestic abuse risk assessment by police
Turner, E., Medina, J., & Brown, G. (2019) · The British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/bjc/azy074 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Murphy, A., Hine, B., Yesberg, J. A., Wunsch, D., & Charleton, B. (2022) · Psychology, Crime & Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2021.1880584 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Caulfield, K. M., Gray, N. S., Edwards, A., & Snowden, R. J. (2025) · Forensic Sciences · doi:10.3390/forensicsci5040064
“The use of the DASH has been reviewed by a number of authors [3–11].”
Influential
- Authors
- Almond, L., McManus, M., Brian, D., & Merrington, D. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- University of Lancashire (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2017-01-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-68
- ISSN
- 1759-6599 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2579383320
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research (publishedVersion)
- CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
- Liverpool John Moores University (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Keywords
- domestic violence, recidivism, risk assessment tools, risk factors, predictive validity, criminal history, alcohol problems, separation, police decision-making, honour-related violence, violence severity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
