w w w. i c f s. u a m. e s

Transcription

1 Ciencias Fo re n s e s y d e l a S e g u r i d a d (Institute of Forensic and Security Sciences) w w w. i c f s. u a m. e s

2 In collaboration with: Risk assessment and risk evolution of gender violence Manuel de Juan Espinosa Director of ICFS Full Professor (Criminal Psychology) Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

3 GESI ICFS Colaborative entities UNIVERSIDAD DE BACELONA (GEAV) Grupo de Estudios Avanzados en Violencia UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID INSTITUTO ANDALUZ DE CRIMINOLOGÍA

4 Research team Manuel de Juan Espinosa José Luís González Álvarez Ana Mª Muñoz Rodríguez Luís Fco. García Rodríguez Andrea Giménez-Salinas Framis Álvaro Ortigosa Laura Requena Espada María José Garrido Rufina Pena Carreras Catalina Polán Meritxell Pérez Ramírez

5 Objective: MAXIMUM EFICIENCY IN VICTIMS PROTECTION THT IS a) PROTECTION ADAPTED TO RISK LEVEL, IN b) THE SHOTEST PERIOD OF TIME RISK POLICE ASSESSMENT (VPR) VICTIM PROTECTION MEASURES RISK EVOLUTION ASSESSMENT () (VRIP)

6 DYNAMIC OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT DENOUNCE RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Level RL2 RL3 RLn VPR Protection measures P.M. P.M. P.M. 1 VRIP n Immediate Protection Response A S S E S S M E N T O F R I S K E V O L U T I O N R i s k s m o d i f i e r e v e n t s AFTER DENOUNCE

7 RISK ASSESSMENT Validation of VPR Protocol

8 RISK ASSESSMENT VPR protocol Validation ARE WE ABLE TO REPLICATE THE KNOWLEDGE OF AN EXPERT IN VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN?

9 Predicted Risk Level ICFS First study Cases analyzed by experts: N= 52 Severity (2 groups) Low High Total Low Case number % 83,3% 32,1% 55,8% Medium Case number % 12,5% 42,9% 28,8% High TOTAL Case number % 4,2% 25,0% 15,4% Case number % 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% The 83.3% of cases correctly classified by two discriminating functions

10 Percentage % Case Number ICFS Second study Cases analyzed by experts: N= 78 Risk Severity No detected risk Predicted membership group No detected risk Low Medium High Total Low Medium No detected risk High ,3 16,7, Low 8,3 87,5 4, Medium 0 14,3 85, High ,0 90,0 100 The 87,2% of cases of cases correctly classified by two discriminating functions

11 VPR Structure (Construct Validity) How many factors can be identified? Does a Risk General Factor exist underlying such factors? Is the unique Risk Score justified?

12 GENERAL RISK FACTOR N= Method: Principal Axes Rotation: Promax P. Explained Variance: 67,3% Eigenvalues FACTOR I FACTOR II FACTOR III FACTOR IV Explicit threats Violence Increment Psychological violence Jealousy and Obsession Mating problems Unfulfilled legal measures Breaking Law punishment Defiance behavior Criminal record Substance abuse Job problems Suicidal trends Physical violence Sexual violence Arm use Correlations VPR SCORE

13 VPR Reliability Can we truts in VPR?

14 VPR Reliability (Internal Consistency) Total case analyzed = VPR First version (N= ): Alpha Coefficient= VPR Second version (N= ): Alpha Coefficient = VPR Third version (N= ): Alpha Coefficient = The VPR protocol is highly reliable

15 VPR predictive validity Which is the agreement level between the Expert System and Police Agent (expert criterion)? With which accuracy our Expert System is able to predict the victim`s risk level (combined data criterion)?

16 VPR Risk Level Percentage ICFS VPR expert criterion Case analyzed N= ,3 Agreement POLICE AGENT (EXPERT CRITERION) Disagreement No Detected Low Medium High Extreme No detected Low Medium High Extreme Total % AGREEMENT= 95,3 0,2 2,3 1,7 0,5 0, ,7

17 Percentage (%) Case Number ICFS VPR accuracy (Combined data criterion) Case analyzed N= Predicted membership group (under combined data criterion) No detected risk Low Medium high Extreme Total No detected Low Medium High Extreme No detected Low ,0 0, Medium High Extreme ,7 91,3 100 The 87,7% of cases of cases correctly classified by the Discriminating Functions

18 VPR robustness Are the VPR s technical warranties stable against potential variation sources?

19 VPR Structure (Structure similarity) VPR Robustness CRITERIA: rcc> 0.90 = Highly similar; rcc> 0.95 = Nearly identical Among subsamples: rcc= (Mean Congruence Coefficient) Among police forces: rcc= (Mean Congruence Coefficient) Among factor analysis methods: rcc= (Mean Congruence Coefficient) VPR Reliability (Differences) Among subsamples: Non Significant differences Among Police Forces: N.S. Differences Among State Communities: N.S. Differences Predictive capacity (Differences) The VPR is highly Robust and Stable Among subsamples: N.S. Differences Among Police Forces: N.S. Differences Among State Communities: N.S. Differences

20 RISK EVOLUTION ASSESSMENT Validity (Police Assessment of Risk Evolution)

21 Structure (Construct Validity)

22 STRUCTURE FACTOR I Security Increasing FACTOR II Risk Increasing FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 Voluntarily distancing from victim Peaceful attitude Fulfill dismissal regulations Civic and respectful attitude Job situation stability Show remorse Time pass without conflicts Victim behaves against in own security V. Begins new relationship Victim substance abuse People around victim consent violence Aggressor Escaped Social and economic difficulties Aggressor alarming traits Aggressor in jail Victim in distance and secure place Victim have a secure environment

23 Reliability Reliability: Internal Consistency (Alpha Coefficient): Are all the indicators measuring the same concept? Because 2 general factors were obtained, we expected Internal consistency will be different for each of such factors. Does such a concept measure the same matter every time that it is applied? We expected no change in internal consistency from time to time s is applied. Reliability: Time Stability: Does the individual s behavior change along time? Because is designed to measure change, we expected a decreasing in stability of individual s behaviors

24 1 Dynamics of the Reliability (Internal consistency): Total vs Factor I N= 34,320 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,726 0,741 0,75 0,762 0,766 0,771 0,67 0,554 0,591 0,546 0,563 0,54 0,525 0,478 0,455 0,457 0,435 0,424 0,738 0,728 0,72 0,734 0,736 0,633 0,556 0,501 0,509 0,53 0,287 0,17 0,182 0,189 0, Alpha Total Alpha Factor I Alpha Factor II

25 Dynamics of the Reliability (Time Stability): N= 34, ,9 0,8 0,7 0,782 0,712 0,654 0,625 0,589 0,575 0,57 0,6 0,542 0,497 0,5 0,441 0,4 0,353 0,345 0,33 0,3 0,2 0,193 0,262 0,292 0,27 0,188 0,164 0,1 0 0, ,74 3 0,81 4 0, , , , , , , , ,9 13 0, , , , , , , Correlación 2 a 2 entre Correlación entre 1 con el resto

26 Accuracy

27 % Percentage Original Case number ICFS Accuracy Predicted membership group (combined data criterion) Total Risk Level increase/decrease ,6% of cases correctly classified by the Discriminating Functions

28 Percentage ICFS Accuracy (Expert criterion) % Agreement Police Agent / Expert System ,4 89,2 90,8 91,8 93,2 93,9 94,5 94,1 94,2 94, ,9 95,2 93,6 91,6 92,2 89,2 91,9 93,3 96, Times protocol is applied

29 robustness

30 Structure (Structure similarity) VPR Robustness CRITERIA: rcc> 0.90 = Highly similar; rcc> 0.95 = Nearly identical Among time periods: rcc= (Mean Congruence Coefficient) Among police forces: rcc= (Mean Congruence Coefficient) Among factor analysis methods: rcc= (Mean Congruence Coefficient) Reliability : Internal consistency (Differences) Among time periods: Non Significant differences Among Police Forces: N.S. Differences Reliability: Time stability (Differences) Among time periods: N.S. Differences Among Police Forces: N.S. Differences The is Robust and Stable

31 RISK EVOLUTION ASSESSMENT VRIP Validity (Penitentiary Assessment of Risk Evolution)

32 Cases analyzed by experts: N= 147 Case Number Percentage Risk Level Predicted membership group Non detected Risk Low Medium High Extreme TOTAL No detected Risk Low Medium RELIABILITY (Alpha 0 Coefficient 3 of items)= 4 0, High Extreme No Detected R 76,5 23,5,0,0,0 100,0 Low 7,7 89,6 2,7,0,0 100,0 Medium,0 9,7 77,4 12,9,0 100,0 High,0,0 25,0 70,8 4,2 100,0 Extreme,0,0 7,1 7,1 85,8 100,0 80,8% of cases correctly classified by the discriminating function

33 SYSTEM EFICIENCY

34 Percentage Inactive Percentage ICFS ,5 80,7 88,5 92,6 System eficiency (N= ) 95,4 97,1 98, ,3 99,5 No detected Low ,8 Medium High 50 Extreme ,6 9,4 Inactive ,1 4,9 4, ,6 2 1,6 1,7 1,3 1,6 0,8 1,1 0,91 0,8 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,40,6 0,6 0,20,3 0,5 0,10,2 0,4 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0 0,10, ,1 vper 1 vper2 vper3 vper4 vper5 vper6 vper7 vper8 vper9 vper

35 System eficiency by VPR Risk Level VPR Risk Level= No detected VPR Risk Level= Low VPR Risk Level= Medium

36 System eficiency by VPR Risk Level VPR Risk Level= High VPR Risk Level= Extreme

37 Thanks for your attention