IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v13y2024i5p259-d1392882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Domestic Violence Victimization Risk Assessment in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Daniela Rita Ribeiro Cunha

    (Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Fernando Pessoa University, Praça 9 de Abril, 349, 4249-004 Porto, Portugal
    Observatory Permanent Violence and Crime (OPVC), FP-I3ID, Fernando Pessoa University, 4249-004 Porto, Portugal)

  • Maria Emília Leitão

    (Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Fernando Pessoa University, Praça 9 de Abril, 349, 4249-004 Porto, Portugal
    Observatory Permanent Violence and Crime (OPVC), FP-I3ID, Fernando Pessoa University, 4249-004 Porto, Portugal)

  • Ana Isabel Sani

    (Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Fernando Pessoa University, Praça 9 de Abril, 349, 4249-004 Porto, Portugal
    Observatory Permanent Violence and Crime (OPVC), FP-I3ID, Fernando Pessoa University, 4249-004 Porto, Portugal
    Research Center on Child Studies (CIEC), University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal)

Abstract

Background: Risk assessment is the process of collecting information towards the goal of protecting the physical and psychological integrity of the victim, taking into account factors associated with violence to assess the severity of violence, protect victims, and prevent recidivism. This type of risk assessment is commonly used in situations of domestic violence and needs to be adjusted for the contexts of child and adolescent victimization. Objective: Resources and standardized criteria to guide a child-centered domestic violence victimization risk assessment are lacking. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the instruments, risk factors and outcomes identified in the literature for situations of domestic violence involving children. Methods: Following the PRISMA protocol, 313 articles from the EBSCO, Web of Science and PubMed databases were screened and 13 were identified for analysis. Results: An analysis of the characteristics of some instruments created to assess the impact of domestic violence involving children shows that caregivers’ risk factors are strong predictors of child abuse, highlighting the interrelationship with other factors, as well as warning about the cumulative risk, including child homicide. Conclusions: The literature confirms the importance of family system factors regarding the risk of the mistreatment of children in situations of domestic violence. Risk assessment must cater to the needs and specificities of individual children.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniela Rita Ribeiro Cunha & Maria Emília Leitão & Ana Isabel Sani, 2024. "Domestic Violence Victimization Risk Assessment in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:259-:d:1392882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/5/259/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/5/259/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Camasso, Michael J. & Jagannathan, Radha, 2000. "Modeling the reliability and predictive validity of risk assessment in child protective services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(11-12), pages 873-896.
    2. Gambrill, Eileen & Shlonsky, Aron, 2001. "The need for comprehensive risk management systems in child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 79-107, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ryan, Scott & Wiles, Debra & Cash, Scottye & Siebert, Carl, 2005. "Risk assessments: empirically supported or values driven?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 213-225, February.
    2. Shlonsky, Aron & Gambrill, Eileen, 2001. "The assessment and management of risk in child welfare services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-2, January.
    3. Rzepnicki, Tina L. & Johnson, Penny R., 2005. "Examining decision errors in child protection: A new application of root cause analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 393-407, April.
    4. Schwartz, Ira M. & York, Peter & Nowakowski-Sims, Eva & Ramos-Hernandez, Ana, 2017. "Predictive and prescriptive analytics, machine learning and child welfare risk assessment: The Broward County experience," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 309-320.
    5. Elgin, Dallas J., 2018. "Utilizing predictive modeling to enhance policy and practice through improved identification of at-risk clients: Predicting permanency for foster children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 156-167.
    6. Albers, Bianca & Mildon, Robyn & Lyon, Aaron R. & Shlonsky, Aron, 2017. "Implementation frameworks in child, youth and family services – Results from a scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 101-116.
    7. Schwalbe, Craig, 2004. "Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 561-576, June.
    8. van der Put, Claudia E. & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M., 2016. "Predicting relapse of problematic child-rearing situations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 288-295.
    9. Lai, Jianchao & Graef, Michelle & Franke, Todd & Burnham, Toby, 2023. "Contextual determinants of re-reporting for families receiving alternative response: A survival analysis in a Midwestern State," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    10. Gambrill, Eileen & Shlonsky, Aron, 2000. "Risk assessment in context," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(11-12), pages 813-837.
    11. Shlonsky, Aron & Wagner, Dennis, 2005. "The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 409-427, April.
    12. Gambrill, Eileen D., 2005. "Decision making in child welfare: Errors and their context," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 347-352, April.
    13. Lee, Shawna J. & Sobeck, Joanne L. & Djelaj, Valentina & Agius, Elizabeth, 2013. "When practice and policy collide: Child welfare workers' perceptions of investigation processes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 634-641.
    14. Godoy, Sarah & Kainz, Kirsten & Brevard, Kanisha & Keyes, Oprah, 2022. "A conceptual model to guide collaborative reflective practice and values-driven child welfare decision-making," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    15. Beth Coulthard & John Mallett & Brian Taylor, 2020. "Better Decisions for Children with “Big Data”: Can Algorithms Promote Fairness, Transparency and Parental Engagement?," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Michael J. Camasso & Radha Jagannathan, 2013. "Decision Making in Child Protective Services: A Risky Business?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1636-1649, September.
    17. Coohey, Carol & Johnson, Kristen & Renner, Lynette M. & Easton, Scott D., 2013. "Actuarial risk assessment in child protective services: Construction methodology and performance criteria," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 151-161.
    18. Ben-David, Vered, 2011. "Judicial bias in adjudicating the adoption of minors in Israel," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 195-203, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:259-:d:1392882. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.