Further Readings
Broeder, D. (1959). The University of Chicago jury project.
Nebraska Law Review, 38,744–760.
Diamond, S., Saks, M., & Landsman, S. (1998). Juror
judgments about liability and damages: Sources of
variability and ways to increase consistency. DePaul Law
Review, 48,301–325.
Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. (2003). Determining damages:
The psychology of jury awards. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Hans, V. (2000). Business on trial: The civil jury and corporate
responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Vidmar, N. (1998). The performance of the American civil jury:
An empirical perspective. Arizona Law Review, 40,849–899.DANGERASSESSMENT
INSTRUMENT(DA)
The Danger Assessment Instrument (DA), in its current
form, is a 20-item actuarial test designed to assess the
risk of serious or lethal intimate partner violence. It is
intended for use with adult women who have suffered
physical abuse at the hands of men who are their current
or former intimate partners. Although originally devel-
oped to assist in safety planning conducted by people
delivering services to victims, the DA more recently has
been used by some law enforcement agencies to help
manage the risks posed by perpetrators. Systematic
review of the DA is complicated by the fact that it has
been used in several different forms for a variety of dif-
ferent purposes and by the lack of a formal test manual.Description and Development
Development of the DA began in the early 1980s. The
DA differs from other tests designed to assess the risk
of intimate partner violence—such as the Spousal
Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA) and the
Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI)—in
that its development focused specifically on risk of seri-
ous or lethal violence. In its original form, it comprised
15 risk factors that were identified in retrospective
studies of intimate partner homicide—cases in which
battered women killed or seriously injured their abusive
partners or in which battered women were killed or
seriously injured by their abuser partners. In 2004, the
DA item pool was revised and expanded to 20 items,
based on the findings of a multisite study that comparedrisk factors for life-threatening (lethal or near lethal)
versus less serious intimate partner violence. Some of
the items reflect the nature or severity of intimate part-
ner violence in the victim’s relationship with the perpe-
trator, such as a history of threats to kill, forced sex, or
strangulation; some reflect characteristics of the victim,
such as whether she has children from a previous rela-
tionship or has a history of suicidal threats or attempts;
and others reflect characteristics of the perpetrator,
such as whether he has a history of problems with
employment or substance use.
The DA can be completed independently or in col-
laboration with a service provider. Administration of
the DA begins with a calendar assessment, in which
the victim reviews a calendar to determine the nature
of frequency of intimate partner violence experienced
by the victim in the previous year. The victim identi-
fies the approximate dates of any abuse and rates
the seriousness of each incident using a 5-point scale
(1 =slapping, pushing; no injuries and/or lasting pain
to 5 =use of weapon; wounds from weapon). This his-
tory taking gathers information that is useful when rat-
ing the 20 risk factors, but it also is intended to
decrease the extent to which victims minimize the inti-
mate partner violence that they have experienced.
Next, victims are asked to rate the presence of the
20 risk factors on a 2-point scale (0 =no, 1 =yes).
Some are rated on the basis of lifetime presence,
whereas others are rated on their presence in the past
year. Items ratings are then summed using a simple
unit-weighting procedure to yield total scores that
range from 0 to 20; alternatively, a more complex dif-
ferential weighting procedure can be used that yields
total scores ranging from −3 to 37. Total scores can be
classified into four categories that reflect the risk of
life-threatening violence: <7 =variable danger, 8 to
13 =increased danger, 14 to 17 =severe danger, and
>18 =extreme danger. The risk categories are associ-
ated with suggested intervention strategies and direc-
tions regarding what should be communicated to the
victim. For example, if a victim’s DA score falls in the
severe danger category, the service provider is advised
to inform the victim that she is in severe danger,
engage in assertive safety planning with her, and rec-
ommend a high level of supervision for the perpetrator.Psychometric Evaluation
The psychometric properties of different versions of
the DA have been evaluated only to a limit extent and
solely within the framework of classical test theory.Danger Assessment Instrument (DA)——— 185D-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 185