Consistency and Accuracy of Batterer Typology Identification

Abstract

Researchers in the field of domestic violence have derived “typologies” to better conceptualize the differences found among batterers (e.g., Holtzworth-Monroe and Stuart [1994]. Psychol. Bull. 116: 476–497). Efforts have since been made to evaluate clinicians' accuracy in classifying batterers into subtypes (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Huss, and Ramsey [2000]. J. Fam. Violence 15: 37–53). The present study investigated the accuracy and consistency with which experienced clinicians could sort profiles into an empirically derived MCMI-based batterer typology (Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, and Tolin [1996] Violence Vict. 11: 277–292). Seven PhD level psychologists with experience in the field of domestic violence were asked to sort 36 MCMI profiles into three piles. Each pile was represented by each of the three prototypical cluster types described in Hamberger et al. (1996) using the Basic 8 MCMI subscales. Overall, expert raters were able to sort most profiles into the three clusters accurately. However, the expert raters had the most difficulty correctly sorting some of the “nonpathological” profiles, as 40% were placed into the antisocial cluster and (6%) were sorted into the negativistic-dependent cluster. There are a number of possible explanations for the lower accuracy in sorting the nonpathological cluster. Results suggest that psychologists with domestic violence training can accurately sort MCMI profiles of batterers into the main three subtypes derived from empirically-based typology research. Clinical implications for typology assessment are discussed.