Not long ago psychologists administered several tests in screening batteries. Different tests were used to obtain different types of information. Few argued against this logic because there weren’t many multi-scaled tests designed for specific client or offender groups. Consequently, a properly assembled test battery enabled evaluators to identify problematic attitudes and behaviors, recommend corrective measures or treatment, and if pushed, predict recovery and recidivism. Evaluators and mental health professionals were predisposed to assessment batteries.

Then came automated (computer scored) tests, Truthfulness Scales and multi-scaled self-report tests that focused on specific offender and client groups. Scales (measures) were developed that replaced one dimension tests. Conceptually, a multi-scaled test’s scales replaced many tests. Now one test with several scales (measures) can acquire relevant and meaningful information that identifies problematic attitudes and behaviors while concurrently measuring their severity. These test reports recommend appropriate levels of supervision, intervention or treatment while concurrently predicting recovery or recidivism.

Don’t get the wrong idea. We are not advocating doing away with test batteries. Indeed, we recommend them in settings like psychological evaluations and treatment intake assessment batteries. However, these expensive, long, (particularly when they involve an interview) and variable test batteries have different goals or purposes than screening. Screening is the process of determining, with a preliminary test, whether or not a person’s problems are serious enough to warrant referral for a comprehensive evaluation and/or treatment. When problems are identified their severity determines the level of supervision, intervention and treatment needed.

Let’s look at screening domestic violence offenders. First we want to know if the domestic violence offender was truthful when tested. Other questions include: Is this person violent? Do they have significant control issues? Is substance (alcohol and other drugs) abuse involved? Can this person handle stress or more specifically, do they have identifiable emotional problems? These questions represent the Domestic Violence Inventory’s DNA. The Domestic Violence Inventory (DVI) is a popular test in the United States. Each DVI scale has impressively demonstrated reliability, validity and accuracy. Moreover, each scale has demonstrated discriminant validity. Other desirable screening qualities include, it’s short (takes 30 minutes to complete, 2½ minutes to score and print reports), does not require mental health certification or licensure to use and its inexpensive in terms of staff training, time and money.

Hypothetically, if you were going to include an additional test (or interview) in evaluating domestic violence offenders, what would you include? Why? What additional information would these additional procedures provide? What are the costs (time, money and decision making)?

In conclusion, the following questions should be asked of any test (or interview based procedure) considered for screening clients and/or offenders. Does the information obtained improve decision making? Does the time involved justify inclusion in the screening process? Is the procedure (test and/or interview) reliable, valid and accurate? Does the provided research (and don’t include any procedure without it) support answers to the earlier questions? After these questions are satisfactorily answered, you might explore a built-in database, annual program summaries, ongoing research and associated costs. With these answers you should be able to confidently implement your screening or assessment program knowing it will meet staff, client or offender and the public’s needs.