Table 3.
Summary of Results for the Different Reliability Statistics of the SARA Measures.
| Study | Actuarial vs. SRR | SARA Version | Internal Consistency |
Inter-rater Reliability |
Test-retest Reliability |
Item Homogeneity |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | ICC | Kappa | ICC | MIC | CITC | |||
| Arbach and Folino (2021) | SRR | SARA | 0.79 | 0.84 | .30–1.00 | — | — | 0.09–0.58 |
| Belfrage et al. (2012) | ||||||||
| Actuarial | SARA | — | — | — | 0.76 | — | — | |
| SRR | SARA | — | — | — | 0.45 | — | — | |
| Callan-Bartkiw (2012) | ||||||||
| Actuarial | SARA | — | 0.29–0.84 | — | — | — | — | |
| SRR | SARA | — | 0.18–0.28 | — | — | — | — | |
| Cunha and Gonçalves (2015) | Actuarial | SARA | 0.77 | — | .72–.96 | — | — | — |
| Cunha and Gonçalves (2019) | Actuarial | SARA | — | — | .72–.96 | — | — | — |
| Glackman and Buchanan (2004b) | SRR | SARA | — | — | — | — | — | 0.28–0.45 |
| Grann and Wedin (2002) | Actuarial | SARA | — | 0.85 | .30–1.00 | — | — | — |
| Hilton et al. (2021) | ||||||||
| Actuarial | SARA | 0.66 | 0.70 | −.03–.87 | — | — | — | |
| Actuarial | SARA—V3 | 0.87 | 0.83 | .01–1.00 | — | — | — | |
| Kropp and Hart (1997) | ||||||||
| Actuarial | SARA | — | 0.92 | — | — | 0.15 | — | |
| SRR | SARA | — | 0.80 | — | — | — | — | |
| Kropp and Hart (2000) | 0.78 | — | — | — | — | — | ||
| Actuarial | SARA | — | 0.84 | — | — | — | — | |
| SRR | SARA | — | 0.57–0.63 | — | — | — | — | |
| Jung and Buro (2017) a | Actuarial | SARA | — | — | .12–.80 | — | — | |
| Olver and Jung (2017) a | Actuarial | SARA | 0.74 | 0.84 | — | — | — | — |
| Jung et al. (2022) | Actuarial | SARA | — | — | .12–.80 | — | — | — |
| Ryan (2016) | 0.66 | — | — | — | 0.10 | 0.07–0.59 | ||
| Actuarial | SARA-V3 | — | 0.85 | — | — | — | — | |
| SRR | SARA-V3 | — | 0.40–0.68 | — | — | — | — | |
| Schafers et al. (2021) | Actuarial | SARA-3 | — | — | — | 0.75 | — | — |
| Williams and Houghton (2004) | Actuarial | SARA | 0.71 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Wong and Hisashima (2008) b | Actuarial | SARA | 0.65 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Wong (2010) | Actuarial | SARA | — | — | — | — | — | 0.37–0.47 c |
| Wong and Sadaya (2011) | Actuarial | SARA | 0.63 | — | — | — | — | — |
Note. Inter-rater reliability for actuarial total scores and summary risk ratings is reported using inter-class correlations (ICC). Item level inter-rater reliability is reported using the kappa statistic of the lowest and highest-scoring items. CITC = corrected item-total correlation; MIC = mean inter-item correlation; SARA = Spousal Assault Risk Assessment; SRR = summary risk ratings.
The article by Jung et al. (2022) and Jung and Buro (2017) both use subsamples of the Olver and Jung (2017) sample. Their results should be interpreted together.
The study by Wong and Sadaya (2011) represents a longer follow-up of a subsample from Wong and Hisashima (2008) study. Results should be interpreted together.
Only reports the five highest-scoring items.