MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087831510 · doi:10.1177/0886260512459381

The Association of Readiness to Change and Motivational Interviewing with Treatment Outcomes in Males involved in Domestic Violence Group Therapy

2012· article· en· W2087831510 on OpenAlexaff
Sharla J. Zalmanowitz, Robbie Babins‐Wagner, Susan Rodger, Bradley A. Corbett, Alan W. Leschied

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotivational interviewingPsychologySession (web analytics)InterviewClinical psychologyAssociation (psychology)Poison controlMultilevel modelBehavior changeSuicide preventionInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsMedicineSocial psychologyPsychotherapistPsychological interventionPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated the impact of motivational interviewing (MI) and stage of change on a self-report measure of global functioning (Outcome Questionnaire [OQ 45.2]). Participants were men mandated to attend the Responsible Choices for Men (RCM) group therapy program following an incident of domestic violence. The study design utilized a quasi-experimental between-groups comparison utilizing data collected at three time points (pregroup, first group session, and final group session). One group of mandated program attendees received two sessions of MI (n = 106), whereas the comparison group did not (n = 106). Stage of change was assessed using the URICA-G and the URICA-DV (University of Rhode Island Change Assessment--Domestic Violence). Multilevel growth modeling indicated that stage of change has a significant relationship to global functioning. Discussion focuses on the potential benefits of MI as a pregroup treatment and the importance of accounting for individual readiness to change.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207