MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101012636 · doi:10.1177/1049731511400757

Development and Initial Validation of the Intimate Violence Responsibility Scale (IVRS)

2011· article· en· W2101012636 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlamePsychologyDomestic violenceScale (ratio)Discriminant validityClinical psychologyExploratory factor analysisCronbach's alphaSample (material)Internal consistencySocial psychologyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychometricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study demonstrates the development and initial examination of psychometric properties of the Intimate Violence Responsibility Scale (IVRS) in a community-based sample (N = 527). The underlying factor structure of the IVRS was tested by the exploratory factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring), which identifies the four factors: partner blame, distal blame, minimization, and violence recognition. The internal consistency of the four subscales of the 20-item IVRS had an acceptable-to-good coefficient alpha ranging from .75 to .83. Evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity was established through correlational analyses. The initial findings of this study support that the IVRS is a reliable and valid self-reporting instrument that measures attitudes related to responsibility for violent behavior toward the intimate partner. Implications for practice and future research are specified.

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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.241 · 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