Risk for Violent and IPV Recidivism Among Incarcerated Men With a History of IPV Perpetration: An Examination of the Predictive Validity of the ODARA, DVRAG, and PCL-R
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a hybrid prospective-retrospective study design, we examined the predictive validity of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA), Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (DVRAG), and the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) in an incarcerated sample of 94 Canadian adult men with a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) referred for treatment. The sample was followed for an average of 3.6 years following release, yielding base rates of 23.4% and 12.8% for violent and IPV recidivism, respectively. Analyses revealed that the ODARA and DVRAG displayed high inter-rater reliability and that the two measures along with Factor 1 of the PCL-R generated the largest area under the curve (AUC) for IPV recidivism (AUC = .71, .71, and .69, respectively). Predictive validity of the three measures was maintained even after accounting for treatment exposure. Although promising, clinical implications of administering the ODARA and DVRAG to incarcerated men with a history of IPV are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".