Predicting domestic violence: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of risk assessment tools
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Limiting van der Put et al.'s review to studies of severe/near fatal violence produced an AUC of 0.66.
“Limiting studies to those that looked at severe/near fatal violence (as in the present study) produced an AUC of 0.66.”
From The Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour-Based Violence (DASH) Risk Assessment Instrument in Predicting Deadly or Persistent Domestic Abuse (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
In van der Put et al.'s review, instruments specifically designed for domestic violence produced an AUC of 0.65.
“Overall, they found an AUC of 0.65 (though, when correcting for possible missing studies, this reduced to 0.60), with those specifically designed for domestic violence also producing an AUC of 0.65.”
From The Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour-Based Violence (DASH) Risk Assessment Instrument in Predicting Deadly or Persistent Domestic Abuse (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
The meta-analytic review by van der Put et al. found an overall AUC of 0.65 for instruments predicting violence, reducing to 0.60 when correcting for possible missing studies.
“Overall, they found an AUC of 0.65 (though, when correcting for possible missing studies, this reduced to 0.60), with those specifically designed for domestic violence also producing an AUC of 0.65.”
From The Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour-Based Violence (DASH) Risk Assessment Instrument in Predicting Deadly or Persistent Domestic Abuse (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 96 · Cited by 83
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- [11]11. Callan-Bartkiw, U. (2012). Risk for intimate partner violence: An investigation of the psychometric properties of the spousal assault risk assessment guide in a New Zealand population (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://mro.massey.ac. nz/bitstream/handle/10179/4658/02_whole.pdf.
- [30]30. Ferguson, J. (2011). Risk assessment for domestic violence offenders: Predicting pro- bation outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://repository.asu.edu/ attachments/56467/content/Ferguson_asu_0010E_10382.pdf.
- [38]38. Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal(mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293-323.
- [41]41. Hanson, R. K., Helmus, L., & Bourgon, G. (2007). The validity of risk assessments for intimate partner violence: A meta-analysis. Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada (pp. 2007-07).
- [69]69. Moser, A. E., Campbell, M. A., & Campus, S. J. (2012). Validation and expansion of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) instrument: An early warning system (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://www.unb.ca/saintjohn/ccjs/_ resources/pdf/odarapoliceresponse2012.pdf.
- [99]99. Ulmer, J. C. (2015). The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA): A vali- dation and comparison study for an Oregonian law enforcement agency (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1176&context=psyd
- Authors
- van der Put, C. E., Gubbels, J., & Assink, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Venue
- Aggression and Violent Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 47
- Pages
- 100-116
- ISSN
- 1359-1789 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2927783111
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 96
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9
- FWCI
- 1.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Aggression and Violent Behavior (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Keywords
- domestic violence, risk assessment tools, predictive validity, recidivism prediction, perpetrators of domestic violence, tool characteristics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
