The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Assessing the Risk of Domestic Violence Reoffending: A Validation Study.
Abstract
Little research has been conducted to validate available instruments for assessing the risk of domestic violence reoffending, especially research using some form of prospective design. This study uses a prospective design to determine the reliability and validity of the Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI). The analysis is based on a sample of 1,465 male domestic violence offenders selected consecutively over a 9-month period. Data on reoffending were collected in a 6-month follow-up period from a subsample of the victims (N = 125) of these perpetrators and from official records for all perpetrators during an 18-month follow-up period. The empirical results suggest that the DVSI was administered reliably, and they provide significant evidence of the concurrent, discriminant, and predictive validity of this instrument. Implications for further research and utilization of the DVSI are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In van der Put et al.'s review, the DVSI had an AUC of 0.61, the B-SAFER 0.60, the DA 0.66, the ODARA 0.69 and the SARA 0.64.
“they showed that the DVSI [21] had an AUC of 0.61, the B-SAFER [22] an AUC of 0.60, the DA [23] an AUC of 0.66, the ODARA [24] an AUC of 0.69, and the SARA [25] an AUC of 0.64.”
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 [21]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, K. R., & Houghton, A. B.
- Affiliations
- University of New Hampshire (US)
- Venue
- Law and Human Behavior
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 437-455
- ISSN
- 0147-7307 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-661X
- OpenAlex
- W2074451267
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 6.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Law and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Colorado State University
- 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, instrument validation, predictive validity, discriminant validity, concurrent validity, male offenders, victims of domestic violence
- MeSH terms
- Colorado, Female, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Spouse Abuse, Reproducibility of Results, Domestic Violence, Risk Assessment, Crime Victims
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
