English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study evaluated the use of Alcohol Use Inventory (AUI) for driving-while-impaired (DWI) screening, by determining whether DWI offenders (n = 1644), grouped according to their reported alcohol involvement on the AUI, would have different rates of recidivism in a 5-year follow-up. Cluster analysis using the six second-order scales produced six groups (clusters 1-6) described as the Low-Profile (50%), Alcohol-Preoccupation (14%), Enhanced (22%), Enhanced-Disrupt (9%), Anxious-Disrupt (3%), and High-Profile (1%) types. They were characterized by different sociodemographic profiles. Members of cluster 4 were associated with the highest DWI recidivism rate (40%), committing one or more further DWI, and clusters 5 and 6 were associated with the highest rate of committing two or more DWIs. Rates of subsequent traffic convictions and crashes were, however, not statistically different among the clusters. Predictors of DWI recidivism included male gender, young age, less-educated, high blood-alcohol concentration at arrest, and clusters of 3 and 4. Different typologies indicated that the needs for treatment might be different. Evaluators should keep in mind the strength of AUI, use risk factors identified in the study, and take measures of test-taking defensiveness to enhance overall predictive validity.

Alcohol use inventory: screening and assessment of first-time driving-while-impaired offenders. II. Typology and predictive validity