Adolescent Substance Treatment Engagement Questionnaire for Incarcerated Teens

Abstract

Background Treatment engagement is often measured in terms of treatment retention and drop out, resource utilization, and missed appointments. Since persons may regularly attend treatment sessions but not pay close attention, actively participate, or comply with the program, attendance may not reflect the level of effort put into treatment. Teens in correctional settings may feel coerced to attend treatment, making it necessary to develop measures of treatment involvement beyond attendance. This study describes the development and validation of the Adolescent Substance Treatment Engagement Questionnaire (ASTEQ), Teen and Counselor versions. Methods The psychometric properties of the ASTEQ were examined in a sample of incarcerated teens (N = 205) and their counselors. Principal component analysis was conducted on teen and counselor versions of the questionnaire. Results Scales of positive and negative treatment engagement were found, reflecting both overt behaviors (joking around, talking to others) and attitudes (interest in change). Significant correlations with constructs related to treatment attitudes and behaviors, and misbehaviors (including substance use) demonstrate good concurrent and predictive validity. Teen and counselor ratings of engagement produced validity correlations in the medium effect size range. Conclusions These measures comprise a valid and reliable method for measuring treatment engagement for incarcerated teens.

Instrumentos Relacionados Ao Consumo De Drogas Em Adolescentes: Revisão Integrativa

“…The ASTEQ-Counselor-Receptivity to change component composed of 13 items presented α=0.94, and the Treatment interruption component composed by seven items presented α=0.90. 26 Lastly, the DCI-A-SF presented a high overall reliability scale (>0.80). 28…”

“…Eleven articles were selected 18-28 which evaluated ten instruments, of which five are questionnaires, one is an inventory and four are scales, named: Brief Screener for Tobacco Alcohol and other drugs (BSTAD); 18 Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT); 19 Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Family/Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT); [19][20][21][22] Relax, Alone, Friends, Family, Trouble (RAFFT); 23 Self-administered questionnaire on substance use and abuse among school adolescents (Questionário autoaplicável sobre o uso e abuso de substâncias entre adolescentes escolares); 24 Drug Use Screening Inventory (DUSI); 25 Adolescent substance treatment engagement questionnaire-teen (ASTEQ-TEEN); 26 Adolescent substance treatment engagement questionnaire-Counselor (ASTEQ-Counselor); 26 Teen Addiction Severity Index (T-ASI); 27 Dimensions of Change Instrument-Adolescent (DCI-A-SF). 28 The instruments were categorized according to their objectives and psychometric properties.…”

“…It was possible to observe that methodological and validation studies became more frequent in 2014 18,28 and 2015, 20,26 and that the United States is highlighted in this production, 19,[21][22][23][24][25]27 followed by Brazil, 24,27 Argentina 16 and Norway. 21 Although psychometry is not a recent science (started by Galton around 1880), 14 this review did not identify studies that might be considered outdated.…”

“…The ASTEQ version for counselors achieved the best result regarding homogeneity, with α varying between 0.90 and 0.94. 26 At the other extreme, CRAFFT had values that were lower than 0.70 in all studies that assessed this parameter. [19][20][21][22] The test-retest stability was only measured in analysing the self-administered questionnaire for school adolescents.…”

“…Compare the criterion validity of 04 instruments (including CRAFFT) 15 Reliability (Homogeneity)  α: 0.64; CRV (concurrent)  sensitivity: 0.59; specificity: Regarding validity, we observed the predominance of criterion validity, specifically concurrent. [18][19][20][21][22][23][26][27] In turn, the construct validity was the second most evidenced, with four instruments evaluated in this question by the techniques of exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis 19,21 and discriminating analysis. 26 From these analyses, it was observed that the instruments have both onedimensional and multidimensional characteristics.…”