Construct refinement and confirmation for the Addiction Severity Index.

McDermott, Paul A.; Alterman, Arthur I.; Brown, Lawrence S.; Zaballero, Arturo; Snider, Edward C.

doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.2.182

Cited by 119 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The composite scores are based exclusively on events occurring during the preceding 30 days. Multiple examinations of ASI composite scores and lifetime items have yielded impressive evidence of reliability, concurrent validity, predictive validity, and discriminative utility across groups of clients characterized by age, race, gender, and primary drug of abuse (e.g., Alterman et al, 1998;Cacciola et al, 1999;McDermott et al, 1996;McLellan et al, 1980McLellan et al, ,1985McLellan et al, ,1992. Additional items were appended to the ASI that assessed participants' involvement in criminal activities during the preceding 6 months, regardless of whether those activities were detected by authorities or resulted in formal criminal charges.…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: Discharge and 6-month outcomes from a prospective matching study

Marlowe

Festinger

Dugosh

et al. 2007

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports recent findings from a program of experimental research examining the effects of adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug-abusing offenders. Prior studies revealed that high-risk participants with (1) antisocial personality disorder or (2) a history of drug abuse treatment performed significantly better in drug court when they were scheduled to attend frequent, bi-weekly judicial status hearings in court. Low-risk participants performed equivalently regardless of the schedule of court hearings. The current study prospectively matched misdemeanor drug court clients to the optimal schedule of court hearings based upon an assessment of their risk status, and compared outcomes to those of clients randomly assigned to the standard schedule of court hearings. Results confirmed that high-risk participants graduated at a higher rate, provided more drug-negative urine specimens at 6 months post-admission, and reported significantly less drug use and alcohol intoxication at 6 months post-admission when they were matched to bi-weekly hearings as compared to the usual schedule of hearings. These findings yield practical information for enhancing the efficacy and cost-efficiency of drug court services. Directions for future research on adaptive programming for drug offenders are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: Discharge and 6-month outcomes from a prospective matching study

Marlowe

Festinger

Dugosh

et al. 2007

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only the drug, alcohol, family/social, and legal sections of the ASI were administered for the present study, as they are the most reliable sections for this population (Carey, Cocco, & Correia, 1997;Hodgins and El-Guebaly, 1992). Scoring was based on composites, which have been shown to have better psychometric properties than the original scoring procedures (Alterman et al, 1994;McDermott, Alterman, Brown, & Zaballero, 1996). As part of the ASI administration, the Time Line Follow-back (TLFB; Sobell & Sobell, 1992) method was used as needed to help participants reconstruct their drug use on a day-to-day basis using a calendar for the last 30 days.…”

Section: Drugmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of the Transtheoretical Model of change: Psychometric properties of leading measures in patients with co-occurring drug abuse and severe mental illness

Nidecker

DiClemente

Bennett

et al. 2008

Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People with severe mental illness (SMI) have high rates of substance use disorders. The Transtheoretical Model (TTM) is a framework for understanding behavior change. There are five leading measures associated with the TTM -University of Rhode Island Change Assessment, Processes of Change Scale, Decisional Balance Scale, Abstinence Self-Efficacy Scale, and Temptation to Use Drugs Scale. While these measures have been found to be reliable and valid in primary substance abusers, it is unknown if these measures are relevant in people with co-occurring SMI and substance use disorders (SUD). We evaluated the psychometric properties of these measures in a sample (n=240) of people with co-occurring disorders. Participants met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder or non-psychotic affective disorder, and current cocaine dependence or cocaine dependence in remission. All subscales showed good reliability and validity in the total sample. Analyses within diagnostic groups showed good reliability and validity in most groups, with some falling off in the affective disorders and remitted cocaine dependence groups. Overall, findings support the use of these measures in people with co-occurring disorders. Keywordsserious mental illness; substance abuse; transtheoretical model; psychometrics Corresponding Author: Melissa Nidecker, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow, VA Maryland Healthcare System, BT/MIRECC, 10 North Green Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone: 410-605-7000 ext. 4734, Melissa.nidecker@va.gov. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript IntroductionSubstance abuse is a critical and devastating health problem in individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). Nearly 50% of all persons with SMI have met criteria for a lifetime substance use disorder (SUD; Barry, Fleming, & Grennley, 1995;Mueser, Yarnold, & Bellack, 1992). SUDs are especially harmful for people with SMI, who are already severely disadvantaged by impairments that are part of their mental illness. People with co-occurring SMI and SUDs show more medication noncompliance, symptom exacerbations, and re-hospitalizations than do people with SMI only, as well as poor social adjustment and an overall poorer prognosis (Drake, Mueser, Clark, & Wallach, 1996;Cournos, et al., 1991). Although treatment for people with co-occurring SMI and SUDs is complex, interventions for substance abuse that emphasize long-term, integrated treatment that is tailored to the special needs of people with SMI have been shown to b...

show abstract

“…Multiple studies of ASI composite scores and lifetime items provide evidence of impressive reliability, concurrent validity, predictive validity, and discriminative utility across various groups of clients characterized by age, race, gender, and primary drug of abuse (e.g., Alterman et al, 1998;Cacciola, Koppenhaver, McKay, & Alterman, 1999;McDermott et al, 1996;McLellan, Cacciola, et al, 1992;McLellan et al, 1985;McLellan, Luborsky, O'Brien, & Woody, 1980). Additional items were appended to the ASI that assessed participants' involvement in criminal activities over the preceding 6 months, regardless of whether those activities were detected by authorities or resulted in formal criminal charges.…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching Judicial Supervision to Clients’ Risk Status in Drug Court

Marlowe

Festinger

Lee

et al. 2006

Crime & Delinquency

161

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports outcomes from a program of experimental research evaluating the risk principle in drug courts. Prior studies revealed that participants who were high risk and had (a) antisocial personality disorder or (b) a prior history of drug abuse treatment performed better in drug court when scheduled to attend biweekly judicial status hearings in court. In contrast, participants who were low risk performed equivalently regardless of the court hearings schedule. This study prospectively matches drug court clients to the optimal schedule of court hearings based on an assessment of their risk status and compares outcomes to clients randomly assigned to the standard hearings schedule. Results confirmed that participants who were high risk and matched to biweekly hearings had better during-treatment outcomes than participants assigned to status hearings as usual. These findings provide confirmation of the risk principle in drug courts and yield practical information for enhancing the efficacy and cost-efficiency of drug courts.Keywords drug court; risk assessment; drug abuse; antisocial personality disorder Drug courts are special criminal court dockets that provide a judicially supervised regimen of drug abuse treatment and case management services to offenders who are nonviolent and abuse drugs in lieu of criminal prosecution or incarceration. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP, 1997), the "key components" of a drug court include (a) ongoing status hearings before the judge in court, (b) mandatory completion of drug abuse treatment, (c) random urine drug screens, and (d) progressive negative sanctions for program infractions and positive rewards for achievements. In preplea or diversion drug courts, participants who satisfactorily complete the program may have their criminal charges dropped and may be eligible for record expungement after remaining arrest free for an additional waiting period and meeting other obligations such as paying a filing fee. In postadjudication drug courts, graduates may avoid incarceration, consolidate their probationary requirements, or receive a sentence of time served in the program. DOUGLAS B. MARLOWE, J.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Section on Law and Ethics Research at the Treatment Research Institute (TRI) and an adjunct associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. His research focuses on examining the role of coercion in drug abuse treatment, the effects of drug courts and other diversion programs for drug-abusing offenders, and behavioral treatments for drug abusers and offenders. DAVID S. FESTINGER, Ph.D., is a senior scientist in the Section on Law and Ethics Research at the TRI. His research focuses on evaluating the clinical effects and ethical impacts of coercive interventions for drug-abusing criminal offenders. PATRICIA A. LEE, M.S. is the research coordinator for the Section on Law and Ethics Research at the TRI. She is primarily responsible for managing all aspects of ...

show abstract

Construct refinement and confirmation for the Addiction Severity Index.

Cited by 119 publications

References 31 publications

Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: Discharge and 6-month outcomes from a prospective matching study

Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: Discharge and 6-month outcomes from a prospective matching study

Application of the Transtheoretical Model of change: Psychometric properties of leading measures in patients with co-occurring drug abuse and severe mental illness

Matching Judicial Supervision to Clients’ Risk Status in Drug Court

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About