Screening and Assessment of Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Positive Features•y•y•y•yInternal consistency coefficients for the SOCRATES were 0.93 for theRecognition scale, 0.84 for Taking Steps, and 0.71 for Ambivalence(Mitchell, Francis, & Tafrate, 2005)The SOCRATES was found to be highly reliable for use in correctionalsettings (Peters & Greenbaum, 1996)The SOCRATES Recognition subscale was found to have moderately goodsensitivity and specificity in identifying substance dependent justiceinvolvedindividuals (Peters & Greenbaum, 1996)The instrument is brief to administer and is easily scoredConcerns•y In a review of the research, DiClemente, Schlundt, and Gemmell (2004)found only modest support for the predictive validity of the SOCRATES•y Research provides support for both two- and three-factor structures forthe SOCRATES (Demmel, Beck, Richter, & Reker 2004; Figlie, Dunn, &Laranjeira, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2005), and indicates that the number ofitems could be reduced•y Although a study conducted by Nochajski and Stasiewicz (2005) did notsupport the use of the SOCRATES with DUI offenders, the Ambivalenceand Recognition subscales were found to be associated with binge drinking•y The validity of the SOCRATES has not been examined among individualswith co-occurring disordersAvailability and CostSOCRATES is available free of charge at http://www.nicic.org/Library/019719.University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (URICA)The URICA (DiClemente & Hughes, 1990; McConnaughy, Prochaska, & Velicer,1983) includes 24-, 28-, and 32-item versions of a self-report questionnaireexamining motivation and readiness for treatment. The 32-item URICA consistsof four subscales made up of eight items each, while the 28-item and the 24-item versions have four subscales consisting of seven and six items respectively.The four subscales included in the instrument were developed to examine thefour theoretical stages of change (precontemplation, contemplation, action, andmaintenance) related to individual motivation for treatment (DiClemente &Prochaska 1982, 1985; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1992). The URICA appears toidentify two distinctive subtypes: pre-contemplation and contemplation/action(Blanchard, Morgenstern, Morgan, Labouvie, & Bux, 2003; Edens & Willoughby,1999, 2000). The URICA differs from the SOCRATES in that it does not directlyask about motivation for alcohol or drug treatment, but instead presents questionsin a more general manner. The URICA does not require clinical training toadminister or score.53
Positive Features•y•y•y•y•y•yResearch indicates the URICA has good reliability, with estimates rangingfrom .79–.88 (Carey, Purine, Maisto, & Carey, 1999). Reliability estimatesfor the URICA are between .68 and .85 among alcohol, opiate, cocaine, andnicotine dependent individuals (Blanchard et al., 2003)The URICA is able to discriminate readiness to change between individualswho are alcohol dependent, with and without co-occurring depression(Shields & Hufford, 2005)The URICA was found to have good internal consistency among personswith co-occurring disorders (Pantalon & Swanson, 2003)Two measures of readiness for treatment have been derived from theURICA, a continuous measure, based on URICA subscale scores, andcategorical or subtype identification. Both measures have good concurrentvalidity but do not predict treatment outcome (Blanchard et al., 2003)A motivational readiness score was derived by DiClemente et al. (2004)by summing the average of the Contemplation, Action, and Struggleto Maintain subscales, and subtracting the Precontemplation subscalescore. This overall score predicted follow-up drinking outcomes amongoutpatients but not among those enrolled in aftercare servicesAdolescent residential treatment clients who scored high on thePrecontemplation subscale of the URICA-28 were found to have greaterattrition than those scoring high on the Contemplation or Preparation/Action subscales (Callaghan et al., 2005)Concerns•y Validity research examining the URICA indicates mixed results. Studiesinvolving alcohol abusers and psychotherapy clients provide support forthe validity of the URICA’s four subscales, while studies involving drugabusers do not provide such support (Carey et al., 1999; DiClemente et al.,2004)•y Although good concurrent validity was found for the URICA subtypesand the continuous (overall) score, neither the subtypes nor the continuousscore successfully predicted treatment outcome (Blanchard et al., 2003)Availability and CostThe URICA is available free of charge and can be found at http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/Measures/urica.htm.54
Page 1:
Screening and Assessmentof Co-Occur
Page 5 and 6:
Screening Instruments for Co-Occurr
Page 12 and 13: daunting task, and often requires t
Page 14 and 15: Importance of Screening and Assessm
Page 16 and 17: •y•y•y•y•y•y•y•y•
Page 18 and 19: Developing a Comprehensive Screenin
Page 20 and 21: •y•y•y•y•y•y•y•y•
Page 22 and 23: These areas of cognitive and behavi
Page 24 and 25: •y•y•y•y•y•y•y•yAlc
Page 26 and 27: frequency of drug testing may be ta
Page 28 and 29: offer expanded tests that also incl
Page 30 and 31: self-disclosure of mental health or
Page 32 and 33: should be determined by the severit
Page 34 and 35: Special Clinical Issues in Screenin
Page 36: suicide screening is important for
Page 39 and 40: Maintaininga staff ofdiverse ethnic
Page 41 and 42: The MHSF-III and the GAIN-SS were f
Page 43 and 44: Key Information to Include in Asses
Page 45 and 46: •y•y`` Vocational and education
Page 47 and 48: approximately two hours. Either the
Page 49 and 50: Texas Christian University Drug Scr
Page 51 and 52: & Cirimele, 2006). Hair testing can
Page 53 and 54: Appendix B: Screening Instruments f
Page 55 and 56: Suicide Probability Scale (SPS)The
Page 57 and 58: Positive Features•y•y•yThe TS
Page 59 and 60: Appendix D: Screening Instruments f
Page 61: Positive Features•y•y•y•yTh
Page 65 and 66: Appendix F: Screening Instruments T
Page 67 and 68: Availability and CostThe CAMH-CDS i
Page 69 and 70: and one Axis II disorder (antisocia
Page 71 and 72: Appendix G: Screening Instruments f
Page 73 and 74: prior hospitalization for mental he
Page 75 and 76: •yThe instrument has been used wi
Page 77 and 78: •yThe instrument has not been use
Page 79 and 80: Appendix H: Screening Instruments f
Page 81 and 82: Positive Features•y•y•y•y
Page 83 and 84: have you felt you ought to Cut down
Page 85 and 86: Concerns•y•y•yThe DALI was de
Page 87 and 88: •y•y•y•y•y•y•ywith sc
Page 89 and 90: Concerns80•y•y•y•y•y•y
Page 91 and 92: Concerns•y The validity of the SS
Page 93 and 94: Appendix I: Recommended Instruments
Page 95 and 96: Concerns•y•y•y•yReliabiliti
Page 97 and 98: •y•y•y•yScales and profile
Page 99 and 100: •y•yand non-interpretable resul
Page 101 and 102: Appendix L: Assessment Instruments
Page 103 and 104: Philadelphia, PA 19106, (215) 399-0
Page 105 and 106: treatment setting. Treatment progra
Page 107 and 108: Concerns•y•y•yThe CIDI is qui
Page 109 and 110: •y•y•yThe PDSQ has been used
Page 111 and 112: Both a Research Version and a Clini
Page 113 and 114:
104
Page 115 and 116:
Bastiaens, L., Riccardi, K., & Sakh
Page 117 and 118:
Carey, K. B., Carey, M. P., & Chand
Page 119 and 120:
Demmel, R., Beck, B., Richter, D.,
Page 121 and 122:
Gray, B. T. (2001). A factor analyt
Page 123 and 124:
Kessler, R. C., Wittchen, H. U., Ab
Page 125 and 126:
McLellan, A. T., Cacciola, J. S., &
Page 127 and 128:
Nochajski, T. H., & Stasiewicz, P.
Page 129 and 130:
Rollnick, H., Heather, N., Gold, R.
Page 131 and 132:
Teitelbaum L. M., & Mullen, B. (200
Page 133:
Zimmerman, M., & Sheeran, T. (2003)
show all

Screening and Assessment of Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?