OBJECTIVE: Report the results of initial reliability and validity analyses for a revised Treatment Services Review (TSR-6) instrument which measures a broader range of services than the original TSR. METHOD: First, the number of services for a 28-day period was compared for three versions of the instrument varying in their reporting timeframes. Accordingly, four successive 7-day TSR-6s, two 14-day TSR-6s, or one 28-day TSR-6 were administered to more than 300 clients (30% women) in substance abuse treatment (SAT). Second, short-term (2-5 days) test-retest reliabilities were compared for an initial 7-, 14-, or 28-day version of the TSR-6. Third, test-retest reliabilities were compared when an initial in-person (IP) administration was followed by either IP or telephone (TEL) TSR-6 administration. Finally, preliminary discriminative validity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Few differences in the quantity of services reported for a 4-week period were found with versions of the TSR-6 that used different timeframes. Also, comparisons of test-retest reliabilities for the different version of the TSR-6 revealed few differences. Test-retest reliabilities were generally comparable for the IP-TEL and IP-IP conditions. Finally, analyses demonstrated preliminary discriminative validity for the instrument when services for three distinctive forms of treatment: intensive outpatient, methadone and residential were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study support the reliability and validity of the TSR-6 and suggest that a version with a 28-day reporting period can provide information comparable to that obtained with versions using shorter reporting periods.
OBJECTIVE: Report the results of initial reliability and validity analyses for a revised Treatment Services Review (TSR-6) instrument which measures a broader range of services than the original TSR. METHOD: First, the number of services for a 28-day period was compared for three versions of the instrument varying in their reporting timeframes. Accordingly, four successive 7-day TSR-6s, two 14-day TSR-6s, or one 28-day TSR-6 were administered to more than 300 clients (30% women) in substance abuse treatment (SAT). Second, short-term (2-5 days) test-retest reliabilities were compared for an initial 7-, 14-, or 28-day version of the TSR-6. Third, test-retest reliabilities were compared when an initial in-person (IP) administration was followed by either IP or telephone (TEL) TSR-6 administration. Finally, preliminary discriminative validity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Few differences in the quantity of services reported for a 4-week period were found with versions of the TSR-6 that used different timeframes. Also, comparisons of test-retest reliabilities for the different version of the TSR-6 revealed few differences. Test-retest reliabilities were generally comparable for the IP-TEL and IP-IP conditions. Finally, analyses demonstrated preliminary discriminative validity for the instrument when services for three distinctive forms of treatment: intensive outpatient, methadone and residential were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study support the reliability and validity of the TSR-6 and suggest that a version with a 28-day reporting period can provide information comparable to that obtained with versions using shorter reporting periods.
Authors: Kimberly C Kirby; Lois A Benishek; MaryLouise E Kerwin; Karen L Dugosh; Carolyn M Carpenedo; Elena Bresani; James A Haugh; Yukiko Washio; Robert J Meyers Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2017-08-24
Authors: Richard Ries; Antoinette Krupski; Imara I West; Charles Maynard; Kristin Bumgardner; Dennis Donovan; Chris Dunn; Peter Roy-Byrne Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2015 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Antoinette Krupski; Imara I West; Meredith C Graves; David C Atkins; Charles Maynard; Kristin Bumgardner; Dennis Donovan; Richard Ries; Peter Roy-Byrne Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2015 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Gerald Cochran; Marcela C Smid; Elizabeth E Krans; M Aryana Bryan; Adam J Gordon; Brad Lundahl; John Silipigni; Benjamin Haaland; Ralph Tarter Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 2.226