FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1544773787> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1544773787 endingPage "418" @default.
• W1544773787 startingPage "417" @default.
• W1544773787 abstract "We all seem to agree about at least two things. First of all, the ASI has been a useful and extraordinarily successful instrument. From an international perspective, Stenius (2004) provides an excellent summary of the reasons for its dissemination. Secondly, all commentators seem to agree that there is room for improvement. I am grateful for the specific criticisms of my review. For example, I agree that it would have been useful to present data on the number of respondents in each study. The most important difference between the study of Hodgins & El-Guebaly (1992) and Leonhard et al. (2000) may, however, not be the number of respondents but the different characteristics of the samples studied. I regret that the three reports published in Psychological Assessment (Cacciola et al. 2004) were not in the review. For some reason they are not included in the database of PubMed. I am more hesitant about including ‘research that supports the overall construct validity of the ASI’, for example by revealing expected differences between drug and alcohol clients (McLellan et al. 1992). It would be worrisome indeed if alcohol clients did not have more alcohol problems than drug clients, but differences in expected directions offer rather weak testimony on the merits of a measure. It is often preferable to discuss the conceptual content of each item. From a North American standpoint, foreign versions of the ASI are perhaps of marginal interest. From an international perspective it is pertinent to present data on its performance in other countries and languages. Butler (2004) rightly points out that ‘a naive emphasis on very high internal consistencies may guide scale developers and users in the wrong direction’. However, the quote from Nunnally & Bernstein (1994) simply emphasizes the fact that a satisfactory level of reliability depends on for what purposes a measure is used. The value of 0.90 is not used as a criterion value. As Greenfield (2004) points out, the last sentence on the intercorrelations of the severity ratings and the corresponding composite scores is unclear. The latter part of the sentence refers to columns H and I of Table 4, showing that even among interviewers with intense training the correlations were low in the areas of employment/support and drugs. The inclusion of legal status in this list is a mistake. The important thing is to discuss avenues for improvement. It is noteworthy that the most comprehensive and sophisticated studies of the performance of the ASI have been carried out by groups around the originators of the instrument. It is therefore welcome that a major revision is under way (Cacciola et al. 2004). It is an important feature that the ASI includes both subjective and objective items. On conceptual grounds, however, it is advisable to keep them separate, particularly if the intention is to measure changes after treatment. It is reassuring that the severity ratings will be eliminated. The article presenting the fifth edition sends a mixed message: ‘the severity ratings are still viable as a clinical summary and we continue to recommend their use . . . for initial treatment planning and referral’ (McLellan et al. 1992, p. 202). Moreover, for purposes of comparison, three large tables present mean values of the severity ratings for subgroups of substance abusers. It is no wonder that the ratings continue to be used in recent studies. In other respects as well, the next version of the ASI sounds like an important step forward, particularly if the calculation of the composite scores also is revised. The sixth edition promises to be quite different compared to the present versions. In the meantime, I would continue to advise against bringing the ASI into use as a package in new countries. The Dutch initiative of developing a set of instruments within the framework of the WHO International Classification of Functioning and Disability (Schippers et al. 2004) sounds ambitious and promising. The main challenge to be faced is to keep the system simple. In this regard, the six problem areas of the ASI have considerable common sense appeal, but the items measuring each area need a thorough overhaul. From a cross-cultural perspective, the optimal solution would be to bring together experts from number of different countries, for example under the auspices of the WHO or the European Union. I am confident that the ASI or its children and grandchildren will continue to be used for more than another 23 years." @default.
• W1544773787 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1544773787 creator A5042174118 @default.
• W1544773787 date "2004-04-01" @default.
• W1544773787 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W1544773787 title "Long live the children and grandchildren of the ASI" @default.
• W1544773787 cites W1516246820 @default.
• W1544773787 cites W1580505752 @default.
• W1544773787 cites W1841508033 @default.
• W1544773787 cites W1975271154 @default.
• W1544773787 cites W2034147089 @default.
• W1544773787 cites W2129904592 @default.
• W1544773787 cites W2162435102 @default.
• W1544773787 cites W613278840 @default.
• W1544773787 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00701.x" @default.
• W1544773787 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W1544773787 type Work @default.
• W1544773787 sameAs 1544773787 @default.
• W1544773787 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1544773787 countsByYear W15447737872015 @default.
• W1544773787 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1544773787 hasAuthorship W1544773787A5042174118 @default.
• W1544773787 hasBestOaLocation W15447737871 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConcept C2780801425 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConcept C50817715 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConceptScore W1544773787C119857082 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConceptScore W1544773787C12713177 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConceptScore W1544773787C154945302 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConceptScore W1544773787C15744967 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConceptScore W1544773787C199360897 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConceptScore W1544773787C2780801425 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConceptScore W1544773787C41008148 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConceptScore W1544773787C50817715 @default.
• W1544773787 hasConceptScore W1544773787C77805123 @default.
• W1544773787 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W1544773787 hasLocation W15447737871 @default.
• W1544773787 hasOpenAccess W1544773787 @default.
• W1544773787 hasPrimaryLocation W15447737871 @default.
• W1544773787 hasRelatedWork W1990214584 @default.
• W1544773787 hasRelatedWork W2000530489 @default.
• W1544773787 hasRelatedWork W2020355362 @default.
• W1544773787 hasRelatedWork W2098170879 @default.
• W1544773787 hasRelatedWork W2116047843 @default.
• W1544773787 hasRelatedWork W2564754115 @default.
• W1544773787 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1544773787 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1544773787 hasRelatedWork W4239641105 @default.
• W1544773787 hasRelatedWork W623302319 @default.
• W1544773787 hasVolume "99" @default.
• W1544773787 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1544773787 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1544773787 magId "1544773787" @default.
• W1544773787 workType "article" @default.