FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1570343485> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1570343485 endingPage "1004" @default.
• W1570343485 startingPage "1002" @default.
• W1570343485 abstract "In response to our review of research on the reliability and validity of the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) [1], Lazowski & Miller [2], of the SASSI Institute, make several claims. The first is that we used ‘incorrect methods to calculate accuracy’. This is not so. We specified our calculation methods clearly, which are the traditional psychometric procedures for computing sensitivity (the percentage of true positives identified as positive) and specificity (the percentage of true negatives identified as negative). The alleged ‘inaccuracy’ pertains to one parenthetical point from page 46 of our review: how to weight evidence from different studies. The sensitivity values reported in eight independent studies were 0.33, 0.52, 0.59, 0.60, 0.65, 0.72, 0.85 and 0.87. We reported an average of 69.8% when weighting studies by N, essentially pooling all tested cases. The simple arithmetic average, which gives equal weight to smaller and larger studies, is less favorable still: 64.1%, and the median is 62.5%. The SASSI authors favor weighting studies by prevalence rate and arrived at a calculated average sensitivity of 84%, a figure that we were unable to reproduce.It is true that of the 36 studies we reviewed, only 10 included a criterion measure against which SASSI accuracy could be judged, and that only three of these used the SASSI-3. This is because, to the best of our knowledge, that is the entire peer-reviewed literature on the validity of the SASSI. The fact remains that no peer-reviewed study has replicated the sensitivity rate of 0.94 claimed in the test manual and the average, however computed, is well below that figure.The SASSI authors also allege ‘unsubstantiated claims of bias’ by stating that a screener may validly report a higher positive rate for an ethnic group if the true prevalence rate is also higher for that group. True prevalence rates for ethnic subgroups were not reported in the studies we cited, but US population studies generally show aggregate prevalence rates for substance use disorders in Hispanic and African American groups to be similar to or lower than those for the US majority population [3]. Furthermore, other screening instruments such as the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) do not overclassify ethnic minorities. We believe that there remains reason for concern from the four studies pointing to racial/ethnic differences in SASSI classifications [4,5] and scale scores [6,7].Lazowski & Miller did identify one typographical error in our review. The sensitivity of the SASSI direct scales as reported in a footnote in their test manual was indeed 74%, and not 79%. We apologize for this error, noting that the method used to compute sensitivity in their table is the same one used in our review.The central claim of the SASSI authors' letter, and indeed of each version of the SASSI test manual [8,9], is that ‘the subtle scales improve detection’. In defense of this claim, they cite statistics from their own test manual. Although the indirect scales do increase the proportion classified as positive by the SASSI, we stand by our conclusion that independent studies do not support this claim for any version of the SASSI. Six studies in our review found that the direct scales performed on a par with or better than the SASSI when its indirect scales were included [7,10–14]. This is consistent with the larger research literature across five decades, indicating that allegedly indirect scales are no more accurate than direct self-report scales [15].Their final claimed advantage, that the SASSI goes ‘beyond mere screening’, is precisely a reason for concern. Although sold as a screening instrument, the SASSI is sometimes used (inappropriately in our view) to establish a diagnosis and make treatment decisions. Indeed, the SASSI manuals provide guidelines for using the instrument to determine severity of substance dependence, need for supervised detoxification, risk for criminality and suggested treatment approach and directions. We found no independent research evidence that the SASSI provides additional valid information unavailable from direct scales or client self-report. Properly used, a valid screening instrument signals the need for more careful evaluation and clinical confirmation of diagnosis, and does not itself serve or replace these functions." @default.
• W1570343485 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1570343485 creator A5026186639 @default.
• W1570343485 creator A5039360701 @default.
• W1570343485 date "2007-06-01" @default.
• W1570343485 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1570343485 title "SASSI: A RESPONSE TO LAZOWSKI & MILLER (2007)" @default.
• W1570343485 cites W1703100635 @default.
• W1570343485 cites W1985944779 @default.
• W1570343485 cites W1994146803 @default.
• W1570343485 cites W2018369791 @default.
• W1570343485 cites W2034190742 @default.
• W1570343485 cites W2038051574 @default.
• W1570343485 cites W2059635435 @default.
• W1570343485 cites W2090320218 @default.
• W1570343485 cites W2094425679 @default.
• W1570343485 cites W2097035354 @default.
• W1570343485 cites W2099184335 @default.
• W1570343485 cites W2142109911 @default.
• W1570343485 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01860.x" @default.
• W1570343485 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/1974770" @default.
• W1570343485 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W1570343485 type Work @default.
• W1570343485 sameAs 1570343485 @default.
• W1570343485 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1570343485 countsByYear W15703434852012 @default.
• W1570343485 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1570343485 hasAuthorship W1570343485A5026186639 @default.
• W1570343485 hasAuthorship W1570343485A5039360701 @default.
• W1570343485 hasBestOaLocation W15703434851 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConcept C183115368 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConcept C2777496998 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConcept C64869954 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConceptScore W1570343485C105795698 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConceptScore W1570343485C126838900 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConceptScore W1570343485C15744967 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConceptScore W1570343485C183115368 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConceptScore W1570343485C18903297 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConceptScore W1570343485C2777496998 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConceptScore W1570343485C33923547 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConceptScore W1570343485C64869954 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConceptScore W1570343485C71924100 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConceptScore W1570343485C77805123 @default.
• W1570343485 hasConceptScore W1570343485C86803240 @default.
• W1570343485 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W1570343485 hasLocation W15703434851 @default.
• W1570343485 hasLocation W15703434852 @default.
• W1570343485 hasOpenAccess W1570343485 @default.
• W1570343485 hasPrimaryLocation W15703434851 @default.
• W1570343485 hasRelatedWork W1976916214 @default.
• W1570343485 hasRelatedWork W2526927687 @default.
• W1570343485 hasRelatedWork W2589534195 @default.
• W1570343485 hasRelatedWork W2884681272 @default.
• W1570343485 hasRelatedWork W3034420249 @default.
• W1570343485 hasRelatedWork W3045799998 @default.
• W1570343485 hasRelatedWork W3187290648 @default.
• W1570343485 hasRelatedWork W34404648 @default.
• W1570343485 hasRelatedWork W4237177488 @default.
• W1570343485 hasRelatedWork W1926181953 @default.
• W1570343485 hasVolume "102" @default.
• W1570343485 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1570343485 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1570343485 magId "1570343485" @default.
• W1570343485 workType "article" @default.