RESUMO
Traditional mechanisms for rating adherence or fidelity are labor-intensive. We developed and validated a tool to rate adherence to Motivational Enhancement Therapy-Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (MET-CBT) through anonymous client surveys. The instrument was used to survey clients in 3 methadone programs over 2 waves. Explanatory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were used to establish construct validity for both MET and CBT. Internal consistency based on Cronbach's alpha was within adequate range (α > 0.70) for all but 2 of the subscales in one of the samples. Consensus between clients' ratings (r(wg(j)) scores) were in the range of 0.6 and higher, indicating a moderate to strong degree of agreement among clients' ratings of the same counselor. These results suggest that client surveys could be used to measure adherence to MET-CBT for quality monitoring that is more objective than counselor self-report and less resource-intensive than supervisor review of taped sessions. However, additional work is needed to develop this scale.
RESUMO
AIMS: To examine the comparability, reliability and predictive validity of two instruments used to assess alcohol use and dependence: the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) and the Form 90 Timeline Followback (TLFB) method. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adolescents (n = 101) admitted to a residential treatment program in the United States were interviewed at intake with the GAIN, and again within a week with a variation of TLFB, called Form 90. Alcohol and cannabis measures were compared and used to predict the number of past-month substance abuse and dependence symptoms. MEASUREMENT: Self-report measures of days of alcohol and cannabis use in the 90 days prior to intake, peak number of drinks/joints used, peak blood alcohol content (BAC) and alcohol and cannabis abuse and dependence symptom counts. FINDINGS: Results revealed that the measures had: (a) excellent comparability (r = 0.7-0.8) across the two instruments; (b) deteriorating reliability after reported peak BAC levels exceeded 0.50 and peak joints exceeding 19; and (c) similar and strong relationships between use measures and the number of abuse/dependence symptoms across measures and instruments. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of 101 adolescents who were admitted to residential treatment for alcohol or drug dependence, the corresponding measures from the two instruments produced comparable results. If the cross-validation of these two measures generalizes to adolescents treated in out-patient settings and other adolescent treatment populations, the GAIN and Form 90 may provide useful core alcohol measures for meta-analyses.
