A System for Diagnosis, Referral, and Rehabilitation of Persons Convicted of Driving While Intoxicated: The System and a Preliminary Field Test of the Diagnostic Procedure
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This 1978 report by Richard E. Boyatzis, commissioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), addresses the need for a systematic approach to diagnosing, referring, and rehabilitating persons convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI). The research was motivated by the limitations of existing countermeasures, which often relied on simple classifications (e.g., social drinker vs. problem drinker) that left many offenders unclassified or inappropriately assigned to treatment. The authors identified a gap in short-term rehabilitation (STR) programs, noting that comprehensive treatment facilities were overwhelmed and that many DWIs required goal-oriented, brief interventions rather than long-term therapy. The study aimed to develop a diagnostic instrument capable of identifying specific change objectives for each individual, thereby facilitating precise referrals to educational or therapeutic programs tailored to their needs. The methodology centered on the development of the Driving While Intoxicated Classification System (DWICS), a structured interview designed to assess individuals on three dimensions: the Adaptability Factor (measuring functional adaptive behavior in response to stress), the Sociocultural Factor (assessing the impact of environmental and cultural influences on alcohol use), and the Severity Factor (evaluating the degree of interference alcohol causes in life functioning). The report details the conceptual foundation of these factors and the construction of the interview items. A preliminary field test was conducted to evaluate the instrument’s validity. Due to administrative and legal constraints at participating sites, the original design of interviewing 200 subjects per site was reduced. The final sample consisted of 96 convicted DWIs who volunteered for the study, with a subset undergoing retesting and collateral interviews. The interview process took approximately 48 minutes on average, and data were collected alongside record checks from motor vehicle and police departments. The findings from the preliminary field test provided initial support for the diagnostic system. The results demonstrated construct validity for aspects of all three factors, indicating that the interview successfully measured the intended psychological and sociocultural domains. A limited criterion validity study also yielded some support for the factors. However, the authors emphasized that the sample was biased and small, preventing definitive conclusions regarding the instrument’s reliability and validity. Consequently, the report concludes that further investigation with a representative sample is necessary before the DWICS interview can be fully validated. The study also highlights that the diagnostic process allows for the identification of specific rehabilitation objectives, which serve as the basis for matching clients with appropriate short-term programs. The significance of this work lies in its shift from generic punishment or broad categorization to a nuanced, objective-based approach to DWI rehabilitation. By linking diagnosis directly to specific change objectives, the system aims to improve the effectiveness of referrals and ensure that interventions are relevant to the individual’s specific deficits in adaptability, sociocultural pressure, or severity of abuse. The report provides a detailed manual for administering the interview and outlines the structure for short-term rehabilitation programs, particularly for repeat offenders. It establishes a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of countermeasures based on whether they help clients achieve their designated objectives, offering a model for more efficient and targeted traffic safety interventions.
Key finding
A preliminary field test of the structured diagnostic interview demonstrated construct validity for aspects of all three assessment factors and some support for criterion validity within a limited sample of 96 convicted drivers.
Methodology
field_study
Sample size: 96
Provenance
The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | rosap | — | — | 2 | 2026-05-23 |
| archive | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| chunk | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| embed | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-02 |
| enrich | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 19 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
Information type
What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).
- Methodological Resource: validation psychometrics