Field Evaluation of Court Procedures for Identifying Problem Drinkers
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 1973 report by the Highway Safety Research Institute evaluates the validity, reliability, and operational utility of court procedures designed to identify problem drinkers among individuals convicted of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). The study was motivated by the need to differentiate between problem drinkers and social drinkers in legal settings to ensure appropriate placement in remedial programs. Previous validation studies had relied on clinical samples, which did not reflect the operational realities of court settings where defendants might conceal their drinking habits. Consequently, this field evaluation aimed to test the Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI) questionnaire and interview protocols under actual conditions using data from Alcohol Safety Action Projects (ASAPs). The research involved a field evaluation across twelve ASAPs, with detailed quantitative analysis conducted on data from three sites: Fairfax County, Virginia; New Orleans, Louisiana; and San Antonio, Texas. The study analyzed responses from 709 DWI defendants. To validate the HSRI protocols, researchers constructed a composite external criterion (CRIT) based on objective indicators: blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of arrest, the number of previous DWI arrests, and the number of other prior alcohol-related offenses. This criterion categorized defendants as social, excessive, or problem drinkers. Additionally, the study surveyed 57 court workers across the twelve ASAPs to assess the operational acceptability and practicality of the identification procedures. The findings indicated that the HSRI protocols provided useful performance in identifying problem drinkers, particularly when combined with other available criteria. The composite criterion revealed that over 50% of the DWI samples could be classified as problem drinkers, a significantly higher rate than classifications made by pre-sentence investigators, who were more conservative. Validity and reliability data supported the utility of the questionnaire and interview battery. The survey of court workers showed that the tests were well-received and particularly effective for training purposes. However, the analysis also identified areas for improvement, leading to recommendations for reduced cut-off scores and re-wording of specific questionnaire items to enhance diagnostic effectiveness. The significance of this study lies in its provision of empirically validated tools for the judicial system to identify alcohol-related problems among traffic offenders. By demonstrating that the HSRI protocols are operationally valid and acceptable to court personnel, the report supports their use in directing defendants to appropriate treatment programs. The study also contributed practical resources, including an improved scoring key, scoring templates, and a Spanish translation of the questionnaire, thereby expanding the accessibility and efficiency of these diagnostic procedures in diverse court settings.
Key finding
The HSRI questionnaire and interview protocols demonstrated valid and reliable performance for identifying problem drinkers when validated against a composite criterion of blood alcohol concentration and prior offenses.
Methodology
field_study
Sample size: 709
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