Assessment of Classification Instruments Designed to Detect Alcohol Abuse

Popkin, Carol L. (Carol Lederhaus); Kannenberg, C H; Lacey, John H.; Waller, Patricia F. · 1988 · ROSA P / United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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 1988 report, sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), addresses the critical need for accurate assessment instruments to identify alcohol abuse among Driving While Impaired (DWI) offenders. The research was motivated by the high prevalence of alcohol-related crashes and the failure of existing DWI countermeasures to effectively reduce recidivism. The authors argue that inaccurate screening and inappropriate treatment referrals contribute significantly to this failure. The study aimed to evaluate the psychometric quality of available assessment tools and understand the operational constraints of court systems to determine which instruments could reliably distinguish between social drinkers, problem drinkers, and alcoholics. The methodology involved a comprehensive review of literature and a national survey of DWI assessment practices in the United States. Researchers identified and evaluated numerous instruments, including both traditional paper-and-pencil tests (e.g., MAST, Mortimer-Filkins) and newer computerized automated systems. Instruments were rated on psychometric principles such as reliability, validity, and appropriateness for the DWI population. Additionally, the team conducted site visits to five jurisdictions—Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and North Carolina—to interview court personnel, assessors, and judges. These visits aimed to understand how administrative factors, such as cost, caseload, training requirements, and legislative constraints, influenced instrument selection and usage. The findings revealed that no existing instrument met the criteria for "excellent" psychometric quality and appropriateness for the DWI population. Consequently, the authors could not recommend any specific instrument for widespread adoption. A major limitation identified was the lack of valid normative data; many instruments were normed on hospitalized alcoholics, who do not represent the broader spectrum of DWI offenders, ranging from social drinkers to pre-alcoholics. Furthermore, few instruments had been independently validated for predictive validity in this specific population. While older instruments like the MAST were widely used due to their low cost and ease of administration, they often lacked rigorous validation. Newer computerized instruments offered advantages, such as automated scoring, truthfulness scales, and detailed treatment recommendations, but many lacked sufficient independent validation and were still undergoing revision. The significance of this study lies in its conclusion that the lack of precision in defining problem drinkers and the use of poorly validated instruments hinder effective DWI intervention. The authors emphasize that elevated Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) and a history of DWI arrests are useful indicators but insufficient for comprehensive classification. They recommend that jurisdictions consider operational needs carefully and suggest that future efforts focus on collecting normative data specifically from DWI populations and conducting independent validation studies. The report advocates for the potential of computerized instruments to provide more objective, comprehensive assessments and improve treatment referral accuracy, provided they undergo rigorous scientific validation.

Key finding

No assessment instrument was judged to be excellent in psychometric quality and appropriateness for the DWI population, and none could be recommended for use.

Methodology

review

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).

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.

• dbq psychometrics
• fitness to drive assessment

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