Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges for the SASSI-4 and InDUC-2R: Positive Impression Management in Offenders with Substance Use Histories

  • Published:
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the field of substance use (SU) assessment, most measures are face-valid and thus warrant serious concerns over their vulnerability to positive impression management (PIM) in non-disclosing examinees. To address PIM, two specialized measures with validity indicators based on detection strategies were empirically evaluated: (a) the Adult Substance Use Subtle Screening Inventory-4 (SASSI-4) and (b) the Inventory of Drug Use Consequences-2R (InDUC-2R). The current study tested their effectiveness at distinguishing partial SU denial (i.e., acknowledging use but disavowing negative effects) from more general social desirability. The sample of 104 offenders were recruited from a court-mandated substance use treatment program. Relevant sections of Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorders, Clinical Version (SCID-5-CV) served as the external diagnostic criterion. Regarding the key results, both the SASSI-4 and InDUC-2R were particularly vulnerable to PIM. In terms of detection, the SASSI-4 DEF scale was generally encouraging for PIM but could not distinguish between the two types of PIM. As a distinct advantage, the Control scale on the InDUC-2R proved moderately effective at specifically identifying partial SU denial. To improve the SASSI-4 PIM classifications, a new strategy-based indicator, response style ratio, was initially validated. These findings are discussed within the context of clinical and forensic consultations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Full names of scales are reported in Table 3.

References

  • Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. (2008). The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, C. L., Rao, I. J., Robison, K. K., & Brandeau, M. L. (2020). Health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of diversion programs for low-level drug offenders: A model-based analysis. PLoS Medicine, 17(10), e1003239. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003239.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, K. A., Morgenstern, J., Morgan, T. J., Labouvie, E. W., & Bux, D. A. (2003). Assessing consequences of substance use: Psychometric properties of the inventory of drug use consequences (INDUC). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17(4), 328–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.17.4.328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boccaccini, M. T., & Hart, J. R. (2018). Response style on the personality assessment inventory and other multiscale inventories. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 280–300). The Guilford Press.

  • Brody, D. J., Pratt, L. A., & Hughes, J. P. (2018). Prevalence of depression among adults aged 20 and over: United States, 2013-2016 (pp. 1-8). US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.

  • Brown, R., & Rounds, L. (1995). The CAGE questions adapted to include drugs (CAGE-AID). Wisconsin Medical Journal, 94, 135–140.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burck, A. M., Laux, J. M., Harper, H., & Ritchie, M. (2010). Detecting faking good and faking bad with the substance abuse subtle screening Inventory-3 in a college student sample. Journal of College Counseling, 13(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2010.tb00048.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpentier, C., Royuela, L., Montanari, L., & Davis, P. (2018). The global epidemiology of drug use in prison. In Drug use in prisoners: Epidemiology, implications, and policy responses. (pp. 17-41). Oxford University press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199374847.003.0002.

  • Cashel, M. L., Rogers, R., Sewell, K., & Martin-Cannici, C. (1995). The personality assessment inventory (PAI) and the detection of defensiveness. Assessment, 2(4), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191195002004004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: Improving public health and safety. JAMA, 301(2), 183–90. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.976

  • Dare, P. S., & Derigne, L. (2010). Denial in alcohol and other drug use disorders: A critique of theory. Addiction Research and Theory, 18(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.3109/16066350902770441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C. G., Doherty, S., & Moser, A. E. (2014). Social desirability and change following substance abuse treatment in male offenders. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(3), 82–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037528

  • Feldstein, S. W., & Miller, W. R. (2007). Does subtle screening for substance abuse work? A review of the substance abuse subtle screening inventory (SASSI). Addiction, 102(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01634.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fendrich, M., & Vaughn, C. M. (1994). Diminished lifetime substance use over time: An inquiry into differential underreporting. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58(1), 96–123. https://doi.org/10.1086/269410

  • First, M. B., Willaims, J. B., Karg, R. S., & Spitzer, R. L. (2015). User’s guide for the SCID-5-CV: Structured clinical interview for DSM-5 disorders, Clinical Version. American Psychiatric Association.

  • Forman, R. F., Svikis, D., Montoya, I. D., & Blaine, J. (2009). Selection of substance use disorder diagnostic instrument by the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trails Network. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 27(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2004.03.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, E., Kohlenberg, B., Piasecki, M., & Webber, E. (2003). The forensic assessment of substance abuse. In W. T. O’Donohue & E. R. Levensky (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology: Resource for Mental Health and Legal Professionals (pp. 315–345). Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012524196-0/50016-4.

  • Gillaspy Jr., J. A., & Campbell, T. C. (2006). Reliability and validity of scores from the inventory of drug use consequences. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 27(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1874.2006.tb00015.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gramlich, J. (2019). Five facts about crime in the U.S. pew research center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/17/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

  • Harrell, A. V. (1997). The validity of self-reported drug use data: The accuracy of responses on confidential self-administered answered sheets. In L. Harrison & A. Hughes (Eds.), The validity of self-reported drug use: Improving the accuracy of survey estimates (pp. 37–58). National Institute on Drug Abuse.

  • Hersen, M., Turner, S. M., & Beidel, D. C. (2007). Adult psychopathology and diagnosis. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Holtgraves, T. (2004). Social desirability and self-reports: Testing models of socially desirable responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203259930

  • Juhnke, G. A., Vacc, N. A., Curtis, R. C., Coll, K. M., & Paredes, D. M. (2011). Assessment instruments used by addiction counselors. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 23(2), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1874.2003.tb00171.x

  • Kelly, J. F., Greene, M. C., & Bergman, B. G. (2016). Recovery benefits of the “therapeutic alliance” among 12-step mutual-help organization attendees and their sponsors. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 162, 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.02.028.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, J. E., Henk, C. M., Bupp, L. L., & Dresler, C. M. (2015). The validity of a regression-based procedure for detecting concealed psychopathology in structured personality assessment. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laux, J. M., Salyers, K. M., & Kotova, E. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of the SASSI-3 in a college sample. Journal of College and Counseling, 8(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2005.tb00071.x.

  • Laux, J. M., Piazza, N. J., Saylers, K., & Roseman, C. (2012). The Subtle Abuse Screening Inventory-3 and stages of change: A screening validity study. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 33(2), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1874.2012.00006.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazowski, L. E., & Geary, B. B. (2019). Validation of the Adult Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory-4 (SASSI-4). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(1), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazowski, L. E., Kimmell, K. S., & Baker, S. L. (2016). The Adult SASSI-4 user guide and manual. The SASSI Institute.

  • Lazowski, L. E., Miller, F. G., Boye, M. W., & Miller, G. A. (1998). Efficacy of the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory-3 (SASSI-3) in identifying substance dependence disorders in clinical settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71(1), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa7101_8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. S., Pollock, N. K., Bukstein, O. G., & Lynch, K. G. (2000). Inter-rater reliability of the SCID alcohol and substance use disorders section among adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 59(2), 173–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0376-8716(99)00119-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merten, T., & Rogers, R. (2017). An international perspective on feigned mental disabilities: Conceptual issues and continuing controversies. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 35(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. S., Woodson, J., Howell, R. T., & Shields, A. L. (2009). Assessing the reliability of scores produced by the Substance Abuse Screening Inventory. Substance Use and Misuse, 44(8), 1090–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826080802486772.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F. G., & Lazowski, L. E. (1999). The Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory-3 (SASSI-3) manual. The SASSI Institute.

  • Miller, G. A. (1985). The Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) manual, second edition. The SASSI Institute.

  • Miller, W. R., Tonigan, J. S., & Longabaugh, R. (1995). The Drinker Inventory of Consequences (DrInc): An instrument for assessing adverse consequences of alcohol abuse (Vol 4). National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

  • Morey, L. C. (2007). Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI): Professional manual (2nd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.

  • Morral, A. R., McCaffrey, D., & Iguchi, M. Y. (2000). Hardcore drug users claim to be occasional users: Drug use frequency underreporting. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 57(3), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00048-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2017). Trends and Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics#supplemental-references-for-economic-costs

  • Otto, R., & Hall, J.E. (1988). The utility of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test in the detection of alcoholics and problem drinkers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(3), 499–505. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5203_11.

  • Perez, D. M., & Wish, E. D. (2011). Gender differences in the validity of the Substance Abuse Screening Inventory-3 (SASSI-3) with a criminal justice population. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(3), 476–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10362662.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickard, H., & Fazel, S. (2013). Substance abuse as a risk factor for violence in mental illness: some implications for forensic psychiatric practice and clinical ethics. Current opinion in psychiatry, 26(4), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e328361e798.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, H. J., & Pai, S. M. (2003). Deception in prison assessment of substance abuse. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-5472.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, E. V., & Rogers, R. (2018). Detection of feigned ADHD across two domains: The MMPI-2-RF and CAARS for faked symptoms and TOVA for simulated attention deficits. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-017-9640-8].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (2008). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.

  • Rogers, R. (2018a). An introduction to response styles. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 3–17). The Guilford Press.

  • Rogers, R. (2018b). Detection strategies for malingering and defensiveness. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 18–41). The Guilford Press.

  • Rogers, R. (2018c). Researching response styles. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 592–614). The Guilford Press.

  • Rogers, R., & Bender, S. D. (2018). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.

  • Rogers, R., Cashel, M. L., Johansen, J., Sewell, K. W., & Gonzalez, C. (1997). Evaluation of adolescent offenders with substance abuse: Validation of the SASSI with conduct-disordered youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(1), 114–128 https://doi-org/10.1177/0093854897024001007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Cruise, C. R. (1998). Assessment of malingering with simulation designs: Threats to external validity. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025702405865.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Gillard, N. D. (2011). Research methods for the assessment of malingering. In B. Rosenfeld, & S.D. Penrod (Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology (pp. 174–188). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

  • Rogers, R., & Mitchell, C. N. (1991). Mental health experts and the criminal courts: A handbook for lawyers and clinicians. Carswell.

  • Rogers, R., Jackson, R. L., & Kaminski, P. L. (2005). Factitious psychological disorders: The overlooked response style in forensic evaluations. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 5(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v05n01_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Robinson, E. V. (2016). Psychopathy and response styles. In The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide. (2nd ed., pp. 217–230). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Rogers, R., Robinson, E. V., & Henry, S. A. (2015). Feigned adjudicative incompetence: Testing effectiveness of the ILK and SAMA with jail detainees. Assessment, 24(2), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115605613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., de la Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M. (1993). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption--II. Addiction, 88(6), 791–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman-Olivier, Z., Claire Greene, M., Bergman, B. G., & Kelly, J. F. (2014). Is residential treatment effective for opioid use disorders? A longitudinal comparison of treatment outcomes among opioid dependent, opioid misusing, and non-opioid using emerging adults with substance use disorder. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 144, 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, L. A. R., Lebeau-Craven, R., Martin, R., Colby, S. M., Barnett, N. P., Golembeske Jr., C., & Penn, J. V. (2005). Use of the adolescent SASSI in a juvenile correctional setting. Assessment, 12(4), 384–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105279433.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, L. A. R., Rogers, R., & Henry, S. (2018). Denial and misreporting of substance use. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 151–174). The Guilford Press.

  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2019). The national survey on drug use and health: 2019. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

  • Taxman, F. S., Perdoni, M. L., & Harrison, L. D. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tonigan, J. S., & Miller, W. R. (2002). The Inventory of Drug Use Consequences (InDUC): Test-retest stability and sensitivity to detect change. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(2), 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.16.2.165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, J., & Gu, X. (2019). Utilization of addiction treatment among U.S. adults with history of incarceration and substance use disorders. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 14(9), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-019-0138-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J. J., Sewell, N., & DiBenedetto, M. B. (2018). A review of approaches to detecting malingering in forensic contexts and promising cognitive load-inducing lie detection techniques. Frontiers in psychiatry, 9, 700–714. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00700.

  • Williams, M. M., Rogers, R., & Hartigan, S. E. (2019). The validity of the PICTS-SV and Its effectiveness with positive impression management: An investigation in a court-mandated substance use treatment facility. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819879733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. M., Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., & Ross, C. A. (2018). Faking good: An investigation of social desirability and defensiveness in an inpatient sample with personality disorder traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1455691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooley, C. N., Rogers, R., Fiduccia, C. E., & Kelsey, K. (2012). The effectiveness of substance use measures in the detection of full and partial denial of drug use. Assessment, 20(6), 670–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112447098.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funds, grants, or other financial support was received for the current study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX, 76203-5017, USA

    Sara E. Hartigan, Richard Rogers, Margot M. Williams & Jordan E. Donson

Authors
  1. Sara E. Hartigan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Margot M. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jordan E. Donson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara E. Hartigan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical Approval

The questionnaire and methodology for this study was approved by the Human Research Ethics committee of the University of North Texas (Ethics approval number: IRB-18-265). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 13 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hartigan, S.E., Rogers, R., Williams, M.M. et al. Challenges for the SASSI-4 and InDUC-2R: Positive Impression Management in Offenders with Substance Use Histories. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 43, 924–936 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-021-09909-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-021-09909-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation