Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a Model and Measure of Process-Oriented Quality of Care for Substance Abuse Treatment

  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development of a detailed model of substance-abuse treatment (SAT) staff performance is described. The model describes the key behaviors of SAT staff. Specifically, researchers used the critical incident technique to develop the model, which includes a total of 15 dimensions, nested under four meta-dimensions: providing clinical services, employee citizenship behaviors, providing clinical support, and managerial behavior. Development and validation of a measure based on the model are also described. More than 600 SAT staff members in 51 SAT agencies completed the new measure. Factor analyses supported the measure’s hypothesized dimensional structure; high internal consistency reliabilities were observed for all scales; and interrater agreement metrics indicated an acceptable level of within-agency agreement. Moreover, the measure correlated in expected and theoretically consistent ways with measures of job satisfaction and other job-related opinions.

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

References

  1. Gerstein DR, Johnson RA, Foote ML, et al. Evaluating Recovery Services: The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA) Methodological Report. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Holder HD, Blose JO. The reduction of health care costs associated with alcoholism treatment: a 14-year longitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1992;53:293–302.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. 1966;44:166–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Donabedian A. Quality of care: how can it be assessed? Journal of the American Medical Association. 1988;260:1743–1748.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Austin JT, Villanova P. The criterion problem: 1917–1992. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1992;77:836–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Guion RM. Assessment, Measurement, and Prediction for Personnel Decisions. Mahwah: Erlbaum; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. McCorry F, Garnick DW, Bartlett J, et al. Developing performance measures for alcohol and drug services in managed care plans. Journal on Quality Improvement. 2000;26:633–643.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zanis DA, McLellan AT. Ensuring quality in the treatment of chemical dependency. In: Stricker G, Troy WG, et al, eds. Handbook of Quality Management in Behavioral Health. Issues in the Practice of Psychology. New York: Kluwer; 2000:193–215.

    Google Scholar 

  9. American Society of Addiction Medicine. PPC-2: Patient Placement Criteria for the Treatment of Substance-Related Disorders, 2nd edn. Chevy Chase: ASAM; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lenox RD, Mansfield AJ. A latent variable model of evidence-based quality improvement for substance abuse treatment. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2001;28:164–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moos RH. Evaluating Treatment Environments: The Quality of Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Programs. New Brunswick: Transaction; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moos RH. Addictive disorders in context: principles and puzzles of effective treatment and recovery. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2003;17:3–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment. A Research Based Guide. Rockville: NIDA; 1999 DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)99–4180.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Anderson L, Wilson S. Critical incident technique. In: Whetzel DL, Wheaton GR, eds. Applied Measurement Methods in Industrial Psychology. Palo Alto: Davies-Black; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Flanagan JC. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin. 1954;51:327–358.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Harvey RJ. Job analysis. In: Dunnette MD, Hough LM, eds. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., vol. 2. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1990:71–163.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kemppainen JK. The critical incident technique and nursing care quality research. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2000;32:1264–1271.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Longo B, Connor G, Barnhart T. Using the critical incident survey to assess hospital service quality. Journal of Hospital Marketing. 1993;7:91–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Adams KA, Goodwin GF, Searcy CA, et al. Development of a Performance Model of the Medical Education Process (Technical Report). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dumas JS, Redish JC. A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Norwood: Ablex; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ironson GH, Smith PC, Brannick MT, et al. Construction of a Job in General Scale: a comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1989;74:193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Spector PE. Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mael FA, Ashforth BE. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1992;13:103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Riketta M. Organizational identification: a meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2005;66(2):358–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Landau J, Hammer TH. Clerical employees’ perceptions of intraorganizational career opportunities. Academy of Management Journal. 1986;29:385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hatcher L. A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS® System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary: SAS Institute; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hoyle RH. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Browne MW, Cudek R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, eds. Testing Structural Equation Models. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1993:136–162.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bliese PD. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data analysis and aggregation. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ, eds. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000:349–381.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Campbell JP, McCloy RA, Oppler SH, et al. A theory of performance. In: Schmitt N, Borman WC, eds. Personnel Selection in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1993:35–70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was graciously supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Grant R01-DA015484. Portions of this work were presented at the 113th Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association (APA) held in Washington, DC (August, 2005) and the 11th International Conference on Treatment of Addictive Behaviors (ICTAB) held in Santa Fe, NM (January–February, 2006). We express our appreciation to the county directors of Kern, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Alameda, and Madera (California) and Baltimore, Prince George’s, and Howard (Maryland) for their assistance at all stages of data collection. We also thank Dennis McCarty, Steve Jex, John Michela, Rick Sampson, and Christine Timko for their useful input at various stages of this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. American Institutes for Research®, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA

    Kristin L. Carman PhD

  2. Mael Consulting and Coaching, 6403 Western Run Drive, Baltimore, MD, 21215, USA

    Fred A. Mael PhD

  3. Human Resources Research Organization, 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 400, Alexandria, VA, 22314, USA

    Patrick Gavan O’Shea PhD

  4. Valtera Corporation, 601 Jefferson, Suite 3900, Houston, TX, 77002, USA

    Mark Alan Smith PhD

  5. American Institutes for Research®, 1791 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA

    Andrea Seidner Burling PhD

  6. Department of Psychology, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA, 95053, USA

    Amie Haas PhD

  7. Statistics Collaborative, Inc, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC, 20036, USA

    Kelly S. Rogers BA

Authors
  1. Fred A. Mael PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Gavan O’Shea PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Alan Smith PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrea Seidner Burling PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kristin L. Carman PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Amie Haas PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kelly S. Rogers BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fred A. Mael PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mael, F.A., O’Shea, P.G., Smith, M.A. et al. Development of a Model and Measure of Process-Oriented Quality of Care for Substance Abuse Treatment. J Behav Health Serv Res 37, 4–24 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-009-9180-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-009-9180-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation