Screening and Assessment: An Evidence-Based Process for the Management and Care of Adult Drug-Involved Offenders

  • Matthew L. Hiller
  • Steven Belenko
  • Wayne N. Welsh
  • Gary Zajac
  • Roger H. Peters
Part of the Issues in Children's and Families' Lives book series (IICL, volume 11)


Valid and reliable assessment of risk and needs is a cornerstone of evidence-based practices with offenders who use and abuse drugs. They provide the needed clinical information upon which the case planning and services referral and delivery processes observed in criminal justice settings are based. However, recent surveys of nationally representative samples shows critical gaps remain, with many criminal justice programs either forgoing assessment of risks and needs or using instruments that have not be externally validated. To encourage more widespread use of risk and substance abuse instruments that have been shown to be reliable and valid, the current chapter reviews a number instruments within the context of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (R-N-R) model for assessment and services planning. Descriptions of these instruments as well as their reliability and validity when used with offender samples are presented. Discussion focuses on the need to adhere to evidence-based practices and processes when assessing and managing offenders with drug abuse problems.


Criminogenic risk Substance abuse Assessment Review of instruments 


  1. Alterman, A. I., Bovasso, G. B., Cacciola, J. S., & McDermott, P. A. (1994). A comparison of the predictive validity of four sets of baseline ASI summary indices. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 15, 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alterman, A. I., Mulvaney, F. D., Cacciola, J. S., Cnaan, A., McDermott, P. A., & Brown, L. S. (2001). The validity of the interviewer severity ratings in groups of ASI interviewers with varying training. Addiction, 96, 1297–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4Th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The LSI-R: The level of service inventory-revised. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: Lexis Nexis/Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
  6. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2004). The level of service/Case management inventory (LS/CMI). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  8. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2007). The risk-need-responsivity model of assessment and human service in prevention and corrections: Crime-prevention jurisprudence. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(4), 439–464.Google Scholar
  10. Andrews, D. A., Kiessling, J. J., Mickus, S., & Robinson, D. (1986). The construct validity of interview based risk assessment in corrections. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 460–470.Google Scholar
  11. Baird, C. (2009). A question of evidence: A critique of risk assessment models used in the justice system. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.Google Scholar
  12. Baird, C., Heinz, R., & Bemus, B. (1979). The Wisconsin case classification/staff deployment project. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Division of Corrections.Google Scholar
  13. Baird, C., Heinz, R., & Bemus, B. (1981). The Wisconsin case classification staff deployment project: Two year follow-up report. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Division of Corrections.Google Scholar
  14. Belenko, S. (2006). Assessing released inmates for substance-abuse related service needs. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 94–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bonta, J. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.Google Scholar
  17. Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1987). The diversion of incarcerated offenders to correctional halfway houses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 302–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1990). Classification to correctional halfway houses: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28, 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brennan, T., Dieterich, W., & Ehret, B. (2009). Evaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Broome, K. M., Flynn, P. M., Knight, D. K., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Program structure, staff perceptions, and client engagement in treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Broome, K. M., Knight, D. K., Knight, K., Hiller, M. L., & Simpson, D. D. (1997). Peer, family, and motivational influences on drug treatment process and recidivism for probationers. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clawson, E., Bogue, B., & Joplin, L. (2005). Implementing evidence-based practices in corrections. Washington, DC: National Institute on Corrections.Google Scholar
  23. Clear, T. R., & Gallagher, K. W. (1983). Screening devices in probation and parole: Management problems. Evaluation Review, 7, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coulson, G., Ilacqua, G., Nutbrown, V., Giulekas, D., & Cudjoe, F. (1996). Predictive validity of the LSI for incarcerated female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model & method. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent re-offending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 449–467.Google Scholar
  27. Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practices in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analysis of core correctional practices. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Duncan, A., Sacks, S., Melnick, G., Cleland, C. M., Pearson, F. S., & Coen, C. (2008). Performance of the CJDATS Co-Occurring Disorders Screening Instruments (CODSIs) among minority offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eisenberg, M., Bryl, J., & Fabelo, T. (2009). Validation of the Wisconsin department of corrections risk assessment instrument. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center.Google Scholar
  30. Farabee, D., Knight, K., Garner, B. R., & Calhoun, S. (2007). The inmate prerelease assessment for reentry planning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1188–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fass, T. L., Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., & Fretz, R. (2008). The LSI-R and the COMPAS: Validation data on two risk-needs tools. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1095–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fletcher, B. W. (2003). The national criminal justice drug abuse treatment studies (CJ-DATS). Offender Substance Abuse Report, 3, 1–5.Google Scholar
  34. Garner, B. R., Knight, K., Flynn, P. M., Morey, J. T., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Measuring offender attributes and engagement in treatment using the client evaluation of self and treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1113–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2002). Is the PCL-R really the “unparalleled” measure of offender risk? A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 397–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hanlon, T. E., O’Grady, K. E., & Bateman, R. W. (2000). Using the Addiction Severity Index to predict treatment outcome among substance abusing parolees. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., Leukefeld, C., & Simpson, D. D. (2002). Motivation as a predictor of treatment engagement in mandated residential substance abuse treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 56–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., Rao, S. R., & Simpson, D. D. (2002). Assessing and evaluating mandated correctional substance abuse treatment. In C. G. Leukefeld, F. Tims, & D. Farabee (Eds.), Treatment of drug offenders: Policies and issues (pp. 41–56). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., Saum, C. A., & Simpson, D. D. (2006). Social functioning, treatment dropout, and recidivism of probationers mandated to a modified therapeutic community. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 738–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hiller, M. L., & Narevic, E. (2005). Evaluating brief substance abuse screening instruments for drug-involved offenders. Offender Substance Abuse Report, 5(3), 35–37, 48.Google Scholar
  42. Hoffman, P. B. (1983). Screening for risk: A revised salient factor score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 539–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hubbard, D. J., Travis, L. F., & Latessa, E. J. (2001). Case classification in community corrections: A national survey of the state of the art. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  44. Joe, G. W., Broome, K. M., Rowan-Szal, G. A., & Simpson, D. D. (2002). Measuring patient attributes and engagement in treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kelly, C. E., & Welsh, W. N. (2008). The predictive validity of the level of service inventory-revised for drug-involved offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Knight, K., Garner, B., Simpson, D. D., Morey, J. T., & Flynn, P. M. (2006). An assessment of criminal thinking. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Knight, K., Simpson, D. D., & Hiller, M. L. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for in-prison therapeutic community treatment in Texas. Prison Journal, 79(3), 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Knight, K., Simpson, D. D., & Hiller, M. L. (2002). Screening and referral for substance-abuse treatment in the criminal justice system. In C. G. Leukefeld, F. Tims, & D. Farabee (Eds.), Treatment of drug offenders: Policies and issues (pp. 259–272, 373–376). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Knight, K., Simpson, D. D., & Morey, J. T. (2002). TCU-NIC cooperative agreement: Final report. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University, Institute of Behavioral Research.Google Scholar
  50. Kressel, D., De Leon, G., Palij, M., & Rubin, G. (2000). Measuring client clinical progress in therapeutic community treatment: The therapeutic community client assessment inventory, client assessment summary, and staff assessment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 19, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional programs: Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 22–29.Google Scholar
  52. Latessa, E. J., & Lowenkamp, C. (2006). What works in reducing recidivism? University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 3, 521–535.Google Scholar
  53. Leonhard, C., Mulvey, K., Gastfriend, D. R., & Shwartz, M. (2000). The Addiction Severity Index: A field study of internal consistency and reliability. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lowenkamp, C., Hodsinger, S., & Latessa, E. (2001). Risk/need assessment, offender classification, and the role of child abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 543–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.Google Scholar
  56. Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Loza, W., & Simourd, D. J. (1994). Psychometric evaluation of the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) among male Canadian federal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 468–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mäkelä, K. (2004). Studies of the reliability and validity of the Addiction Severity Index. Addiction, 99, 398–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Marlowe, D. B. (2003, August). Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision. Science and practice perspectives. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
  60. McLellan, A. T., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters, R., Smith, I., Grissom, G., et al. (1992). The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McLellan, A. T., Luborsky, L., Cacciola, J., & Griffith, J. E. (1985). New data from the Addiction Severity Index: Reliability and validity in three centers. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 173, 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McLellan, A. T., Luborsky, L., Woody, G. E., & O’Brien, C. P. (1980). An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patient, the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Miller, C. S., Woodson, J., Howell, R. T., & Shields, A. L. (2009). Assessing the reliability of scores produced by the substance abuse subtle screening inventory. Substance Use and Misuse, 44, 1090–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Miller, F. G. (1985). The substance abuse subtle screening inventory manual. Bloomington, IN: Glenn A. Miller.Google Scholar
  65. Miller, F. G., & Lazowski, L. E. (1999). The adult SASSI-3 manual. Springville, IN: SASSI Institute.Google Scholar
  66. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006). Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations. Rockville, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  67. Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, M. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk-needs-responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 10, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Peters, R. H., Bartoi, M. G., & Sherman, P. B. (2008). Screening and assessment of co-occurring disorders in the justice system. Delmar, NY: The National GAINS Center.Google Scholar
  69. Peters, R. H., Greenbaum, P. E., & Edens, J. F. (1998). Prevalence of DSM-IV substance abuse and dependence disorders among prison inmates. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 24, 573–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Peters, R. H., Greenbaum, P. E., Steinberg, M. L., Carter, C. R., Ortiz, M. M., Fry, B., et al. (2000). Effectiveness of screening instruments in detecting substance abuse disorders among prisoners. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Peters, R. H., & Wexler, H. K. (Eds.). (2005). Substance abuse treatment for adults in the criminal justice system. Treatment improvement protocol (TIP) series 44. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.Google Scholar
  72. Rikoon, S. H., Cacciola, J. S., Carise, D., Alterman, A., & McLellan, A. T. (2006). Predicting DSM-IV dependence diagnoses with the Addiction Severity Index composite scores. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Roberts, E. A., Contois, M. W., Willis, J. C., Worthington, M. R., & Knight, K. (2007). Assessing offender needs and performance for planning and monitoring criminal justice drug treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1179–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sacks, J. Y., McKendrick, K., & Kressel, D. (2007). Measuring offender progress in treatment using the Client Assessment Inventory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1131–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sacks, S., Melnick, G., Coen, C., Banks, S., Friedmann, P. D., Grella, C., et al. (2007a). CJDATS Co-occurring disorders screening instrument for mental disorders (CODSI-MD): A pilot study. The Prison Journal, 87, 86–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sacks, S., Melnick, G., Coen, C., Banks, S., Friedmann, P. D., Grella, C., et al. (2007b). CJDATS Co-occurring disorders screening instrument for mental disorders: A validation study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1198–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Saltstone, R., Halliwell, S., & Hayslip, M. A. (1994). A multivariate evaluation of the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test and the Drug Abuse Screening Test in a female offender population. Addictive Behaviors, 19, 455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Saum, C. A., O’Connell, D. J., Martin, S. S., Hiller, M. L., Bacon, G. A., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Tempest in a TC: Changing treatment providers for in-prison therapeutic communities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1168–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Selzer, M. L. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 1653–1658.Google Scholar
  80. Selzer, M. L., Vinokur, A., & van Rooijen, L. (1975). A self-administered Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST). Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 36, 117–126.Google Scholar
  81. Shields, A. L., Howell, R. T., Potter, J. S., & Weiss, R. D. (2007). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test and its shortened form: A meta-analytic inquiry into score reliability. Substance Use and Misuse, 42, 1783–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shields, I. W., & Simourd, D. J. (1991). Predicting predatory behavior in a population of young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 180–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Simourd, D. (2004). Use of dynamic risk/need assessment instruments among long-term incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 306–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simourd, D. (2006, May). Validation of risk/needs assessments in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Interim report. Collingswood, NJ: Volunteers of America-Delaware Valley.Google Scholar
  85. Simourd, D. J., & Malcolm, P. B. (1998). Reliability and validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised among federally incarcerated offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Simpson, D. D., & Joe, G. W. (1993). Motivation as a predictor of early dropout from drug abuse treatment. Psychotherapy, 30, 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., & Broome, K. M. (2002). A national 5-year follow-up of treatment outcomes for cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 538–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., Rowan-Szal, G. A., & Greener, J. M. (1995). Client engagement and change during substance abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 7, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Simpson, D. D., & Knight, K. (2007). Offender needs and functioning assessments from a national cooperative research program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1105–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Skinner, H. A. (1982). The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addictive Behaviors, 7, 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Staton-Tindall, M., Garner, B. R., Morey, J. T., Leukefeld, C., Krietemeyer, J., Saum, C. A., et al. (2007). Gender differences in treatment engagement among a sample of incarcerated substance abusers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1143–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Storgaard, H., Nielsen, S. D., & Gluud, C. (1994). The validity of the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST). Alcohol and Alcoholism, 29, 493–502.Google Scholar
  93. Swartz, J. A. (1998). Adapting and using the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory-3 with criminal justice offenders: Preliminary results. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 344–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Taxman, F. S., Cropsey, K. L., Young, D. W., & Wexler, H. (2007). Screening, assessment, and referral practices in adult correctional settings: A national perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1216–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Taxman, F. S., & Marlowe, D. B. (2006). Risk, needs, responsivity: In action or inaction? Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Taxman, F. S., Perdoni, M., Young, D., Belenko, S., & Hiller, M. (in press). Twenty years of drug treatment courts: The current state of drug courts. In D. K. Shaffer (Ed.). Drug Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  97. Taxman, F. S., Thanner, M., & Weisburd, D. (2006). Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Taxman, F., Young, D., & Byrne, J. (2004). Transforming offender reentry into public safety: Lessons from OJP’s Reentry Partnership Initiative. Justice Policy and Research, 5, 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Taxman, F. S., Young, D., Wiersema, B., Rhodes, A., & Mitchell, S. (2007). The National criminal justice treatment practices survey: Methods and procedures. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32, 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Teitelbaum, L., & Mullen, B. (2000). The validity of MAST in psychiatric settings: A Meta-analytic integration. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 254–261.Google Scholar
  101. Thanner, M., & Taxman, F. S. (2003). Responsivity: The value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Walters, G. D. (1995). The psychological inventory of criminal thinking styles: Part I. Reliability and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Welsh, W. N. (2006). Evaluation of drug treatment programs at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at Chester: A partnership between the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Gaudenzia Inc., and Temple University. (Final Report to the National Institute of Justice 2002-RT-BX-1002). Retrieved October 9, 2009, from the PADOC Web site
  104. Welsh, W. N., & McGrain, P. N. (2008). Predictors of therapeutic engagement in prison-based drug treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 96, 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Yudko, E., Lozhkina, O., & Fouts, A. (2007). A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the Drug Abuse Screening Test. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew L. Hiller
    • 1
  • Steven Belenko
    • 1
  • Wayne N. Welsh
    • 1
  • Gary Zajac
    • 2
  • Roger H. Peters
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Justice Center for Research, College of the Liberal Arts and University Outreach, The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute (FMHI), University of South Florida (USF)TampaUSA

Personalised recommendations