Addiction severity index

Last updated

Male veterans with drug or alcohol addictions from the Philadelphia VA Medical Center have been recruited for the establishment of ASI. Philadelphia VAMC.jpg
Male veterans with drug or alcohol addictions from the Philadelphia VA Medical Center have been recruited for the establishment of ASI.

The Addiction Severity Index (ASI) is used to assess the severity of patient's addiction and analyse the need of treatment which has been in use for more than 2 decades since its publication in 1992. It is used in a variety of settings such as clinics, mental health services in the US, the Indian Health Service and several European countries. [1] One of its major applications is as a clinical assessment tool for clinicians to determine the severity of the addictions and the necessity for treatment through probing the patients' conditions in both health and social issues. 7 aspects including medical health, employment/ support status, drug and alcohol use, illegal activity and legal status, family and social relationships and psychiatric health were inquired.

Contents

The ASI offers a more complete assessment of patients' conditions than other tools as the authors believed that the detrimental effects in health and social aspects are not merely the results of addictions and these issues could not be simply resolved by reducing the use of substances. [1] [3] Despite the lack of clarity on the causal relationship between socioeconomic determinants of health and addiction, it was found that the health and social problems often are more valued by the patients rather than the addiction itself and in other cases, these complex issues would be the causes of relapses, [1] showing the greater role of health and social problems in dealing with addiction. Hence, the ASI would like to delve deeper into the socioeconomic determinants of health of patients to better evaluate specific plans targeting these specific areas.

History

This is the 1st page of the ASI-5. It inquires about the demographic background of the patient. It also allows interviewer to record the optional severity index. ASI 5th Page 1.png
This is the 1st page of the ASI-5. It inquires about the demographic background of the patient. It also allows interviewer to record the optional severity index.

Before the development of the ASI, it was assumed that the addiction could be characterized by measuring the nature, amount, and duration of their substance use and would directly lead to health and social problems or even criminal behaviors. [1] [3] Hence, the foundation of addiction therapy with the aim of reducing substance use was laid. However, it was noticed that addiction could not be understood by simply assessing the characteristics of addiction itself. This was exemplified by ASI that an anesthesiologist with severe opioid addiction but better personal and social support would have a better outcome than a pregnant woman with less severe cocaine addiction but worse criteria such as alcohol use, sexual behavior and educational level. [1] This shows the previous assumption was only partially correct and reflected a more complex relationship between substance addiction and health and social problems. While there is a possibility that addiction is the direct cause of the health and social issues, their causal relationship could also be swapped, or unrelated as they are caused by inherited personality or a combination of economic, social and genetic factors. [1] [3] Coupled with findings depicting that variation in the substance abuse treatment showed little effect on outcomes while the addition of health and/ or social services showed improved outcomes, the development of ASI funded by the Veterans Administration (VA) began in 1977 with an emphasis on analyzing patients' health and social background.

In the beginning, around 250 questions were prepared for the target population of 524 male veterans with alcohol and drug addictions from Coatesville and Philadelphia VA Medical Centers. [1] [3] Face-to-face interviews were conducted in a six-month period in which researchers improved the survey by not only seeking answers to the questions but also asking them whether they understand the meaning of the questions and whether others would interpret the questions in the same manner. The "asking, listening, re-asking, and re-thinking" procedures would eventually narrow the survey down to 164 items categorized into 7 aspects. [1]

The third version of ASI was established in 1980. This version of ASI adopted a ten-point severity rating which is assessed during patients' interviews with clinical staff. But clinical staff complained that the rating is difficult due to insufficient summary information. Thus, the interviewer severity rating (ISR) was proposed. However, several drawbacks of ISR, such as subjective data and low flexibility made it hard to apply in clinical practice. With this concern, the quantitative Composite scores (CSs), which were derived from clinical trials and errors, were applied. Both CSs and ISR have shown test-retest reliability and were used in ASI (details refer to the scoring system). [1] [5]

Owing to the new finding of drug and alcohol abuse treatment in the 1990s, the ASI saw the introduction of newer items regarding addiction-related disorder and drug use, route of drug administration, antisocial personality disorder, trauma on top of the pre-existing framework of ASI-3, leading to the publication of ASI-5 in 1992.

Structure

Content

The ASI-5 survey contains a total of 164 items inquiring about the general background of the patients (n= 28), their conditions in the respective areas would be asked in the following according to the participants' preference on privacy recorded during the development of ASI: 1) Medical health (n= 11) 2) Employment/ support status (n= 24) 3 & 4) Drug/ alcohol use (n= 35) 5) Illegal activity/ legal status (n= 32) 6) Family/ social relationships (n= 38) and 7) Psychiatric health (n= 23). [1] [4]

The general situations of each area would first be inquired, then patients are asked to rate in certain questions on their subjective feeling on the area. Next, interviewers would be able to estimate a score in the interviewer severity rating based on both objective and subjective information inquired. Lastly, a confidence rating would be given by the interviewers.

An interview using the ASI would be conducted with the patient alone and entirely confidential to safeguard the privacy of the patient. 20170906 GCC@LGC Nursing Mock Interviews (37133335652).jpg
An interview using the ASI would be conducted with the patient alone and entirely confidential to safeguard the privacy of the patient.

In the medical, alcohol, drug and psychiatric sections, there are the "Final Three" questions (the number of questions including, but not limited to 3) placed before the estimation of interviewer severity rating in which they are logically related. For instance, in the "medical health" area, question 6 inquires about the frequency of experiencing medical problems in the last 30 days, question 7 inquires about the frequency of being troubled by these medical problems (referring to question 6) and question 8 inquires about the importance of treatment for these medical problems (also referring to question 6). It could be seen that if question 6 is answered 0, questions 7 and 8 should also be answered 0. On the other hand, if question 6 is a non-zero positive number, questions 7 and 8 should also be answered with non-zero positive numbers. [5]

Confidence rating contains 2 questions confirming the full understanding of the interviewees which are rated by the interviewers. The items would ensure that there are no misrepresentations by the patients and they are able to understand all parts of the questions under certain sections.

Interview process

Despite the feasibility of self-administration of the ASI with similar consistency as face-to-face interview, [6] the survey would be preferably conducted in an interactive interview privately as it ensures interviewees could understand all the questions by further repeating, paraphrasing as well as probing and as a gesture of politeness and support to patients. [1] [5] The first interview which is done at admission would be estimated to complete within 45–75 minutes and the follow-up interview would be completed within 25–30 minutes. [1]   

Pharmaceutical companies using ASI in several pharmacovigilance studies to test for product abuse liability Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Bio-pharmaceutical division.JPG
Pharmaceutical companies using ASI in several pharmacovigilance studies to test for product abuse liability

Application

The original purpose of ASI was to serve as a standardized data collection instrument for clinical staff for the determination of the severity of the addiction of patients through objective and subjective information. [3] The estimated severity rating would guide the clinicians to determine the urgency of treatments. It was also designed for research staff to test for the efficacy of interventions by comparing the before and after results of the ASI using CSs. [1]

The popularity of ASI grew as other languages [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] of the ASI-5 was found to be equally reliable and valid. It could also be seen that the use of ASI was spread beyond the field of medicine and research. The expansion of populations that the ASI was used on besides the substance-dependent treatment population sees the increase of its versatility. Since 2000, the ASI has been used in sectors ranging from welfare to criminal justice to employment. [1] It was also used in conjunction with other indexes to have extensive reviews on not only the effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness of novel treatment. [13] Lastly, the ASI is adopted in several pharmacovigilance studies by pharmaceutical companies to test for products abuse liability. [1] [14]

Scoring

Definition

The scoring system enables clinicians to determine the severity of the addiction of the patients which is defined as the need for treatment where there currently is none; or for an additional form or type of treatment where the patient is currently receiving some form of treatment, [5] instead of a deviation from optimum function. [3] It was exemplified that if a patient with extremely poor uncorrected vision but was adjusted with glasses, their pathological condition would be classified as severe yet using the definition used in ASI, their severity would be rated as minimal as they were well-adjusted with glasses for daily activities. In addition, it is of paramount importance to understand that the ratings do not indicate the potential benefits from treatments but depict the extent to which some forms of effective interventions are needed regardless of their existence and availability. [5]

Scoring system

In clinical practice, two scores would be derived for each section by reviewing the patient's situation in two time frames, including lifetime and past-30 days from the date of the interview. The scores from each section are independent of each other including the ISR and patient severity item. The ISR is determined by both objective information that are verifiable tests and patients' judgement of severity. Interviewers would gather all the objective information and a range of scores would be selected based on a 10-point system. The system would be listed below: [1] [5] [15]

ScoresInterviewer severity rating
0–1No real problem, treatment not indicated
2–3Slight problem, treatment probably not necessary
4–5Moderate problem, some treatment indicated
6–7Considerable problem, treatment necessary
8–9Extreme problem, treatment absolutely necessary

Once a specific range is selected, the exact score would be determined based on the subjective information provided by the patient. It would be related to their subjective perceptions of their addictions only for the past 30 days before the initiation of the interview and they would be asked to grade by themselves based on a 5-point system. The scale would be listed below: [1] [4] [5] [15]

ScoresPatients' judgement of severity
0Not at all
1Slightly
2Moderately
3Considerably
4Extremely

Patients could leave the question blank if they are uncomfortable to answer.

Once the interviewers have selected the suitable range of severity rating, they would further derive the exact score based on the patients' subjective judgement. Should the patient choose higher scores in these specific questions, the higher point of the range would be selected. [1] If lower scores are rated by the patient, a middle or lower score of the range would be pinpointed by the interviewers. [1]

Despite the tested reliability and validity of the ISR and its ability to summarize patients' overall status in clinical admission, it has several drawbacks that made it not favourable for research purposes. Its subjective nature means that biases would easily be introduced during research analysis. [5] In addition, its reliability and validity only last when all the data is available and the interviews are done face to face which might not be in follow-ups. [1] [5]

Composite scores

With reference to the shortcomings of ISR, composite scores (CSs) are derived specifically to evaluate changes over time and relativity to different population groups in research. CSs are used in a scoring system that could be calculated for each of the 7 aspects by combining items from specific questions inquiring about the past 30-day status with equal weighting. [5] In view of the possibility of large variations between answers (e.g.: patient rating scale of 0–4 and money earned), the composites would be calculated by dividing each item within a composite by its maximum value, then divide again by the total number of questions in the said composite. [16] Finally, summation of all the scores will generate a score between 0 and 1.

This is the cover page of the ASI composite score manual. CompositeManual1.jpg
This is the cover page of the ASI composite score manual.

An example has been depicted in the composite score manual. [16] In the medical sections, three questions are included in the composite score calculation:

A. How many days have you experienced medical problems in the last 30? (Maximum value = 30)

B. How troubled or bothered have you been by your medical problems in the past 30 days? (Maximum value = 4 (Patient's rating))

C. How important to you now is treatment for these medical problems? (Maximum value = 4 (Patient's rating))

If the answer recorded for the three questions were 15 days for A, a rating of 3/4 for B and a rating of 4/4 for C. The score would be calculated using the equation below:

Although the CSs are a measure of problem severity, with high scores indicating higher severity, their intrinsic value would have little meaning and they could not be compared between different aspects probed. CSs are advised to be only used for measuring changes in various time-points of treatments or relative outcomes between groups.  

Confidence rating

There are 2 possible scores that could be given to each of the 2 questions in the confidence rating (0= No and 1= Yes). [4] Factors ranging from unjustified contradiction of information to lack of confidence in answering, patients' misrepresentation to poor understanding of questions due to reasons including but not limited to language barrier and illiteracy all contribute to poor confidence rating. [5] Interviewers are encouraged to recognize and reconcile the aforementioned issues. But the interview would be terminated and rescheduled should the problems would not be resolved.

Ongoing improvement of ASI

A graphical demonstration of reliability and validity in statistical analysis. Reliability and validity.svg
A graphical demonstration of reliability and validity in statistical analysis.

As clinicians gained more experience with the use of ASI-5 in real-life practice, it was pointed out that some questions in the questionnaire might be overlapping with information collected during admission. In a bid to avoid duplication and wasting medical resources, a condensed form of ASI, ASI-Lite was introduced in 1997. [17] Modifications were done including the removal of interviewer severity rating, removal of questions pertaining to family/genetic heritability and emotional problems and the inclusions of research-oriented questions. It consists of 111 items and requires 30–40 minutes to complete. [17] Since most key elements are retained, ASI-Lite and ASI-5 showed similar reliability and validity. [18]

ASI-5 and ASI-Lite are continued to be used during clinical admission until the 21st century. Yet, a useful instrument should be reviewed and re-evaluated overtime to keep up with the advance in technology and change in social norms, coupled with the wider use of the ASI outside of clinical and research purposes, fundamental changes are brought to the development of a newer ASI, the ASI-6. [1]

The principle of the revision is to add more content in each domain while shortening training and testing time, as well as retaining the essential element in ASI. The addition of new content such as queries on the date of most recent occurrence of more severe symptoms, days of hospitalizations for mental health problems and recent patients' status ranging from homelessness to pregnancy, tobacco use to gambling aimed to provide wider coverage. [1] [14] In addition, a time frame of 6-month was added for cost-related questions on top of the lifetime and past 30-day time frames in view of increased popularity in use cost-effectiveness analysis. [1] In view of the additional content, "skip-outs" could be employed on screening questions to keep the interview within an hour. [14] In terms of data analysis, confirmatory non-linear analysis was added to better meet the new application of ASI-6. [14] All in all, the ASI-6 is supported to be used clinically and in research with acceptable scalability, reliability and concurrent validity. [14] The ASI would continued to be improved with reference to the updating knowledge in psychology and the ever-changing socioeconomic factors in the society.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alcoholism</span> Problematic excessive alcohol consumption

Alcoholism is the continued drinking of alcohol despite it causing problems. Some definitions require evidence of dependence and withdrawal. Problematic use of alcohol has been mentioned in the earliest historical records, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated there were 283 million people with alcohol use disorders worldwide as of 2016. The term alcoholism was first coined in 1852, but alcoholism and alcoholic are stigmatizing and discourage seeking treatment, so clinical diagnostic terms such as alcohol use disorder or alcohol dependence are used instead.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Substance abuse</span> Harmful use of drugs

Substance abuse, also known as drug abuse, is the use of a drug in amounts or by methods that are harmful to the individual or others. It is a form of substance-related disorder. Differing definitions of drug abuse are used in public health, medical, and criminal justice contexts. In some cases, criminal or anti-social behavior occurs when the person is under the influence of a drug, and long-term personality changes in individuals may also occur. In addition to possible physical, social, and psychological harm, the use of some drugs may also lead to criminal penalties, although these vary widely depending on the local jurisdiction.

Drug rehabilitation is the process of medical or psychotherapeutic treatment for dependency on psychoactive substances such as alcohol, prescription drugs, and street drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, heroin or amphetamines. The general intent is to enable the patient to confront substance dependence, if present, and stop substance misuse to avoid the psychological, legal, financial, social, and physical consequences that can be caused.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alcohol dependence</span> Medical condition

Alcohol dependence is a previous psychiatric diagnosis in which an individual is physically or psychologically dependent upon alcohol.

Physical dependence is a physical condition caused by chronic use of a tolerance-forming drug, in which abrupt or gradual drug withdrawal causes unpleasant physical symptoms. Physical dependence can develop from low-dose therapeutic use of certain medications such as benzodiazepines, opioids, stimulants, antiepileptics and antidepressants, as well as the recreational misuse of drugs such as alcohol, opioids and benzodiazepines. The higher the dose used, the greater the duration of use, and the earlier age use began are predictive of worsened physical dependence and thus more severe withdrawal syndromes. Acute withdrawal syndromes can last days, weeks or months. Protracted withdrawal syndrome, also known as post-acute-withdrawal syndrome or "PAWS", is a low-grade continuation of some of the symptoms of acute withdrawal, typically in a remitting-relapsing pattern, often resulting in relapse and prolonged disability of a degree to preclude the possibility of lawful employment. Protracted withdrawal syndrome can last for months, years, or depending on individual factors, indefinitely. Protracted withdrawal syndrome is noted to be most often caused by benzodiazepines. To dispel the popular misassociation with addiction, physical dependence to medications is sometimes compared to dependence on insulin by persons with diabetes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Problem gambling</span> Repetitive gambling despite demonstrable harm and adverse consequences

Problem gambling or ludomania is repetitive gambling behavior despite harm and negative consequences. Problem gambling may be diagnosed as a mental disorder according to DSM-5 if certain diagnostic criteria are met. Pathological gambling is a common disorder associated with social and family costs.

The SOAP note is a method of documentation employed by healthcare providers to write out notes in a patient's chart, along with other common formats, such as the admission note. Documenting patient encounters in the medical record is an integral part of practice workflow starting with appointment scheduling, patient check-in and exam, documentation of notes, check-out, rescheduling, and medical billing. Additionally, it serves as a general cognitive framework for physicians to follow as they assess their patients.

Substance dependence, also known as drug dependence, is a biopsychological situation whereby an individual's functionality is dependent on the necessitated re-consumption of a psychoactive substance because of an adaptive state that has developed within the individual from psychoactive substance consumption that results in the experience of withdrawal and that necessitates the re-consumption of the drug. A drug addiction, a distinct concept from substance dependence, is defined as compulsive, out-of-control drug use, despite negative consequences. An addictive drug is a drug which is both rewarding and reinforcing. ΔFosB, a gene transcription factor, is now known to be a critical component and common factor in the development of virtually all forms of behavioral and drug addictions, but not dependence.

The clinical global impression (CGI) rating scales are measures of symptom severity, treatment response and the efficacy of treatments in treatment studies of patients with mental disorders. It is a brief 3-item observer-rated scale that can be used in clinical practice as well as in researches to track symptom changes. It was developed by Early Clinical Drug Evaluation Program (ECDEU) team of researchers for use in NIMH-led clinical trials that could provide clinical judgment based assessment for determining the severity of symptoms and the treatment progress. This was meant to assess the patient's functioning prior to and after initiating medication in trials which is an important part of study process. Its 3 items assess, 1) Severity of Illness (CGI-S), 2) Global Improvement (CGI-I), and 3) Efficacy Index. Many researchers, while recognizing the validity of the scale, consider it to be subjective as it requires the user of the scale to compare the subjects to typical patients in the clinician experience.

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is a ten-item questionnaire approved by the World Health Organization to screen patients for hazardous (risky) and harmful alcohol consumption. It was developed from a WHO multi-country collaborative study, the items being selected for the AUDIT being the best performing of approximately 150 items including in the original survey. It is widely used as a summary measure of alcohol use and related problems. It has application in primary health care, medical clinics, and hospital units and performs well in these settings. Using different cut-off points, it can also screen for Alcohol Use Disorder (DSM-5) and Alcohol Dependence. Guidelines for the use of the AUDIT have been published by WHO and are available in several languages. It has become a widely used instrument and has been translated into approximately fifty languages.

The Clinical Dementia Rating or CDR is a numeric scale used to quantify the severity of symptoms of dementia.

The CAGE questionnaire, the name of which is an acronym of its four questions, is a widely used screening test for problem drinking and potential alcohol problems. The questionnaire takes less than one minute to administer, and is often used in primary care or other general settings as a quick screening tool rather than as an in-depth interview for those who have alcoholism. The CAGE questionnaire does not have a specific intended population, and is meant to find those who drink excessively and need treatment. The CAGE questionnaire is reliable and valid; however, it is not valid for diagnosis of other substance use disorders, although somewhat modified versions of the CAGE questionnaire have been frequently implemented for such a purpose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alcohol detoxification</span> Abrupt cessation of alcohol intake

Alcohol detoxification is the abrupt cessation of alcohol intake in individuals that have alcohol use disorder. This process is often coupled with substitution of drugs that have effects similar to the effects of alcohol in order to lessen the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. When withdrawal does occur, it results in symptoms of varying severity.

The CRAFFT is a short clinical assessment tool designed to screen for substance-related risks and problems in adolescents. CRAFFT stands for the key words of the 6 items in the second section of the assessment - Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble. As of 2020, updated versions of the CRAFFT known as the “CRAFFT 2.1” and "CRAFFT 2.1+N" have been released.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Substance use disorder</span> Continual use of drugs (including alcohol) despite detrimental consequences

Substance use disorder (SUD) is the persistent use of drugs despite the substantial harm and adverse consequences to one's own self and others, as a result of their use. In perspective, the effects of the wrong use of substances that are capable of causing harm to the user or others, have been extensively described in different studies using a variety of terms such as substance use problems, problematic drugs or alcohol use, and substance use disorder. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) states that "Substance use disorder (SUD) is a treatable mental disorder that affects a person's brain and behavior, leading to their inability to control their use of substances like legal or illegal drugs, alcohol, or medications. Symptoms can be moderate to severe, with addiction being the most severe form of SUD". Substance use disorders (SUD) are considered to be a serious mental illness that fluctuates with the age that symptoms first start appearing in an individual, the time during which it exists and the type of substance that is used. It is not uncommon for those who have SUD to also have other mental health disorders. Substance use disorders are characterized by an array of mental/emotional, physical, and behavioral problems such as chronic guilt; an inability to reduce or stop consuming the substance(s) despite repeated attempts; operating vehicles while intoxicated; and physiological withdrawal symptoms. Drug classes that are commonly involved in SUD include: alcohol (alcoholism); cannabis; opioids; stimulants such as nicotine, cocaine and amphetamines; benzodiazepines; barbiturates; and other substances.

About 1 in 7 Americans suffer from active addiction to a particular substance. Addiction can cause physical, psychological, and emotional harm to those who are affected by it. The American Society of Addiction Medicine defines addiction as "a treatable, chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual's life experiences. People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences." In the world of psychology and medicine, there are two models that are commonly used in understanding the psychology behind addiction itself. One model is referred to as the disease model of addiction. The disease model suggests that addiction is a diagnosable disease similar to cancer or diabetes. This model attributes addiction to a chemical imbalance in an individual's brain that could be caused by genetics or environmental factors. The second model is the choice model of addiction, which holds that addiction is a result of voluntary actions rather than some dysfunction of the brain. Through this model, addiction is viewed as a choice and is studied through components of the brain such as reward, stress, and memory. Substance addictions relate to drugs, alcohol, and smoking. Process addictions relate to non-substance-related behaviors such as gambling, spending money, sexual activity, gaming, spending time on the internet, and eating.

The Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol, commonly abbreviated as CIWA or CIWA-Ar, is a 10-item scale used in the assessment and management of alcohol withdrawal. Each item on the scale is scored independently, and the summation of the scores yields an aggregate value that correlates to the severity of alcohol withdrawal, with ranges of scores designed to prompt specific management decisions such as the administration of benzodiazepines. The maximum score is 67; Mild alcohol withdrawal is defined with a score less than or equal to 10, moderate with scores 11 to 15, and severe with any score equal to or greater than 16.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles P. O'Brien</span> American research scientist, medical educator (born 1939)

Charles P. O'Brien is a research scientist, medical educator and a leading expert in the science and treatment of addiction. He is board certified in neurology, psychiatry and addiction psychiatry. He is currently the Kenneth E. Appel Professor of Psychiatry, and vice chair of psychiatry, in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Linda Carter Sobell, Ph.D., ABPP, is the President's Distinguished Professor at Nova Southeastern University (NSU) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She is a professor of clinical psychology, addiction specialist, co-director of NSU's Guided Self-Change clinic, a Motivational Interviewing Trainer, and is board-certified in cognitive and behavioral psychology.

Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a model that encourages mental health and substance use screenings as a routine preventive service in healthcare.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Thomas McLellan, A.; Cacciola, John C.; Alterman, Arthur I.; Rikoon, Samuel H.; Carise, Deni (2006). "The Addiction Severity Index at 25: Origins, Contributions and Transitions". American Journal on Addictions. 15 (2): 113–124. doi:10.1080/10550490500528316. ISSN   1055-0496. PMID   16595348.
  2. ↑ "Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center | VA Philadelphia health care". Veterans Affairs. February 8, 2022. Retrieved March 25, 2022.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 McLellan, A Thomas; Luborsky, Lester; Woody, George E.; O'brien, Charles P. (1980). "An Improved Diagnostic Evaluation Instrument for Substance Abuse Patients". The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 168 (1): 26–33. doi:10.1097/00005053-198001000-00006. ISSN   0022-3018. PMID   7351540. S2CID   42709114.
  4. 1 2 3 4 McLellan, A.Thomas; Kushner, Harvey; Metzger, David; Peters, Roger; Smith, Iris; Grissom, Grant; Pettinati, Helen; Argeriou, Milton (1992). "The fifth edition of the addiction severity index". Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 9 (3): 199–213. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-s . ISSN   0740-5472. PMID   1334156.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Carise, D. (2007). Addiction Severity Index Treatnet Version: Manual and Question by Question "Q by Q" Guide. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
  6. ↑ Rosen, Craig S.; Henson, Brandy R.; Finney, John W.; Moos, Rudolf H. (2000). "Consistency of self-administered and interview-based Addiction Severity Index composite scores". Addiction. 95 (3): 419–425. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.95341912.x. ISSN   0965-2140. PMID   10795362.
  7. ↑ Nyström, Siv; Andrén, Anders; Zingmark, David; Bergman, Hans (September 6, 2010). "The reliability of the Swedish version of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI)". Journal of Substance Use. 15 (5): 330–339. doi:10.3109/14659890903431629. ISSN   1465-9891. S2CID   145224960.
  8. ↑ Sun, Zhen; Chen, Hanhui; Su, Zhonghua; Zhou, Xuhui; Zhang, Sheng; Hao, Wei; Zhang, Ruiling (2012). "The Chinese version of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI-C): Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in Chinese patients with alcohol dependence". Alcohol. 46 (8): 777–781. doi:10.1016/j.alcohol.2012.08.005. ISSN   0741-8329. PMID   23146314.
  9. ↑ Krenz, Sonia; Dieckmann, Sarah; Favrat, Bernard; Spagnoli, Jacques; Leutwyler, Joëlle; Schnyder, Christiane; Daeppen, Jean-Bernard; Besson, Jacques (2004). "French Version of the Addiction Severity Index (5th Edition): Validity and Reliability among Swiss Opiate-Dependent Patients". European Addiction Research. 10 (4): 173–179. doi:10.1159/000079839. ISSN   1022-6877. PMID   15367819. S2CID   2248570.
  10. ↑ Scheurich, A; Müller, M J; Wetzel, H; Anghelescu, I; Klawe, C; Ruppe, A; Lörch, B; Himmerich, H; Heidenreich, M; Schmid, G; Hautzinger, M (2000). "Reliability and validity of the German version of the European Addiction Severity Index (EuropASI)". Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 61 (6): 916–919. doi:10.15288/jsa.2000.61.916. ISSN   0096-882X. PMID   11188499.
  11. ↑ Butler, Stephen F.; Redondo, José Pedro; Fernandez, Kathrine C.; Villapiano, Albert (2009). "Validation of the Spanish Addiction Severity Index Multimedia Version (S-ASI-MV)". Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 99 (1–3): 18–27. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.06.012. ISSN   0376-8716. PMC   2651671 . PMID   18718727.
  12. ↑ Sartes, Laisa Marcorela A.; De Micheli, Denise; Souza-Formigoni, Maria Lucia O. (April 18, 2009). "Psychometric and discriminative properties of the Teen Addiction Severity Index (Brazilian Portuguese version)". European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 18 (11): 653–661. doi:10.1007/s00787-009-0021-z. ISSN   1018-8827. PMID   19377864. S2CID   33427224.
  13. ↑ French, Michael T.; Salomé, Helena J.; Sindelar, Jody L.; Thomas McLellan, A. (2002). "Benefit-Cost Analysis of Addiction Treatment: Methodological Guidelines and Empirical Application Using the DATCAP and ASI". Health Services Research. 37 (2): 433–455. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.031. ISSN   0017-9124. PMC   1430361 . PMID   12036002.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 Cacciola, John S.; Alterman, Arthur I.; Habing, Brian; McLellan, A. Thomas (August 5, 2011). "Recent status scores for version 6 of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI-6)". Addiction. 106 (9): 1588–1602. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03482.x. ISSN   0965-2140. PMC   3602995 . PMID   21545666.
  15. 1 2 McLellan, A. T. (1985). Guide to the Addiction Severity Index: Background, administration, and field testing results. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
  16. 1 2 3 McGahan, P. L., Griffith, J. A., Parente, R., & McLellann, A. T. (1986). Composite scores manual. Treatment Research Institute Philadelphia, PA.
  17. 1 2 McLellan, A. T., Cacciola, J. S., & Zanis, D. (1997). The addiction severity index-lite. Center for the Studies on Addiction, University of Pennsylvania/Philadelphia VA Medical Center.
  18. ↑ Cacciola, John S.; Alterman, Arthur I.; McLellan, A. Thomas; Lin, Yi-Ting; Lynch, Kevin G. (2007). "Initial evidence for the reliability and validity of a "Lite" version of the Addiction Severity Index". Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 87 (2–3): 297–302. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.09.002. ISSN   0376-8716. PMID   17045423.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.