test results accurately measured offenders’ problems. For example, an Alcohol Scale score in the problem risk range (70 to 89th percentile) means that these offenders have a drinking problem. The offender’s DRI-II Short Form scale scores accurately represent offenders’ actual risk. How accurate are these scores? The DRI-II Short Form is nearly 98 percent accurate. This percent was shown in the above table for each of the 16 comparisons. The numbers in parentheses were almost all less than two percent.

Within-test reliability, or inter-item reliability coefficient alphas for the DRI-II Short Form are presented in the table below. Alpha levels of .75 are generally accepted for test reliability. Alpha coefficients above .85 are considered very reliable. There are 8,145 DUI offenders included in this analysis.

*The Substance Abuse/Dependency Classification Scale is a classification as opposed to a measurement scale derived from DSM-IV criteria. Dependency and abuse items do not measure the extent to which predicted criteria are met. However, the Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale’s coefficient alpha is included here because it demonstrates that DSM-IV dependency and abuse items as incorporated in the DRI-II are also reliable.

All DRI-II Short Form scales have Alpha coefficients that are well above the professionally accepted standard of .75. Indeed, four scales are between .85 and .86, and one scale is at .91. High reliability coefficients have been demonstrated by DRI-II and DRI-II Short Form scales consistently year after year. These reliability coefficients are very impressive. Tests must be statistically reliable before they can be considered accurate. These results show that the DRI-II Short Form is a highly reliable DUI risk assessment instrument.

In summary, the DRI-II Short Form has again been demonstrated to be a reliable assessment instrument. Scale scores Alpha Coefficients are at or above .85 which means they are trustworthy and dependable.

Validity refers to the ability of a test to measure what it is designed to measure. It is important to consider a test’s validity. There would be no advantage in using a test that is not valid. A test that purports to measure drinking problems must accurately measure an individual’s drinking problem just as an instrument for measuring blood pressure must

accurately measure blood pressure. If the test is not valid it is not useful as a measuring instrument. DRI-II Short Form scales represent areas of inquiry while scale scores measure severity of problems.

Test validity is commonly measured by administering a second criterion test that purports to measure the same thing. This was done in the DRI-II and DRI-II Short Form normative standardization studies, which are reported in the document DRI-II: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. However, it is not practical to administer criterion tests during ongoing operations because it is too time consuming. That is why unique database validity measures are utilized in this report. DRI-II and DRI-II Short Form validity has been studied in the past using criterion measures that are summarized in the DRI-II: An Inventory of Scientific Findings.

Measures of severity must accurately differentiate between problem and non-problem clients. A comparison between groups selected on the basis of a known problem is a statistical validation method commonly referred to as discriminant validity. It is expected that offenders having problems would have higher scores than offenders who do not have problems. For these analyses offenders with two or more DUI arrests (multiple offenders) were defined as offenders with problems. It is predicted that multiple offenders would have higher scale scores than first offenders.

The answer sheet item "Number of DUI arrests in your lifetime" was used to operationally define first offenders (1 DUI arrest) and multiple offenders (2 or more DUI arrests). The t-test comparisons between first offenders and multiple offenders for each DRI-II Short Form scale are presented in the table below. The Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale is not a measurement scale, consequently, it is not included in this analysis.

The above table shows that mean (average) scale scores of first offenders were lower than scores for multiple offenders on all DRI-II Short Form scales except the Truthfulness Scale. As expected, multiple offenders scored significantly higher on the Alcohol, Driver Risk and Drugs Scales than did first offenders. Higher scores for multiple offenders means they have higher risk or that their problems are more severe than first offenders.

With regards to the Truthfulness Scale, first offenders scored statistically higher than did multiple offenders. This result has been demonstrated many times over the years with different tests. One explanation of this result suggests that first offenders try to minimize their problems more than do multiple offenders who may be more sensitized to the availability of their court records. In other words, multiple offenders are more candid about their DUI histories or first offenders are more naïve and attempt to minimize their DUI histories. The Truthfulness Scale was demonstrated to be reliable as shown above and validity was well established in validation studies that are reported in the DRI-II: An Inventory of Scientific Findings.

This analysis shows that the Alcohol, Driver Risk and Drugs Scales results support the discriminant validity of the DRI-II Short Form. These results are important because they show that the Alcohol, Driver Risk and Drugs Scales do measure level of severity. The offenders who are thought to have more severe problems (multiple offenders) score significantly higher on these scales than the first-time offenders. These results strongly support the discriminant validity of the Alcohol, Driver Risk and Drugs Scales.

To be considered accurate a DUI test must accurately identify problem offenders (drinkers or drug abusers). The criterion in this analysis for identifying offenders as problem drinkers or drug abusers is having been in treatment (alcohol or drug). Having been in treatment identifies DUI offenders as having had an alcohol or drug problem. If a person has never had an alcohol or drug problem it is likely they have not been treated for an alcohol or drug problem. In the DRI-II Short Form, treatment information is directly obtained from DUI offenders. Thus, offenders can be separated into two groups, those who had treatment and those who have not had treatment. It is predicted that DUI offenders with an alcohol or drug treatment history will score in the problem risk range or above (70^th percentile and above) on the Alcohol and Drugs Scales, respectively. Alcohol and Drugs Scale scores in the Low, Problem and Severe Problem risk ranges were used to represent no problem and problem groups, respectively. Substance abuse treatment information is obtained from offender answers to DRI-II Short Form test items (#26, #49 & #70) regarding alcohol and drug treatment. For the Drugs Scale item #49 refers to attendance at Narcotics Anonymous or Cocaine Anonymous.

The Alcohol Scale correctly identified over 93 percent of DUI offenders who have alcohol problems. There were 1,871 offenders who reported having been in alcohol treatment. These offenders are classified as problem drinkers. Of these 1,871 offenders, 1,740 individuals (93%) had Alcohol Scale scores at or above the 70th percentile. The Alcohol Scale correctly identified over 93 percent of the offenders categorized as problem drinkers. This high rate of correct identification represents accurate assessment of offenders who have had alcohol treatment. These results strongly support the validity of the DRI-II Short Form Alcohol Scale.

The DRI-II Short Form Drugs Scale is also very accurate in identifying offenders who have drug problems. There were 820 offenders who reported having attended NA or CA meetings because of their drug problem, of these, 812 offenders, or 99 percent, had Drugs Scale scores at or above the 70th percentile. These results represent very accurate assessment. The DRI-II Short Form Drugs Scale is valid and accurate. Predictive validity of the DRI-II Short Form is demonstrated by the correct identification of problem prone offenders.

4

The DRI-II Short Form Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale classifies offenders according to their responses to DSM-IV substance abuse and substance dependency criteria. If one or more of the four abuse criteria (symptoms) is answered (admission) positively the offender is classified as a substance abuser. If three or more of the seven dependency criteria (symptoms) are answered positively the offender meets the classification of substance dependency. These DSM-IV criteria are discussed in the DRI-II Orientation and Training Manual.

The results of this analysis show that 18.1 percent or 1,477 offenders (18.9% of males and 14.4% of females) meet the criteria for substance dependency as defined by the DSM-IV items contained in the DRI-II Short Form. There are 4,857 offenders or 59.6 percent (60.2% of males and 56.7% of females) classified as substance abuse. 1,811 (22.2%) offenders (20.9% of males and 29.0% of females) do not meet the criteria of substance dependency or abuse. There are 721 (8.9%) offenders (9.0% of males and 8.2% of females) who reported having been diagnosed dependent in the past. In the DSM-IV if a person is once diagnosed "dependent" they are always considered dependent thereafter.

The Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale classifies offenders according to DSM-IV criteria, whereas DRI-II Short Form test items measure severity or the degree to which a problem exists. Severity level lies along a continuum from low severity to high severity. In contrast, the Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale is a classification, which means offenders meet criteria or they don’t. These two elements can be contrasted by reviewing clients’ self-perceptions of their problems and desires for remediation. Objective DRI-II Short Form scale scores (e.g., Alcohol and Drugs) measure severity of use or abuse, whereas client opinions (as reflected in Section 3: items 68 through 73) are subjective and biased.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4^th Edition (DSM-IV) is used throughout the United States to diagnose substance abuse (alcohol and other drugs) disorders. Since many CRO’s are not certified/licensed mental health providers, diagnostic terms are used very carefully in the DRI-II and DRI-II Short Form. These tests (DRI-II) classify DUI offenders as problem prone, e.g., abuse, dependent or non-pathological. The CRO can then decide whether or not to refer classified offenders to certified/licensed mental health providers for a more comprehensive evaluation, diagnosis (when appropriate) and written treatment plan.

The clients’ responses presented in the table below represent the client's own opinions (along with their biases) about his or her problems, as well as their motivation for help. There were 8,145 clients included in this analysis (6,788 males and 1,357 females). As noted above, these percentages represent offender opinions (with all of their biases). Consequently we can anticipate problem minimization, particularly in court-related settings.

Nearly two-thirds of the offenders were first time offenders. Their DUI arrest could be an isolated event or it could be an indication that the individual has a drinking or drug problem. That is why screening for substance (alcohol and other drugs) abuse is so important. There is no doubt all DUI offenders are a driver risk. For these offenders, 35.1% of the males and 26.6% of the females stated their drinking was either a serious, moderate or mild problem. 11.1% of the males and 8.5% of the females stated their drug use was a serious, moderate or mild

The DRI-II Short Form Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale classifies offenders according to their responses to DSM-IV substance abuse and substance dependency criteria. If one or more of the four abuse criteria (symptoms) is answered (admission) positively the offender is classified as a substance abuser. If three or more of the seven dependency criteria (symptoms) are answered positively the offender meets the classification of substance dependency. These DSM-IV criteria are discussed in the DRI-II Orientation and Training Manual.

The results of this analysis show that 18.1 percent or 1,477 offenders (18.9% of males and 14.4% of females) meet the criteria for substance dependency as defined by the DSM-IV items contained in the DRI-II Short Form. There are 4,857 offenders or 59.6 percent (60.2% of males and 56.7% of females) classified as substance abuse. 1,811 (22.2%) offenders (20.9% of males and 29.0% of females) do not meet the criteria of substance dependency or abuse. There are 721 (8.9%) offenders (9.0% of males and 8.2% of females) who reported having been diagnosed dependent in the past. In the DSM-IV if a person is once diagnosed "dependent" they are always considered dependent thereafter.

The Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale classifies offenders according to DSM-IV criteria, whereas DRI-II Short Form test items measure severity or the degree to which a problem exists. Severity level lies along a continuum from low severity to high severity. In contrast, the Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale is a classification, which means offenders meet criteria or they don’t. These two elements can be contrasted by reviewing clients’ self-perceptions of their problems and desires for remediation. Objective DRI-II Short Form scale scores (e.g., Alcohol and Drugs) measure severity of use or abuse, whereas client opinions (as reflected in Section 3: items 68 through 73) are subjective and biased.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4^th Edition (DSM-IV) is used throughout the United States to diagnose substance abuse (alcohol and other drugs) disorders. Since many CRO’s are not certified/licensed mental health providers, diagnostic terms are used very carefully in the DRI-II and DRI-II Short Form. These tests (DRI-II) classify DUI offenders as problem prone, e.g., abuse, dependent or non-pathological. The CRO can then decide whether or not to refer classified offenders to certified/licensed mental health providers for a more comprehensive evaluation, diagnosis (when appropriate) and written treatment plan.

The clients’ responses presented in the table below represent the client's own opinions (along with their biases) about his or her problems, as well as their motivation for help. There were 8,145 clients included in this analysis (6,788 males and 1,357 females). As noted above, these percentages represent offender opinions (with all of their biases). Consequently we can anticipate problem minimization, particularly in court-related settings.

Nearly two-thirds of the offenders were first time offenders. Their DUI arrest could be an isolated event or it could be an indication that the individual has a drinking or drug problem. That is why screening for substance (alcohol and other drugs) abuse is so important. There is no doubt all DUI offenders are a driver risk. For these offenders, 35.1% of the males and 26.6% of the females stated their drinking was either a serious, moderate or mild problem. 11.1% of the males and 8.5% of the females stated their drug use was a serious, moderate or mild

problem. This is a substantial number of people admitting to having alcohol and drug problems. Similarly a large percentage of offenders indicated they were interested in getting help for their drinking (16.7% males and 14.9% females) and drug use (10.0% males and 8.1% females) problems. These statistics reflect a growing number of offenders that consider their drinking and drug use serious enough to want help.

Nearly one-fourth of the males (18.1%) and 14.1 percent of the females reported having been in an alcohol treatment program (#26). Comparing these percentages with the percentages that admitted to a drinking problem (#38) there is fairly close agreement. However, there were also 37.6 percent of the offenders that had 2 or more DUI arrests (multiple offenders). The percentage of offenders who admit to having a drinking problem is less than half of the percentage of offenders who have two or more DUI arrests. Many multiple offenders are reluctant to admit to a drinking problem, particularly in court-related settings.