Factor Validation of the Addiction Severity Index Scale Structure in Persons With Concurrent Disorders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the scale structure of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) in a sample of 1,802 substance abusers (43% alcohol dependent) with a concurrent psychiatric disorder (46% with mood disorders). The fit of the original composite score model based on the work of P. L. McGahan, J. A. Griffith, R. Parente, and A. T. McLellan (1990) was compared with the evaluation indices (EIs) developed by A. I. Alterman et al. (1998). The 5-dimensional model based on the EIs was an overall better fit to the data. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for the EIs ranged from.66 (family domain) to.75 (legal domain). The 5 EIs were moderately correlated (rs =.42-.72) with the interviewer severity ratings from the ASI. Evaluation studies involving concurrent disordered substance abusers should use the EIs as summary measures of change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".