Sensitivity and Specificity of a Brief Personality Screening Instrument in Predicting Future Substance Use, Emotional, and Behavioral Problems: 18‐Month Predictive Validity of the Substance Use Risk Profile Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the validity, sensitivity, and specificity of the Substance Use Risk Profile Scale (SURPS), a measure of personality risk factors for substance use and other behavioral problems in adolescence. METHODS: The concurrent and predictive validity of the SURPS was tested in a sample of 1,162 adolescents (mean age: 13.7 years) using linear and logistic regressions, while its sensitivity and specificity were examined using the receiver operating characteristics curve analyses. RESULTS: Concurrent and predictive validity tests showed that all 4 brief scales-hopelessness (H), anxiety sensitivity (AS), impulsivity (IMP), and sensation seeking (SS)-were related, in theoretically expected ways, to measures of substance use and other behavioral and emotional problems. Results also showed that when using the 4 SURPS subscales to identify adolescents "at risk," one can identify a high number of those who developed problems (high sensitivity scores ranging from 72 to 91%). And, as predicted, because each scale is related to specific substance and mental health problems, good specificity was obtained when using the individual personality subscales (e.g., most adolescents identified at high risk by the IMP scale developed conduct or drug use problems within the next 18 months [a high specificity score of 70 to 80%]). CONCLUSIONS: The SURPS is a valuable tool for identifying adolescents at high risk for substance misuse and other emotional and behavioral problems. Implications of findings for the use of this measure in future research and prevention interventions are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".