Does progressive stage transition mean getting better? A test of the Transtheoretical Model in alcoholism recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To test two central assumptions of stage movement in the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) vis-à-vis alcoholism recovery: (assumption 1) individuals making a forward transition to the action-oriented stages (i.e. preparation/action) will manifest relatively greater drinking improvements than their counterparts remaining in the pre-action stages (i.e. pre-contemplation, contemplation); and (assumption 2) individuals remaining in the pre-action stages across time will not demonstrate clinically relevant improvement in drinking outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary data analyses of data from Project MATCH, a large multi-site alcoholism treatment-matching study. MEASUREMENTS: At baseline and 3 months post-treatment, the following variables were measured: stage-of-change (based on the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment measure and the most recent stage assignment algorithm), drinks per drinking day (DDD) and percentage days abstinent (PDA). FINDINGS: Six of the eight tests of assumptions 1 and 2 failed to support the basic tenets of the TTM. Our study demonstrated that individuals making a progressive stage transition to the action-oriented stages (i.e. preparation/action) do not necessarily manifest greater improvements in drinking-related behavior than individuals remaining in the pre-action stages (i.e. pre-contemplation, contemplation), and that individuals remaining in the pre-action stages over time actually do manifest statistically significant and clinically important improvements in drinking-related behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings challenge not only the criterion validity associated with stage movement in the TTM account of alcoholism recovery, but also recent TTM-based substance abuse treatment approaches which systematically promote forward stage transition as a primary clinical goal and marker of therapeutic success.
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 | 0.033 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".