MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395695113 · doi:10.1177/00938548241246437

Examining the Measurement Invariance and Psychometrics of the Drug Abuse Screening Test for Adolescents (DAST-A) in Justice-Involved Youth

2024· article· en· W4395695113 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Mogadam, Tracey A. Skilling, Michele Peterson‐Badali, Liam Hannah

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasurement invarianceSubstance abuseClinical psychologyConvergent validityPsychometricsPsychologyPoison controlLogistic regressionMental healthConcurrent validityPsychiatryTest validityEconomic JusticePredictive validityMedicineConfirmatory factor analysisStructural equation modelingMedical emergencyInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Substance abuse is a serious mental health concern and reoffense risk factor for justice-involved youth. The Drug Abuse Screening Test for Adolescents (DAST-A) is used to assess drug abuse in different contexts, yet its psychometric properties have not yet been thoroughly explored in youth justice samples. We examined the measurement invariance and psychometrics of the DAST-A in a diverse sample of 741 justice-involved youth ( N young men = 636). The tool showed strong reliability in the overall sample and subgroups (ω = .88–.94), and good convergent and concurrent validity. Logistic regression results indicated that, with each unit increase in DAST-A score, the odds of an substance use disorder (SUD) diagnosis increased by 23% (overall sample). The predictive validity findings were more robust for White youth than Black youth and as a result, a different cut-off score was explored for Black youth. The DAST-A demonstrated measurement invariance across gender and race. Practice implications 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207