An examination of the construct validity of the Transtheoretical Model in three longitudinal substance-abuse treatment studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An application of the Transtheoretical Model to 3 longitudinal studies of substance-abuse treatment, this dissertation aimed to evaluate its internal and external validity: the central claims that stage-related process-use is associated with stage-transition, that the stage-of-change construct can identify those most at-risk of treatment dropout, and that progressive movement through the stages-of-change can mark clinical improvement. Concerning the internal validity of the Model, Study 1 and Study 2 demonstrated that longitudinal process-use endorsement was not related to forward or backward stage-transition. In addition, the external validity of Transtheoretical Model did not receive clear support. Study 1 found that the stage-of-change substages did not predict dropout among adults engaged in substance-abuse treatment, but Study 3 demonstrated that those adolescents reporting higher Precontemplation scores were more likely to dropout of inpatient substance-abuse treatment. In addition, Study 2 found that forward stage-transition to the next higher stage was associated with improvement in drinking-related variables. In light of these results, this dissertation provides a strong empirical critique of the fundamental claims of the Transtheoretical Model.
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 | 0.093 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".