Table Of ContentCriminal Justice
Recent Scholarship
Edited by
Marilyn McShane and Frank P. Williams III
A Series from LFB Scholarly
Self-Reporting and the Diagnostic
Screening of Substance Abusing
Prisoners
William R. Crawley
LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC
El Paso 2009
Copyright © 2009 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC
All rights reserved.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Crawley, William R.
Self-reporting and the diagnostic screening of substance abusing
prisoners / William R. Crawley.
p. cm. -- (Criminal justice : recent scholarship)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-59332-302-8 (hardcover: alk. paper)
1. Prisoners--Substance use--United States--Prevention. 2. Substance
abuse--United States--Prevention. 3. Substance abuse--Treatment--
United States--Methodology. I. Title.
HV8836.5.C73 2009
365'.66729--dc22
2009032449
ISBN 978-1-59332-302-8
Printed on acid-free 250-year-life paper.
Manufactured in the United States of America.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I – THE SELF REPORT PARADOX IN CRIMINAL
JUSTICE ....................................................................1
Statement of the Problem...................................................................2
Background........................................................................................5
Purpose of the Study........................................................................10
Research Design and Methodology Overview................................10
Definition of Research Terms..........................................................14
Significance of the Study.................................................................15
Organization of this Book................................................................16
CHAPTER II – EVOLUTION OF SELF-REPORT
METHODOLOGY..................................................19
Chapter Organization.......................................................................21
Methods of Knowing.......................................................................23
Historical Value of the Self-Report Methodology...........................24
CHAPTER III – SELF REPORT SCREENING AND ISSUES OF
VALIDITY ............................................................53
Concerns and Threats to Validity Regarding the Use of the
Self-Report Methodology via Diagnostic Screening
Instrumentation................................................................................53
Summary..........................................................................................70
CHAPTER IV – EXAMINING THE VALIDITY OF
SELF-REPORT SCREENING IN PRISONS....75
Data Collections..............................................................................80
Data Analyses................................................................................100
CHAPTER V – RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RESULTS....113
Goodness of Fit Tests....................................................................116
Criterion Validity and Efficacy.....................................................123
Construct Validity..........................................................................131
Individual-Level, Drug-Related, and Developmental Influences
on Criterion Validity....................................................................144
CHAPTER VI – ADVANCING THE SELF-REPORT
METHODOLOGY..............................................199
Considering the Validity and Efficacy of the Self-Report
Screening Methodology.................................................................200
Summary........................................................................................211
v
Limitations of the Research...........................................................212
Strengths of the Research..............................................................214
Policy Implications........................................................................216
Implications for Further Research.................................................217
Conclusion.....................................................................................219
APPENDICES .................................................................................221
REFERENCES ................................................................................249
INDEX .............................................................................................267
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To name everyone who helped make this book possible would likely
not be feasible. Some took time to read the entire manuscript, while
others made small but significant contributions or suggestions. To this
end, I am deeply grateful to those individuals who lent their time to
answer interview questions and/or read and comment on relevant
sections of the manuscript.
My thanks go to the various law enforcement personnel (correctional
administrators and staff, police officers and detectives, federal and state
prosecutors, treatment providers), university researchers, and jail and
prison inmates who have extended themselves to me in confidence over
years of research to contribute to my ongoing education and
understanding of the “drug-crime nexus.”
I would be remise if I did not offer special thanks to Lisa Dopke, as her
early, often, and very detailed feedback served to convert the original
proposal for this book and helped shape the final result in very essential
ways, affecting everything from its structure to the accuracy of
information delivered. This would have been a very different, and
probably less worthwhile, book without her penetrating insights.
To my family, friends, colleagues, students, and everyone who
supported me in this creative process – thank you.
To my wife Amy – “you and me.”
vii
PREFACE
In the wake of an exploding incarceration rate, U.S. correctional
facilities have struggled, armed with relatively diminishing resources,
to address issues of “need for treatment.” To address this contemporary
mandate it has been necessary to develop and implement mechanisms
to triage incoming inmates. To this end, a variety of self-report-based
screening methodologies have begun to be extensively employed
throughout the criminal justice system as tools to collect diagnostic
information in place of clinicians. Although various self-report
screening instruments have indeed experienced scientific support as
applied within the general population, there exists a need for
empirically-based support for this methodology as utilized within
criminal justice populations. It was therefore the goal of this research to
examine the effectiveness of the self-report screening methodology in
generating valid data regarding drug and alcohol disorders within
institutionalized criminal justice venues.
In addressing these gaps in the research, a cross-sectional research
design was used where data were collected on a randomly drawn
sample of 424 recently incarcerated prisoners throughout the year 2001.
The current research employs a “meta-method” examination to assess
issues of validity between self-report screen findings and forensic
clinical psychological findings. Moreover, the study also affords
secondary data to make statistical comparisons between multiple
diagnostic screening instruments generated via self-report
methodology, forensic clinical psychological assessments, a variety of
other indexes of substance misuse, and variables gathered across
inmate cases. Results indicated strong support for the aggregate
criterion validity and construct validity of this methodology.
Additionally, while some cautions regarding a bias for
“overclassification” were realized, this methodology also produced
relatively valuable findings regarding efficacy. Finally, the examination
of individual and collective case variables developed some basic
insights into relationships associated with levels of criterion validity.
Findings will serve to improve the understanding and advancement
of policies and practices related to self-report based screening protocols
designed to triage “need for treatment” in criminal justice
institutionalized populations. Findings may also provide practical
evidence-based assistance to researchers, mental health practitioners,
and criminal justice institutions involved in the designing,
interpretation, and/or deployment of these instruments.
ix
