Measures used in evaluating drunk driving treatment programs over the last 15 years are reviewed and critiqued in terms of construct validity. The concept of triangulation with increased use of self-report and collateral measures is recommended over the current reliance on the single outcome measure of rearrest. Greater attention to collecting data on processes and intermediate outcomes is also recommended to provide information for program improvement, dissemination, and identification of effective treatment models. Ambiguity concerning program goals and directions is cited as another related problem area which has led to unintended differences in program philosophies and methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeermanK.A.SmithM.M.HallR.L.1988Predictors of recidivism in DUIIs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol49:443–449.
2.
ChafetzM. E.1986Foreward. In Stop DWI, FoleyD. (ed.). Lexington, Massachusettes:Lexington Books.
3.
CookT.D.CampbellD.T.1979Quasi-experimental: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
4.
CookT.D.ReichardtC.S. (eds.) 1979Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
5.
FitzpatrickJ.L.1988Alcohol education programs for drunk drivers: An evaluation of programs for problem drinkers in Colorado's Fourth Judicial District. Community Development Monograph Series No. 25. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Center for Community Development & Design.
6.
FrawleyP.J.1988Defining desirable treatment outcomes. Alcohol Health and Research World12:210–213.
7.
FullerR.K.1988Can treatment outcome research rely on alcoholics' self-reports?Alcohol Health and Research World12(3):180–186.
8.
HagenR.E.1985Evaluation of the effectiveness of education and rehabilitation efforts: Opportunities for research. Journal of Studies on AlcoholSupplement No. 10:179–183.
9.
HoldenR.T.1983Rehabilitative sanctions for drunk driving: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency20:55–72.
10.
HollisterR.G.KemperP.WooldridgeJ.1979Linking process and impact analysis: The case of supported work. In Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research, CookT.D.ReichardtC.S., (eds.) 140–158. Beverly Hills, California:Sage Publications.
11.
JoyeR.E.1986Drunk driving: Recommendations for safer highways. In Stop DWI, FoleyD. (ed.) 3–15. Lexington, Massachusettes:Lexington Books.
12.
LipseyM.W.CordrayD.S.BergerD.E.1981Evaluation of a juvenile diversion program: Using multiple lines of evidence. Evaluation Review5:283–306.
13.
LongabaughR.LewisD.C.1988Key issues in treatment outcome studies. Alcohol Health and Research World12(3): 168–175.
14.
McCartyD.ArgeriouM.1988Rearrest following residential treatment for repeat offender drunken drivers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol49:1–6.
15.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration1974Alcohol Safety Action Projects, Evaluation of Operations – 1972. DOT-HS-800-874. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration1976Alcohol Safety Action Projects, Evaluation of Operations 1974. DOT-HS-801-729 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
17.
NayJ.N.ScanlonJ.W.SchmidtR.E.WholeyJ.S.1976If you don't care where you get to, then it doesn't matter which way you go. In The Evaluation of Social Programs, AbtC.C. (ed.) 97–120. Beverly Hills, California:Sage Publications.
18.
NicholsJ.L.WeinsteinE.B.EllingstadV.S.Struckman-JohnsonD.L.1978The specific deterrent effect of ASAP education and rehabilitation programs. Journal of Safety Research10:177–187.
19.
NunnallyJ.C.DurhamR.L.1975Validity, reliability, and special problems of measurement in evaluation research. In Handbook of Evaluation Research, StrueningE.L.GuttentagM. (eds.) 289–352. Beverly Hills, California:Sage Publications.
20.
PattonM.Q.1980Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
21.
PolichJ.M.1982The validity of self-reports in alcoholism research. Addictive Behaviors7:123–132.
22.
PosavacE.J.CareyR.G.1980Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
23.
Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving1983Final Report. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
24.
RossH.L.1984Deterring the Drinking Driver. Lexington, Massachusettes: Lexington Books.
25.
RossiP.H.1978Issues in the evaluation of human services delivery. Evaluation Quarterly2:573–599.
26.
SaltzR.F.1986Server intervention: Will it work?Alcohol Health and Research World10:12–19.
27.
SiegelH.A.1985The intervention approach to drunk driver rehabilitation Part II. Evaluation. The International Journal of the Addictions20:675–689.
28.
SobellL.C.MaestoS.A.SobellM.B.CooperA.M.1979Reliability of alcohol abusers' self-reports of drinking behavior. Behaviour Research and Therapy17:157–160.
29.
SobellL.C.SobellM.B.1986Can we do without alcohol abusers' self-reports?Behavior Therapist7:141–146.
30.
SobellL.C.SobellM.B.RileyD.M.SchullerR.PavanD.S.CancillaA.KlajnerF.LeoG.I.1988The reliability of alcohol abusers' self-reports of drinking and life events that occurred in the distant past. Journal of Studies on Alcohol49:225–232.
31.
TuckerJ.A.GavornikM.G.VuchinichR.E.RuddE.J.HarrisC.V.1989Predicting the drinking behavior of older adults from questionnaire measures of alcohol consumption. Addictive Behaviors14:655–658.
32.
VoasR.B.1982Drinking and Driving: Scandinavian Laws, Tough Penalties and United States Alternatives. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Report No. DOT-HS-806-240. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Center.
33.
WallerJ.1971Factors associated with police evaluation of drinking in fatal highway crashes. Journal of Safety Research3:35–41.
34.
WholeyJ.S.1979Evaluation: Promise and Performance. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
