Cited by 199Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Cross-validation of the alcohol and cannabis use measures in the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) and Timeline Followback (TLFB; Form 90) among adolescents in substance abuse treatment

Dennis, Michael L., Funk, Rodney, Godley, Susan Harrington, Godley, Mark D., Waldron, Holly·2004·Addiction

Abstract

Aims To examine the comparability, reliability and predictive validity of two instruments used to assess alcohol use and dependence: the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) and the Form 90 Timeline Followback (TLFB) method. Design, setting and participants Adolescents (n = 101) admitted to a residential treatment program in the United States were interviewed at intake with the GAIN, and again within a week with a variation of TLFB, called Form 90. Alcohol and cannabis measures were compared and used to predict the number of past‐month substance abuse and dependence symptoms. Measurement Self‐report measures of days of alcohol and cannabis use in the 90 days prior to intake, peak number of drinks/joints used, peak blood alcohol content (BAC) and alcohol and cannabis abuse and dependence symptom counts. Findings Results revealed that the measures had: (a) excellent comparability (r = 0.7–0.8) across the two instruments; (b) deteriorating reliability after reported peak BAC levels exceeded 0.50 and peak joints exceeding 19; and (c) similar and strong relationships between use measures and the number of abuse/dependence symptoms across measures and instruments. Conclusions In a sample of 101 adolescents who were admitted to residential treatment for alcohol or drug dependence, the corresponding measures from the two instruments produced comparable results. If the cross‐validation of these two measures generalizes to adolescents treated in out‐patient settings and other adolescent treatment populations, the GAIN and Form 90 may provide useful core alcohol measures for meta‐analyses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00859.x

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dennis, M. L., Funk, R., Godley, S. H., Godley, M. D., & Waldron, H.
Affiliations
  • Chestnut Health Systems (US)
  • Oregon Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Dennis, Michael L.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-10-15
Volume
99
Issue
s2
Pages
120-128
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W1991681582
Cited by
199
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA10368, R01AA010368)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
alcohol consumption, cannabis use, timeline follow-back, adolescents, addiction treatment, residential treatment, cross-validation, reliability statistics, predictive validity, alcoholism, cannabis use disorder, blood alcohol concentration, self-report measures
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Ethanol, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Predictive Value of Tests, Self-Assessment, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review