The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The reliability of Form 90: an instrument for assessing alcohol treatment outcome.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Project MATCH is a randomized clinical trial consisting of five outpatient and five aftercare units at nine sites. Of importance in this multisite trial examining the efficacy of client-treatment matching was the cross- and within-site reliability of the structured interview used to assess alcohol treatment outcomes, the Form 90. Evaluation of the reliability of Form 90 is the subject of this article. METHOD: The reliability of Form 90 was evaluated in two test-retest studies. The cross-site reliability study consisted of 70 paired test-retest interviews conducted by different interviewers. Clients for this study were recruited from inpatient, outpatient and college settings. The within-site reliability study had a total of 108 paired test-retest interviews, with 54 of the retests conducted by different interviewers and 54 by the same interviewer. Clients for this study were most often presenting for alcohol treatment at the nine sites and were selected to be representative of the larger Project MATCH sample. RESULTS: Good-to-excellent reliability was found for all key summary measures of alcohol consumption and psychosocial functioning, and most frequently used illicit drugs had moderate reliability. No decay in consistency of self-reported drinking was found at more distal points from dates of test-retest interviews. Application of 68% confidence intervals for primary alcohol consumption measures suggests that trained researchers and clinicians can obtain consistent information regarding client drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Form 90 appears to be a reliable instrument for alcohol treatment assessment research when interviewers have received careful training and supervision in its use.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 · Cited by 9,349
Sobell, L. C., & Sobell, M. B. (1992) · Measuring Alcohol Consumption · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0357-5_3 · Cited by 4,110
Cited by
Anton, R. F., O’Malley, S. S., Ciraulo, D. A., Cisler, R. A., Couper, D., Donovan, D. M., Gastfriend, D. R., Hosking, J. D., Johnson, B. A., LoCastro, J. S., et al. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.17.2003 · Cited by 1,930
Self-citationClient commitment language during motivational interviewing predicts drug use outcomes.
Amrhein, P. C., Miller, W. R., Yahne, C. E., Palmer, M., & Fulcher, L. (2003) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.71.5.862 · Cited by 729
Self-citationReliability of the Timeline Followback for cocaine, cannabis, and cigarette use
Robinson, S. M., Sobell, L. C., Sobell, M. B., & Leo, G. I. (2014) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/a0030992 · Cited by 699
Anton, R. F., Oroszi, G., O’Malley, S., Couper, D., Swift, R., Pettinati, H., & Goldman, D. (2008) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.65.2.135 · Cited by 451
Miller, W. R., Meyers, R. J., & Tonigan, J. S. (1999) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.67.5.688 · Cited by 304
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tonigan, J. S., Miller, W. R., & Brown, J. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Studies on Alcohol
- Publisher
- Alcohol Research Documentation, Inc.
- Published
- 1997-07
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 358-364
- ISSN
- 0096-882X (ISSN-L)
- 1934-2683
- OpenAlex
- W2080999468
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The reliability of Form 90: an instrument for assessing alcohol treatment outcome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.15288/jsa.1997.58.358
- The paper
- Tonigan, J. S., Miller, W. R., & Brown, J. M. (1997). The reliability of Form 90: an instrument for assessing alcohol treatment outcome. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.1997.58.358
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.