The dimensions of change in therapeutic community treatment instrument

Psychological Assessment

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 118-122

  Orlando, Maria ^a   Wenzel, Suzanne L ^a   Ebener, Pat ^a   Edwards, Michael C ^b   Mandell, Wallace ^c   Becker, Kirsten ^a  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^c Phoenix House   (United States)

Author keywords

Instrument development; substance use; Therapeutic community; Treatment process

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIMENSIONS OF CHANGE IN THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY TREATMENT INSTRUMENT; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; RATING SCALE; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION PROCESS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; MENTAL DISEASE; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL DISORDERS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 33744508461     PISSN: 10403590     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.1.118     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
2. DeLeon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model, and method. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
3. Holland, P., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Kressel, D., DeLeon, G., Palij, M., & Rubin, G. (2000). Measuring client clinical progress in therapeutic community treatment: The therapeutic community client assessment inventory, client assessment summary, and staff assessment summary. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 19, 267-272.
5. Moos, R. H. (1998). Understanding the quality and outcome of treatment. Substance Use & Misuse, 33, 2789-2794.
6. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus user's guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Author. (Original work published 1998)
7. Orlando, M., & Marshall, G. N. (2002). Differential item functioning in a Spanish translation of the PTSD checklist: Detection and evaluation of impact. Psychological Assessment, 14, 50-59.
8. Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85-100). New York: Springer-Verlag.
9. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
10. Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
11. Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG user's guide: Multiple, categorical item analysis, and test scoring using item response theory. Chicago: Scientific Software.
12. Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF v. 2.0b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning. Unpublished manuscript, L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.