Online Testing - Home Page



* * *

Driver Risk Inventory-II

ORIENTATION AND TRAINING MANUAL

Online- is an internet testing platform that provides Behavior Data Systems, Ltd. tests online. The Driver Risk Inventory-II was chosen because of its excellent reputation for reliability, validity and accuracy. For more in-depth information on the Driver Risk Inventory-II, interested parties are referred to the website .

With the understanding that these two websites and online- are available resources for more information on the DRI-II, this Orientation and Training Manual is provided online so that online- test users can either review it on their computer screen or print a paper copy.

Some people advocate fully automated assessment. Online- does not. The DRI-II is to be used in conjunction with experienced staff judgment. When available, court records should be reviewed because they can contain important information that was not provided or was incorrectly provided by the DUI/DWI offender. Experienced evaluators should also interview the client. For these reasons the following statement is contained on each DRI-II report: “No diagnosis or decision should be based solely upon DRI-II results. The DRI-II is to be used in conjunction with experienced staff judgment.”

Driver Risk Inventory-II

Table of Contents

|Driver Risk Inventory-II |HIPAA Compliant |

|Truthfulness Scale |Minimum Scale Scores |

|Risk Level Classification |Discriminant Validity |

|DRI-II Short Form |Control of Reports |

|Oral Instructions |Significant Items |

|Past, Present and Future Tense |Expanding Database |

|ASAM Compatible |Scale Interpretation |

Driver Risk Inventory-II

The Driver Risk Inventory-II or DRI-II was designed specifically for DUI/DWI offender assessment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reviewed all major DUI/DWI offender tests and rated the DRI as the best. NHTSA is the highest federal authority in the DUI/DWI field.

The DRI-II assesses offender truthfulness, quantifies the severity of alcohol and drug use, classifies substance abuse/dependency according to DSM-IV criteria, measures stress handling abilities and determines driver risk. Over one million DUI/DWI offenders have completed the DRI-II. The DRI-II has impressive reliability, validity and accuracy. Some of these research studies are available for review on . Upon entering this site click on the “Tests Alphabetically Listed” link in the left margin, then scroll down to Driver Risk Inventory-II. Click on the tests name and you will go directly to the DRI-II webpage.

In summary, the DRI-II is a brief (140 items, 25 minutes), easily administered and automated (computer scored) DUI/DWI offender assessment instrument or test. The DRI-II contains six scales (measures):

1. Truthfulness Scale: measures how truthful the offender was while completing the DRI-II. It identifies denial, problem minimization and attempts to “fake good.”

2. Alcohol Scale: measures alcohol (beer, wine and other liquor) use and abuse. It measures the “severity” of alcohol abuse while identifying alcohol-related problems.

3. Drugs Scale: measures the “severity” of illicit drug (marijuana, crack, cocaine, amphetamines, barbiturates and heroin) use and abuse.

4. Substance Abuse / Dependency Scale: utilizes DSM-IV criteria to “classify” substance abuse/dependency. Substances include alcohol and illicit drugs.

5. Driver Risk Scale: measures driver risk independent of substance (alcohol or other drugs) abuse. Some people are simply dangerous drivers.

6. Stress Coping Abilities Scale: measures the DUI/DWI offender’s ability to cope effectively with stress. Since stress exacerbates emotional symptomotology when this scale is elevated (90th percentile or higher) the client very likely has a diagnosable mental health problem.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) recommendations are initially related to the clients DSM-IV classification (The Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale in the DRI-II). However, changes in these recommendations are made according to the “severity” of substance (DRI-II Alcohol Scale and Drugs Scale) abuse. In other words, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) states there can be exceptions to DSM-IV classification, and these exceptions are made according to the severity of a person’s substance abuse. The severity of a person’s substance abuse determines their recommended level of intervention and/or treatment.

| |

|TRUTHFULNESS SCALE |

|It would be naïve to assume clients (respondents) always tell the truth, particularly while being evaluated. The literature consistently shows that |

|people being interviewed, screened and tested tend to minimize their problems. Indeed, many clients attempt to “fake good.” This Truthfulness Scale |

|identifies denial, problem minimization and attempts to fake good. |

| |

|The Truthfulness Scale measures the truthfulness of the client while being tested. When the Truthfulness Scale score is below the 70th percentile – the|

|client was truthful and test results are valid and accurate. Truthfulness Scale scores between the 70th and 89th percentile reflect the client’s |

|tendency to minimize problems, yet scale scores have been truth-corrected and are valid or accurate. In contrast, a Truthfulness Scale scores at or |

|above the 90th percentile is too extreme to be truth-corrected. Consequently these scale scores are inaccurate and the test is invalid. Reasons for |

|invalidity or inaccurate test results are many and include reading impairments, reading things into questions that aren’t there, emotional turmoil, |

|massive denial, or attempts to “fake good.” Regardless of the reason, a Truthfulness Scale score at or above the 90th percentile means that the test is |

|invalid and all scale scores are distorted and inaccurate. It should be emphasized that invalid Truthfulness Scale scores (90th percentile or above) do|

|not occur by chance. A definite pattern of untruthfulness must occur to obtain an extreme (90th percentile or higher) Truthfulness Scale score. |

| |

| |

|TRUTH-CORRECTED SCORES |

|The Truthfulness Scale score determines how truthful the client was while completing the test. The Truthfulness Scale was correlated with all other |

|scale scores. These correlation coefficients enable the determination of error variance for each scale score. Truth-corrected scores allow problematic|

|test scores (70 to 89th percentile) to be accurately scored. Moreover, Truth-Corrected scores are more accurate than raw scores because they account |

|for the measured amount of untruthfulness associated with each scale score. Raw scores may only reflect what the client wants you to know. |

|Truth-Corrected scores reveal what the client is trying to hide. A Truthfulness Scale score at or below the 89th percentile means that all other scale |

|scores are accurate. In contrast, Truthfulness Scale scores at or above the 90th percentile invalidates that test because all scale scores are severely|

|distorted and could not be truth-corrected. Historically (in 1943), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) initiated |

|“truth-corrections” of its “clinical scales” with the K-scale adjustment. |

| |

| |

|RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION |

|Each DRI-II scale score is classified in terms of its severity or the risk it represents. These risk level classifications are calculated individually |

|for five of the six empirically based scales (the Substance Dependency/Abuse Scale is a DSM-IV “classification” scale, consequently it is not scored |

|like the other five DRI-II measurement scales). |

| |

|PERCENTILE RANGE RISK RANGE |

|0 to 39th percentile Low Risk |

|40 to 69th percentile Medium Risk |

|70 to 89th percentile Problem Risk |

|90 to 100th percentile Severe Problem Risk |

| |

|A person who does not presently engage in alcohol use or other drug abuse (but used to drink or abuse drugs) may score above zero, but would score in |

|the low to medium risk range. In addition, an elevated score (above the 70th percentile) on the Alcohol or Drug Scale could be obtained by a |

|“recovering” alcoholic or drug abuser, consequently the client should be asked if he or she is recovering, and if recovering, "how long have they been |

|abstaining" from alcohol and other drug use. Question #138 asks if the client is a recovering alcoholic, drug abuser or both. The client's answer to |

|this question is printed in the DRI-II report on page 3 for easy reference. |

| |

| |

|DRI-II SHORT FORM |

|The DRI-II Short Form contains 73 items and takes 15 to 20 minutes to complete. The Short Form has five scales (measures): 1. Truthfulness Scale, 2. |

|Alcohol Scale, 3. Drugs Scale, 4. Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale, and 5. Driver Risk Scale. DRI-II Short Form scales correlate highly significantly |

|in predicted directions with corresponding DRI-II Scales. It is estimated that 20+ percent of DUI/DWI offenders are reading impaired. Consequently, |

|the DRI-II Short Form offers a practical solution to this reading impaired assessment problem. |

| |

|In sum, the DRI-II Short Form contains most of the DRI-II’s unique features, while producing a concisely focused report. The DRI-II Short Form might be|

|the preferred assessment instrument in high volume testing settings. It also provides an alternative to the DRI-II with reading impaired clients. |

| |

| |

|ORAL INSTRUCTIONS |

|Many DUI/DWI offenders attempt to minimize their problems by substantially under-reporting their problems and concerns. This “under reporting” is |

|sometimes related to the oral instructions given prior to testing. A straightforward, respectable and honest approach minimizes client’s attempts to |

|“fake good.” For example, “this questionnaire contains a truthfulness measure to determine how cooperative and truthful you are while completing it. |

|There are no trick questions or “hidden meanings” and your available records may be checked to verify the accuracy of your answers. Please answer all |

|questions truthfully.” |

|Giving the client an example sometimes helps them understand these instructions. The example you use will be influenced by your client, experience and |

|motivation. All examples should be individualized to the assessment situation. The following example is offered to show how an example can facilitate |

|client understanding and cooperation. |

|“Last week a client told me while taking the MMPI that she could not answer an item “true” or “false.” When questioned she identified the item as “I am|

|attracted to members of the opposite sex.” When questioned more closely she replied , “If I answer true you will think I am a sex maniac. And if I |

|answer false you will think I am a lesbian.” I explained that this item does not ask about sex maniacs or lesbians. It simply asks if you are |

|attracted to members of the opposite sex. When you interpret it to refer to “sex maniacs” and “lesbians” you were answering a different question. “Do |

|not read anything into these questions that is not there, because if you do you will likely invalidate the test and may have to take it over. There are|

|no trick questions.” |

|How the client is approached prior to testing often determines whether-or-not they will cooperate |

| |

| |

|PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE TENSE |

|Clients should answer questions as the questions are stated -- in present tense, past tense or future tense. Questions are to be answered literally as |

|they are presented. There are no trick questions. If an item wants to know about the past, it will be stated in the past tense. If the item inquires |

|about the present it will be stated in the present tense. And, if an item asks about the future, it will be stated in the future tense. Just answer |

|each question as it is stated. |

| |

| |

|STAFF SHOULD NOT TAKE THIS TEST |

|Sometimes a staff member wants to “simulate” a DUI/DWI offender and take the test. It is strongly recommended that staff do not take the test because |

|it was not standardized (normed) on staff. A staff member does not have the same mental set as the client. Staff will likely invalidate or otherwise |

|distort their test results. |

| |

| |

|ASAM COMPATIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS |

|American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) recommends four levels of intervention or recommended care based on the severity of the defendant’s |

|alcohol and/or other drug condition. And treatment within any level of care may be modified according to the severity of the defendant’s |

|substance-related condition. The DRI-II Alcohol Scale and Drugs Scale scores represent the severity of the defendant’s drinking and/or other drug |

|condition. |

|ASAM states there are exceptions to DSM-IV classification-related levels of care. These defendants whose symptom severity warrants adjusting their |

|recommended intervention or treatment are so reclassified. The DRI-II works in a similar fashion. When DRI-II defendants meet DSM-IV criteria for |

|substance dependency or substance abuse they are so classified. Moreover, the severity of a defendant’s substance condition is measured by the Alcohol |

|Scale and Drugs Scale. And consistent with ASAM procedures, the severity of the defendant’s condition determines recommended levels of intervention or |

|treatment. Consistent with ASAM, the severity of a defendant’s condition directly influences the recommended intervention or treatment timetable and |

|recommended levels of interventions. |

|In summary, DRI-II Alcohol Scale and Drugs Scale scores measures the severity of each defendant’s substance (alcohol or other drug) related condition. |

|It is emphasized the DRI-II is to be used in conjunction with an interview, review of available records and experienced staff judgment. And, as a |

|defendant moves through screening, adjudication of their cases, intervention, program intake and/or treatment -- the defendant’s status is continually |

|assessed and adjusted as warranted. |

| |

| |

|HIPAA COMPLIANCE |

|Confidentiality: Online- encourages test users to delete DUI/DWI offender names from their database. Once client names are deleted they are |

|gone and cannot be retrieved. Deleting client names does not delete demographics or test data which is downloaded into the DRI-II database for |

|subsequent analysis. This proprietary name deletion procedure involves a few keystrokes and insures client confidentiality and HIPAA (federal |

|regulation 45 C.F.R. 164.501) requirement compliance. As a fail safe condition, any client names that have not been deleted for six months are |

|automatically deleted at that time. |

| |

| |

|RESEARCH |

|This test has been extensively researched with many validity, reliability and accuracy studies reported in the “DRI-II: An Inventory of Scientific |

|Findings.” This research document can be downloaded over the internet at no cost or charge. |

|It is reasonable to conclude that this tests reliability, validity and accuracy exceed professional psychometric standards. In criterion validity |

|research studies DRI-II scales correlate with other tests measuring the same attitudes and behaviors at the .001 significance level. And all scale |

|scores exceed the Cronbach alpha coefficient of .85. This compares favorably with the professionally accepted reliability coefficient standard of .80. |

| |

|MINIMUM SCALE SCORES |

|When available, DUI/DWI offender history is included in the Alcohol Scale and Drugs Scale scoring methodology to establish minimum scores. With regard |

|to the Alcohol and Drugs Scale scores, a prior substance (alcohol and other drugs) abuse arrest automatically establishes a minimum score for the |

|appropriate scale at the 40th percentile. The 40th percentile is the lowest “medium risk” severity score. Two priors automatically score the relevant |

|scale at the 61st percentile, which is an upper medium risk range score. Three priors automatically scores the relevant scale at the 80th percentile, |

|which is a high medium risk range score. Five or more priors automatically scores the relevant scale at the 89th percentile, which is the highest |

|possible problem risk range score. |

|When an Alcohol Scale or Drugs Scale score is higher than these minimum scores, the higher scale score overrides or supersedes the minimum score. In |

|other words, the highest scale score is used in the tests report. The highest score – whether the scale score or the minimum score – is used. |

|When a DUI/DWI offender has one or more prior arrests/convictions, the scale score can not be lower than that scales minimum score. And when client |

|history is not available, the scale is scored in the usual manner, i.e., cumulative scale score. |

|Minimum scores are established for scales that demonstrated discriminant validity, e.g., Alcohol and Drugs. |

| |

| |

|DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY |

|Discriminant validity is very desirable in a multiple scale test. Discriminant validity refers to each scale measuring what it is supposed to measure |

|while other scales do not measure the same factors. In other words, each scale discriminates in that it is the only scale measuring that factor. |

|Discriminant validity of the Alcohol Scale is demonstrated by the fact that only the Alcohol Scale correlates significantly with prior alcohol-related |

|arrests. And in related research only the Alcohol Scale correlates significantly with the Blood alcohol Content (BAC) obtained at the time of a DUI/DWI|

|arrest. |

|Discriminant validity of the Drugs Scale is demonstrated by the fact that only the Drugs Scale correlates significantly with prior drug-related arrests.|

| |

|Discriminant validity of the Driver Risk Scale is demonstrated by the fact that no other DRI-II scale correlates significantly with the number of |

|traffic violations or the number of at-fault accidents. Only the Driver Risk Scale correlates significantly with traffic violations and at-fault |

|accidents. |

| |

| |

|CONTROL OF REPORTS |

|Online- reports contain confidential information. Some of the vocabulary may be misunderstood by the DUI/DWI offender and others. For these|

|reasons the DUI/DWI offender should not be given their reports to read. Instead, a staff person can review the test results with the client, but not |

|give the test report to the client to read or leave the premises with. The DUI/DWI offender should never be allowed to remove a test booklet or report |

|from the office. All test booklets are copyrighted and all test reports are privileged, highly sensitive and confidential. |

| |

| |

|REQUESTS FOR TESTS AND TEST REPORTS |

|If, or when, third parties (attorneys, relatives, etc.) request test-related materials they should be informed that all test materials (test booklets, |

|manuals, etc.) are copyrighted and confidential. As appropriate, they may be allowed to review the clients report during normal working hours. |

|However, they should not photocopy or remove it from the evaluator’s office. |

| |

| |

|RETEST |

|When a client (DUI/DWI offender) invalidates their test, it is recommended that they be given the opportunity to be retested. Prior to retesting the |

|oral instructions should be carefully reviewed with the client. Emphasis should be placed upon “do not read things into the items that isn’t there.” |

|If the retest is invalid, the client may not be formally testable at that time. |

| |

| |

|SIGNIFICANT ITEMS |

|Significant items are self-admissions or unusual self-report answers. Significant items are identified for reference. Sometimes they help in |

|understanding the client. Significant items alone do not determine scale scores. Significant items are referenced toward the end of the test report |

|for easy reference. Whatever the client’s answer was to these multiple choice items, that answer is reproduced on the third page of the report. |

| |

| |

|EXPANDING DATABASE |

|A database is a large collection of data in a computer, organized so that it can be expanded, updated and retrieved for ongoing statistical analysis and|

|research. Each test that is administered over online-’s internet platform saves the test data in the DRI-II database. |

| |

| |

|DRI-II SHORT FORM |

|The DRI-II-Short Form contains 4 scales: Truthfulness Scale, Alcohol Scale, Driver Risk Scale, and the Drug Scale. DRI-II-Short Form scales correlate |

|significantly in predicted directions with DRI-II scales. It can be administered on the computer screen, in paper-and-pencil test booklet format, or |

|read to the client. |

| |

|The DRI-II-Short Form is designed for use with the reading impaired. It is estimated that approximately 20 percent of DUI offenders are reading |

|impaired. The DRI-II-Short Form offers a practical solution to the problems involved in reading impaired client assessment. |

| |

|The DRI-II-Short Form contains all of the unique features of the Driver Risk Inventory - II (DRI-II), including driver history and the expanding |

|database. The DRI-II-Short Form produces a concise report. . |

INTRODUCTION TO SCALE INTERPRETATION

Scale interpretation is a complex topic that is based upon a basic understating of a tests structure, scoring methodology, evaluator experience and research. Additional “scale interpretation” discussions are presented in the website and in advanced training classes and workshops. That said, we shall now introduce “scale interpretation.”

SCALE INTERPRETATION

1. Truthfulness Scale: measures how truthful the DUI/DWI offender was while completing the test. It identifies guarded and defensive people who attempt to fake good. Truthfulness Scale scores at or below the 89th percentile mean that all DRI-II scale scores are accurate. When the DRI-II Truthfulness Scale score is in the 70 to 89th percentile range other DRI-II scale scores are accurate because they have been Truth-Corrected. In contrast, when the Truthfulness Scale score is at or above the 90th percentile this means that all DRI-II scales are inaccurate (invalid) because the DUI/DWI offender was overly guarded, read things into test items that aren’t there, was minimizing problems, or was caught attempting to “fake good.” If not consciously deceptive, offenders with elevated Truthfulness Scale scores are uncooperative (likely in a passive-aggressive manner), fail to understand test items or have a need to appear in a good light. Truthfulness Scale scores at or below the 89th percentile mean that all other DRI-II scale scores are accurate. One of the first things to check when reviewing a DRI-II report is the Truthfulness Scale score.

2. Alcohol Scale: measures alcohol use and the severity of abuse. Alcohol refers to beer, wine and other liquors. An elevated (70 to 89th percentile) Alcohol Scale score is indicative of an emerging drinking problem. An Alcohol Scale score in the severe problem (90 to 100th percentile) range identifies established and very serious drinking problems. Elevated Alcohol Scale scores do not occur by chance.

A history of alcohol problems (e.g., alcohol-related arrests, DUI/DWI convictions, etc.) could result in an abstainer (current non-drinker) attaining a low to medium risk scale score. Consequently safeguards have been built into the DRI-II to identify “recovering alcoholics.” For example, the offender’s self-reported court history is summarized on the first page of the DRI-II report. And on page 3 of the report the DUI/DWI offender’s structured interview (items 119 to 140) answers are printed for easy reference. The DUI/DWI offender’s answer to the “recovering alcoholic” question (item 138) is printed on page 3 of the DRI-II report. In addition elevated Alcohol Scale paragraphs caution staff to establish if the offender is a recovering alcoholic. If recovering, how long? Obviously the DUI/DWI offender was arrested for a DUI or DWI.

Severely elevated Alcohol and Drugs Scale scores indicate polysubstance abuse and the highest score usually identifies the offender’s substance of choice.

Scores in the severe problem (90 to 100th percentile) range are a malignant prognostic sign. Elevated Alcohol Scale, Drugs Scale and Driver Risk Scale scores identify a particularly dangerous driver. Here you have a person with poor driving skills who is even further impaired when drinking or using drugs.

In intervention and treatment settings the offender’s DRI-II Alcohol Scale score can help staff work through offender denial. More people accept objective standardized assessment results as opposed to someone’s subjective opinion. This is especially true when it is explained that the DRI-II has been given to over one million DUI/DWI offenders and that elevated scores do not occur by chance. The Alcohol Scale can be interpreted independently or in combination with other DRI-II scales.

3. Drugs Scale: measures drug use and severity of drug abuse. Drugs refer to marijuana, ice, crack, cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, barbiturates and heroin. An elevated (70 to 89th percentile) Drugs Scale score identifies emerging drug problems. A Drugs Scale score in the severe problem (90 to 100th percentile) range identifies established and very serious drug problems.

A history of drug-related problems (e.g., drug-related arrests, prior DUI/DWI convictions, drug treatment, etc.) could result in an abstainer (current non-user) attaining a low to medium risk Drug Scale score. For this reason precautions have been built into the DRI-II to insure correct identification of “recovering” drug abusers. Many of these precautions are similar to those discussed in the earlier Alcohol Scale description. And the DUI/DWI offender’s answer to the “recovering drug abuser” question (item 138) is printed on page 3 of the DRI-II report.

Concurrently elevated Drugs and Alcohol Scale scores are indications of polysubstance abuse, and the highest score reflects the offender’s substance of choice. Very dangerous drivers are identified when both the Drugs Scale and the Driver Risk Scale are elevated. Any Drugs Scale score in the severe problem (90 to 100th percentile) range should be taken seriously. The Drugs Scale can be interpreted independently or in combination with other DRI-II scales.

4. Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale: classifies DUI/DWI offenders as substance abusers, substance dependent or non-pathological substance users in accordance with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) criteria.

The DRI-II Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale is entirely based on DSM-IV classification criteria for substance abuse and dependency classification. When a DUI/DWI offender admits to one of the four DSM-IV abuse symptoms (criteria) that offender is classified in the “substance abuse” category. When an offender admits to three of the seven DSM-IV dependency symptoms (criteria) that offender is classified in the “substance dependency” category. When an offender does not meet DSM-IV criteria for abuse or dependency they meet the criteria for non-pathological substance users (if they use alcohol or drugs).

There is an important difference between the DRI-II Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale and the Alcohol and Drugs Scales. The Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale classifies people as abusers or dependent substance users (if they use alcohol or drugs). The Alcohol Scale and Drugs Scale measure the severity of alcohol and drug use or abuse.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) states there can be exceptions to DSM-IV classification -- and these exceptions are made according to the severity of a person’s substance abuse. The severity of a person’s substance abuse determines their recommended level of intervention and/or treatment.

In summary, the Alcohol and Drugs Scales measure severity of substance (alcohol and other drugs) abuse, whereas the Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale classifies people as substance abusers or substance dependent. The Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale can be interpreted independently or in combination with DRI-II Alcohol and Drugs Scales.

5. Driver Risk Scale: measures driving risk, e.g., aggressive, irresponsible or careless drivers. This scale is independent of the Alcohol, Drugs and Substance Abuse/ Dependency Scales. Some people are simply poor drivers. Elevated (70 to 89th percentile) Driver Risk Scale scores identify problem prone drivers that would benefit from a driver improvement program. Severe problem (90 to 100th percentile) scorers are simply dangerous drivers. These are high probability accident prone drivers. When the Driver Risk Scale and the Alcohol Scale and/or Drugs Scale are elevated a person’s poor driving abilities are further impaired by substance use or abuse. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is the highest federal authority in the DUI/DWI field - the DRI is the only major DUI/DWI test that measures driver risk. Consequently, other tests do not identify abstaining (non-drinking and non-drug use) dangerous drivers.

The Driver Risk Scale provides considerable insight into offender driving behavior. The Driver Risk Scale can be interpreted independently or in combination with the DRI-II Alcohol Scale, Drugs Scale and Stress Coping Abilities Scale.

6. Stress Coping Abilities Scale: measures the DUI/DWI offender’s ability to cope effectively with stress, tension and pressure. How well a person manages stress effects their driving safety. A Stress Coping Abilities Scale score in the elevated (e.g., problem risk or higher) range provides considerable insight into co-determinants while suggesting possible intervention programs like stress management. An offender scoring in the severe problem (90 to 100th percentile) range might be referred to a mental health specialist for further evaluation, diagnosis and a treatment plan. At the least, such a recommendation should be given to the DUI/DWI offender.

We know that stress exacerbates emotional and mental health problems. The Stress Coping Abilities Scale is a non-introversive way to screen for established (diagnosable) mental health problems. Stress coping problems can have a direct impact on a person’s driving.

A particularly unstable and perilous driving situation involves an elevated Stress Coping Abilities Scale with an elevated Alcohol Scale, Drugs Scale or Driver Risk Scale. Poor driving abilities along with substance abuse in an emotionally reactive person who doesn’t handle stress well operationally defines a dangerous driver. The higher the elevation of these scales -- the worse the prognosis. The Stress Coping Abilities Scale can be interpreted independently or in combination with other DRI-II scales.

* * *

In conclusion, it was noted that several levels of DRI-II interpretation are possible. They range from viewing the DRI-II as a self-report to interpreting scale elevations and inter-relationships. Staff can then put a DUI/DWI offender’s DRI-II findings within the context of the offenders driving situation. Scale interpretation is discussed in .

REFERENCES

Behavior Data Systems, Ltd., P.O. Box 44256, Phoenix, Arizona 85064-4256. E-mail: bds@, website: .

Birkel, E.C. & Wegner, D.L. published “Accurate Intensive Supervised Probation Selection: Revisited.” Perspectives, Fall 2000.

Davignon, D. (2002). DWI/DUI Arrests, BAC at the Time of Arrest, and Offender Assessment Test

Results for Alcohol Problems. Impaired Driver Update, Winter 2002.

Leshowitz, B. & Meyers, J.M., (1996). Application of Decision of Theory to DUI Assessment.

Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research 20: 1148-1152.

Marsteller F. & Davignon, D. (1997). A Validation Study of the DRI is a Large Sample of DUI

Offenders.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Washington, D.C., (1988). Assessment of Classification Instruments Designed to Detect Alcohol Abuse, DOT HS 807 475. Authors: C.L. Popkin, C.H. Kannenberg, J.H. Lacey, and P.F. Waller. Sponsoring agency: U.S. Department of Transportation.

Online-, P.O. Box 32974, Phoenix, Arizona 85064-2974. E-mail: info@online-, Website: online-.

If you have any additional questions please e-mail Online- at info@online- and use the “DRI-II Question” subject line.

* * *

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download