Mark Small has a funny post speculating on the drug screen questionnaire (e.g. “Did you attend Ball State University at any time?”) that would be imposed on welfare recipients under HB 1483.
Anyway, that reminded me to investigate the term used in the bill. It requires that TANF applicants “shall take a substance abuse subtle screening inventory test.” Having applicants complete this questionnaire is an effort by the General Assembly to get around the Fourth Amendment concerns that have worked to derail other states’ efforts to drug test people for being poor. I suspect the effort won’t be notably successful, but I think it’s the motivation behind this “subtle screen inventory” requirement.
The term “subtle screening inventory” looked like a term of art, and it is. Here is a Yahoo Health article entitled Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory.
The SASSI is intended for gathering information, organizing it, and using it to help make decisions about the likelihood of an individual having a substance dependence disorder, even if the individual does not acknowledge symptoms of the disorder or misuse of substances.
It reportedly has a 94% accuracy rate.
Paul K. Ogden says
The purpose of the written test is to give gov’t “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a regular drug test. I, like you, doubt it will work.
Stuart says
Like they say, “Fools rush in”, but this kind of footwork seems to be the characteristic of people who know that this idea is questionable on a number of different levels. Aside from some of the interesting legal issues, remember that this is a self-report psychological instrument, and the research I’ve seen was generated with a clinical population which had a different perspective on the instrument than TANF applicants who will be essentially forced to take it. If their answers incriminate them, they may lose their benefits, which may have a substantial negative impact on validity. Big difference between the two groups, so the 94% discrimination rate may not apply. That is one of the reasons for urine samples, which would probably present a more clear cut issue for attorneys, but maybe attorneys would have a better shot with an invalid assessment.
It is interesting that the group which publishes this test is in Indiana, and it will be interesting to see what they think about their instrument being used in this setting, as well as what informed IPA (Indiana Psychological Assn.) and academic people have to say about it. I suspect they will be appalled.
Doug says
Any idea what the intellectual property status of the test is? Does the publisher get a cut when the welfare offices administer the tests?
Stuart says
It’s a psychological assessment instrument in which the publishers make paper and pencil and online tests available to qualified persons (mental health, addictions counselors, persons trained to administer it), and I believe that people can score it on site, or have it scored online by the publishers. I am sure that they will charge for the administration as well as the scoring, because that is they way they make their living. Until the courts stop the scheme, they will probably offer a special rate for the state, and it will be a lot in any case.
I’m sure it’s copyrighted, probably developed by the publishers, and only qualified people can see or use it, but it won’t take long for the items to be informally disseminated among the people who have to take it, and for the instrument to be compromised, primarily because the livelihood of so many people will depend on the “correct” answers. That should really knock the validity in the head and make the whole practice questionable.
The URL for the company is: http://www.sassi.com/
Carlito Brigante says
Thanks for the analysis, Stuart. The article said that the SASI was to be used by trained professionals alond with other tools. So if the SASI is just run through the scanner, what value does it have? Will trained counselors review them and then follow up?
Or will it used as a crudgel for political purposes to round up twice the usual number of deadbeats, moochers and undersirable breeders?
I wish I were not so cynical. But in the world I live in, Ambrose Bierce would be an optomist and a humanitarian.
Stuart says
It won’t matter who the administrators are. The informal information and dissemination system of the people who must take it will ruin the predictive validity of the instrument. It will be interesting to see if the publishers even want to participate in this charade.
Our politicians are not known for their strong character and willingness to accept responsibility, as we see in this law. They are reluctant to take the bull by the horns because they probably know they are on thin ice, but if they can find some professional who will take on the task, let ‘er rip. The more I know about this, the worse it gets.
Stuart says
Of course, any member of the legislature could have asked any psychologist or called any university and spoken with almost anyone in a psychology department and discovered this information in about two minutes, but like the country and western song goes, “I know what I was feeling, but what was I thinking?” They still have to learn from the legislature that almost decided that pi was 3. Because THEY were the legislature, and that a bunch of people agreed on something, it must be true.
Stuart says
I did a quick review of some literature, and found a fairly recent (2006) study by Sarah Feldstein and William Miller. The abstract reported the following:
Results The total N of the studies reviewed equaled 22 110. Internal consistency is high for the overall SASSI and for its direct but not its indirect (subtle) subscales, suggesting that the instrument taps a single face-valid construct. SASSI classifications converged with those from other direct screening instruments, and were also correlated with ethnicity, general distress and social deviance. Studies found test–retest reliability lower than that reported in the test manuals. Sensitivity was found to be similar to that for public domain screening instruments, but on specificity the SASSI appears to yield a high rate of false positives.
Conclusion No empirical evidence was found for the SASSI’s claimed unique advantage in detecting substance use disorders through its indirect (subtle) scales to circumvent respondent denial or dishonesty. Recommendations for screening and for future research with the SASSI are offered.
I don’t think the data are good enough for the State to go to the mat on this law unless they want to get pinned.
Carlito Brigante says
Off topic, but the Washington Post is taking nominations for the best state political blogs.
https://www.masson.us/blog/
I nominated the Dog Man.
Doug says
Much obliged!