Tag: High Probability of a SUD

Adolescent A3 – Emphasis on COR Scale

This profile is a good example of needing to be careful with assumptions.

Overview of CORRECTIONAL (COR) SCALE

The COR scale provides information pertaining to the possibility that the client may have a relatively high risk of experiencing legal problems. It is composed of items that differentiated between people who had a history of involvement in the juvenile justice system and those who did not.

It is very important not to over-interpret elevated COR scores. Teens who have elevated COR scores are responding similarly to individuals who have violated the law. This does not mean that all clients with elevated COR scores have broken laws. Also, there is no empirical evidence that these clients are at risk for future offenses.

If a client has an elevated COR score, it is worth exploring those behaviors which may be leading the client to make poor choices, especially after using substances and magnifying the tendency to exhibit those behaviors. These include anger management issues, impulsivity, risk taking behaviors, low frustration tolerance or poor social skills. The task of the clinician is to help the client see the relationship of their behavior to the consequences they have experienced and introduce alternatives to regulate their emotions and behavior.

The SASSI A3 was administered on a 15-year-old male and the time frame for the FVA/FVOD was for the past 6 months. The caller explained this time frame was used as the client identified that his substance use became problematic during this time. He indicated he had initially started smoking marijuana but in the last 6 months started abusing Percocet.

There is a lot to look at in this profile below.

He meets Rules 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 so met the criteria of a High Probability of having a Substance Use Disorder. A reminder that more “yeses” does not necessarily mean a more severe problem or meets the DSM-5 criteria for severity.

His Rx scale score was 1.

The FVA (2) is below average and within the norm.

The FVOD (18) is highly elevated and close to the 98th percentile so he is very open about his use and under what circumstances he is using.

As seen on the profile graph, both the FRISK (2) and ATT (3) are within the norm though above average.  These scores indicate he is not necessarily using due to peer pressure nor does he have a strong belief or value system that endorses substance use.

The SYM (9) is off the chart. He is endorsing negative consequences and symptoms of his use as well as loss of control.

It is worth taking the time to look at how he has answered his face valid scales and do content analysis of his answers because these will generate a lot of information for clinical insight and discussion on how and why he is using substances. As a reminder, the face valid scales are the FVA, FVOD, FRISK, ATT, SYM and Rx scales. You cannot do content analysis on the subtle scales.

Both the OAT (8) and SAT (7) are above the 85th percentile. Although the OAT indicates he can acknowledge personal limitations, the higher SAT score indicates a level of denial or lack of awareness or detachment from feelings and may present himself functioning well.

The DEF (4) score is very significant as it is below the 15th percentile. This indicates severe emotional pain, and he may be exhibiting depressive symptoms so it is suggested a mental status exam should be conducted.

As usual, there is no individual clinical interpretation to SAM (4).

The last scale, COR (10) is highly elevated above the 98th percentile. He is identifying with those issues that are normally seen in juveniles with legal issues.

This is where one must be careful with assumptions because this client has had no legal issues for any reason. It is more productive to explore those issues he is identifying with and affecting his choice making.

It is also curious that one can be very open (based on the FVOD and SYM) yet have an elevated SAT score as well. This may be due to the DEF score and the emotional pain he is in. Hypothetically, he may believe that if he was not “depressed” he would not be abusing drugs.

Another aspect of the profile is to explore his Rx result. According to the client’s report, he is primarily abusing Percocet. His score may reflect he is getting it illicitly and not through a doctor.

Finally, regarding treatment considerations, the caller reported he has tried to quit using the Percocet for a week but relapsed. A treatment plan including inpatient should be considered considering his reported relapse.

We hope this is helpful to you.

The clinical helpline line is open for your inquiries, M-F, 12- 5 (EST) at 888-297-2774 and you will be directed to a clinical consultant. If we are not available, please leave a message and we will return your call.

And as always, Thank you for your interest in the SASSI.

PDF Version Available for Download

A SASSI-4 Profile: When the Drug Use is Marijuana

It is no news that the use of marijuana is viewed by many, no matter what the demographic, as innocuous and far less than alcohol and certainly any other drugs. It has become increasingly difficult to convince users of the harm associated with marijuana use when the legal status ranges from fully illegal, to medicinal and/or decriminalized to fully legal. Users often describe marijuana as simply a plant so it is a natural and therefore a healthy alternative to alcohol and other drugs. This, along with the misconception that marijuana is not addictive, creates an inherent struggle for both the evaluator and evaluatee. As an aside, when writing this, I came across an article in the New York Times by Dana G. Smith (April 10, 2023), titled “How Do You Know If You Are Addicted to Weed?” The article itself gives good basic information but the most interesting part was the comments from readers which were all over the map.

Substance use evaluations for marijuana use become problematic when the client comes in with that strong point of view which may be reflected in the results of the SASSI and in the scales.

The question of diagnosis based on the DSM-5’s 11- symptom criteria and whether the client meets either mild, moderate or severe must be answered before any treatment considerations can be raised.

The following is a good example of what a profile looks like when the drug use in question is marijuana.

The client is a 19 year old female and the FVA/FVOD questions were answered for the last 12 months. The RAP and Prescription Drug Scale scores are 0.

CLINICAL INTERPRETATION

The client’s FVA is average but her FVOD of 13 is elevated above the 85th percentile so clinically significant. Her SYM score of 9 is above the 98th percentile so she is endorsing significant symptoms and consequences. It also indicates she is associating with either family or friends who are heavy users. This gives important information regarding her environment and the difficulty of a social system that supports recovery.

The OAT scale score of 5 is neither elevated nor extremely low. It would be plausible to say she does not identify with or see herself as a substance abuser. This is reinforced by both the SAT(6) and DEF(6) falling in the normative range. She is not in denial because she believes there is nothing wrong with smoking marijuana and so was non-defensive when completing the questionnaire. The only other clinically significant scale is COR with a score of 7, also above the 85th percentile. Whether or not she has legal problems, she has answered in a similar way to others with legal issues. Anyone looking at that result can evaluate impulsivity, anger management issues, low frustration tolerance, poor social skills or risk taking behaviors, all of which impacts choice-making abilities.

THE RULES

Out of the 10 rules evaluating for either a high or low probability of a substance use disorder, she meets 4 of them:

          Rule 2 (SYM=7+)

          Rule 5 (SYM=5 + and SAT=4+)

          Rule 6 (SYM=6+ and DEF OR SAM=7+)

          Rule 10 (FVA=14+ or FVOD =8+ and SAT=1+ and DEF= 4+ and SAM 4+)

To meet the criteria of a High Probability of a Substance Use disorder requires meeting only ONE rule. Meeting more than one rule does not necessarily mean a more severe disorder. The DSM-5 evaluates for severity ranging from mild, moderate to severe based on the number of diagnosable criteria met.

CLINICAL ISSUES TO CONSIDER

Giving clinical feedback to this client or any client for that matter, is to use the information they have given you from the questionnaire. Pulling information from this client’s questionnaire, the FVOD and the SYM responses can help start the conversation regarding how she is using drugs, under what circumstances and consequences of her use. For online users wanting access to the SYM questions, go to sassionline.com, log-in: go to ‘my clients’ tab; then ‘support materials’ tab. Under Adult SASSI-4 Online User’s Guide go to the SYM section, Pg.19. You will find a list of the SYM questions you can coordinate with your client’s completed questionnaire. A reminder: only with face valid scales i.e FVA, FVOD, SYM and Rx scales can you do content analysis of the questions.

The purpose of feedback is not trying to convince her that marijuana is a drug and she has a disorder but to use the information she, herself, has given you to explore how her drug use is impacting her in a negative way or in some ways interfering in her life.

TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS

The OAT score result implies group treatment intervention would not be the first choice for this client. Information specifically regarding marijuana’s addictive qualities and impact on the body could be included in individual motivational counseling. Establishing a goal regarding her use, including reduction or abstinence is part of treatment planning no matter the context. Even though she is not defensive, establishing rapport and trust may be instrumental in facilitating this client to take a closer look at her drug use and eventually be open to group experiences.

If you have any clinical questions, be sure to call our free helpline to talk to our clinicians. We are available M-F, 12-5 EST at 800-726-0526.

PDF Version Available for Download

The Interrelationship of Bullying, Shaming & SUD among LGBTQ Adolescents

As we approach the end of PRIDE month, we are pleased to share a short article we recently published that discusses substance misuse and explores the genesis and exacerbation of drug use among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) teens. In the article, we look at the possible connection between bullying and other oppressive behavior (such as shaming) and acknowledged substance use and suicide. We hope you will take the time to read and share it. “Bullying and Oppressive Behaviors Towards LGBTQ Adolescents: Substance Use Disorders in the Making?”

We hope you will take the time to read and share it. “Bullying and Oppressive Behaviors Towards LGBTQ Adolescents: Substance Use Disorders in the Making?”

Elevated RAP/ High Probability Results on an Adult SASSl-4

This profile on a 21-year-old female with the FVA and FVOD, based on the last 12 months, is interesting primarily because it is so unusual.

As you look at the profile graph, all the scale scores are within the norm, i.e., between the 15th and 85th percentiles except for the SYM score which is above the 85th percentile. This tells you that she is acknowledging symptoms and consequences of her use and indicates she is associating with friends or family who are also heavy users. This is a bit of a contrast to her FVA and FVOD scores, both of which are above average but not above the 85th percentile.

The SAT score of 5 is within the norm which is a positive – no denial or lack of awareness or insight is indicated. However, with the OAT score within the norm, it is a possibility that she does not identify with other substance users and those characteristics we associate with substance users such as impatience, self-pity, resentment, or impulsivity. If marijuana is her primary drug, she may not see it as a problem so the high probability of a substance use disorder may be an unexpected result for the client.

Another positive is the DEF score, which is above average but not clinically significant since it is below the 85th percentile.

The client meets decision rules 5, 6 and 9 and 10 thus meeting the criteria for a high probability of a substance use disorder. As a reminder, more rules that are met does not mean a more severe problem. As we often mention on the clinical helpline, the diagnosis and severity of a substance use disorder is based on the criteria in the DSM-5.

Note the Prescription Drug Scale score of 2. It does not meet the cut-off criteria for prescription drug abuse, but it is worth a look at those items she endorsed.

The caller was puzzled by the RAP score of 2 and how it affected the result of the SASSI.

A RAP score of 2 or more always needs to be explored, preferably with the client. The two items which posed the problem were ‘I never have been picked on and I have never been sad’.
Cultural and language contexts need to be considered for possible reasons the client answered as she did. The possibility of her deliberately trying to ‘skew’ the questionnaire is low given the high probability result. More likely, the client answered accurately for her based on her life experience.

The clinician can now safely accept the overall result as valid.

As a reminder, the free clinical helpline, (800-726-0526) is available M-F, 12- 5 pm (EST) for any questions you may have. We also offer a free Q&A zoom meeting once a month for an hour as well. Please check the blog notice for dates and time to register. And finally, if you have additional inquiries, please contact the Clinical Director, Kristin Kimmell, LCSW, LCAC at kristin@sassi.com.

PDF Version Available for Download

Clinical Q&A and Live SASSI Training Webinar 

We are pleased that people have been joining us for our free one-hour online Clinical Q&A sessions hosted by our Clinical Director, Kristin Kimmell, LCSW, LCAC.  

We enjoy hearing how you are using the SASSI in your clinical practice and agencies as well as answering your questions and speaking to you all.  We have scheduled additional sessions that we hope you can join in on. You can reserve your spot and view available dates and times by clicking here. If you have profiles you would like to share with the group for discussion, please send them (de-identified) via email any time prior to the session to scarlett@sassi.com. Your contributions would be of great value. Also, a reminder that we have a live webinar on Administration & Scoring of the paper & pencil version of the SASSI on April 18th and Clinical Interpretation on April 25th. You can register by clicking here.   

Note that the Q&A sessions do not provide CEUs and are not a substitute for SASSI Training. SASSI training provides 3.5 NAADAC CEs per session. 

We hope to see you there! 

Pre-employment Screening / A Profile Review on the Proper Use of the SASSI-4

A recent caller wanted help in interpreting a profile completed by a 33-year-old male. He was instructed to complete the FVA/FVOD side of the questionnaire for the last 12 months. The administrator revealed during the call that the assessment was a pre-employment screening for the Department of Transportation. The helpline does receive regular calls from counselors who administer the SASSI-4 for the Department of Transportation after a driver has failed a drug or alcohol test for substances, but not for pre-employment screening.

In review, the client comes up with a high probability of a substance use disorder based on Rules 2,5,6 and 9. The RAP is 0 and the Rx Prescription Drug Scale is 0.

The FVA is below average use, the FVOD is on the 50th percentile. The SYM scale of 7 is above the 85th percentile, considered elevated and thus Rule 2 meets the criteria of a High Probability of a Substance Use Disorder. The rest of the scale scores are within the norm (between 15-85th percentiles) so clinically are not significant but are significant in meeting the criteria of a Substance Use Disorder if accounting for the additional rules of # 5, 6 and 9. The SAT of 5, being in the norm indicates the client was not in denial about his usage.

Considerations

Although the results do not account for current or actual use, further assessment may include urine screens that would give a more accurate representation of current use of substances. He does come up with a high probability of a Substance Use Disorder, so deeper inquiry is necessary.

The administration of this SASSI was part of a pre-employment screening and our position on the proper use of the SASSI in this regard, is very explicit:

From our User’s Guide and Manual: *

“The purpose of the SASSI is to help identify people who are likely to have substance use disorders so that early intervention and treatment can be initiated when appropriate.”

“To use the SASSI to discriminate against individuals violates the intent of the authors and may even violate the law.”

“SASSI results should not be used to abridge the rights of individuals or to disqualify applicants for positions, such as jobs or benefits, such as public assistance programs.”

Thus, it is extremely important to use the results in the most therapeutic way possible with the best intentions of helping individuals with a substance use disorder.

If you have any questions, please contact the Clinical Director, Kristin S. Kimmell, LCSW, LCAC at kristin@sassi.com.

*SASSI -4 User Guide & Manual – Chapter 1 (overview), pg.7
SASSI-4 Online User Guide – Proper Use of the SASSI. pg. 8

SASSl-4 Profile Analysis – DOT Client

We frequently receive calls requesting clinical interpretation of profiles done on Department of Transportation (DOT) clients. These clients have failed their drug/alcohol screening and their license to drive has been suspended pending an evaluation. In this particular case, the client is a 68-year-old female whose alcohol level registered above the DOT threshold. Her SASSI result indicated a high probability of a substance use disorder based on Rule 9. As you see on the graph, most of the scale’s clinical results fall within the norm. DEF, at 11, is above the 98th percentile and FAM, at 12 is above the 85th percentile. The OAT score of 1 falls in the 15th percentile. The high-DEF score is not unusual in DOT evaluations. It is incumbent on the evaluator to determine what the defensiveness is about. The SAM scale is no help in this case because it is not elevated. An elevated DEF coupled with an elevated SAM indicates the defensiveness is related to substance use. The elevated FAM score indicates someone who is not comfortable looking at their own issues. And the low OAT score indicates someone who has difficulty acknowledging their personal limitations and shortcomings. The combination of these three scales provides information to the evaluator that most likely, this client is not going to be forthcoming in disclosing issues or problems. During the evaluation, another piece of information disclosed was the client’s admission of trying to manage or monitor her drinking to try to stay below DOT’s threshold of alcohol use. That certainly may be a red flag.

Since the SASSI is a screening inventory and does not diagnose, the evaluator needs to reference the DSM-5 to determine if, indeed, the client meets the criteria for a substance use disorder and if so, what level – mild, moderate, or severe. Based on that, the evaluator has a couple of options to consider. If possible, work individually or refer to an individual substance abuse counselor to establish rapport and work to get the defensiveness down. Motivational Interviewing is a good asset to pull out in this case. Another option is to refer her to an outpatient group setting with the goal of connecting her to other clients and also have access to individual counseling as well. Regardless, outpatient treatment seems to be the most likely intervention.

It would be helpful to acknowledge the financial impact on the client that suspension of driving privileges is having on her. That certainly could be triggering the extreme defensiveness we see in the results and the consequences for the client could be significant.

We hope these reviews are helpful and whether you are a new user or a very experienced one,

clinicians are here to help with any questions you might have. Clinicians are available M-F, 11-5 (EST). Call us at 800-726-0526 or 888-297-2774.

PDF Version Available for Download

Addressing the Ethical Issues of Mandated Client

This sample profile is about a 27-year-old, Sally, who is a single mother of two small children. Sally was ordered by the court to report for a substance abuse assessment following an arrest for illegal possession of a controlled substance. Sally is also being investigated by the county’s Child Protective Services Agency, who has placed her children into foster care pending the outcome of the case.

An initial review of Sally’s scores indicates that, although she apparently understood the SASSI items and most likely responded in a meaningful way (RAP=1), there is evidence of significant defensive responding (DEF=9). Despite her defensiveness, the results indicate that she has a high probability of having a substance use disorder (SUD) based on Decision Rule 8 and 9. To put it another way, there is a 93% chance that Sally will meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for having a substance use disorder once a more comprehensive evaluation is completed.

For now, however, the SASSI has provided us with important information concerning Sally’s illegal act; her behavior is likely to be related to a serious addiction problem. In this light, we can now shift to looking for additional features on her profile that might help us to understand Sally better and develop a more empathic point of view. Learning more about her perspective and how she is dealing with this entire process, including the new information from the SASSI, certainly is one way to provide supportive and effective care to her during a mandated process of evaluation.

A prominent aspect of Sally’s SASSI results reflects her similarity to people with SUDs who were instructed to conceal and minimize any evidence of their substance use problems (DEF=9, SAM=12). In addition, an elevated DEF coupled with an elevated SAM indicates her defensiveness is related to her substance use.  One inference that can be drawn from this is that she is likely to have significant difficulty in disclosing personal information about her misuse of substances, as well as other problematic behaviors. Other SASSI scale scores may be reflecting this mind set. For example, she does acknowledge some misuse of alcohol and other drugs but no more so than the average person in the general population (FVA=5, FVOD=7). Her SYM score of 2 is also average, indicating no significant similarity to people with substance use disorders who do report experiencing many of the behaviors correlated with addictions. However, given that each of these scales is derived from face valid items that can be easily manipulated, it would be reasonable to suspect that Sally may be underreporting or misrepresenting problems in each of these areas.

It is easy to imagine that Sally may harbor some resentment towards the evaluation process and the practitioners involved. After all, she stands to lose not only her freedom but her two children as well. Underlying the overt anger and resistance may be an extreme sense of fear, apprehension and powerlessness in the face of feeling helpless to influence decisions that will undoubtedly affect the rest of Sally’s life. When viewed from her standpoint, it then becomes easy to see Sally’s defensiveness as a somewhat natural response to the threat she must be feeling. It’s no wonder that she is having difficulty acknowledging her substance use problems.

If further diagnostic evaluation for substance use disorder does indicate that Sally has an SUD, the following treatment approaches may prove useful based on insight gained from Sally’s SASSI scores. Despite Sally’s lack of ability and willingness to recognize the impact of her substance use on her life, it is our ethical responsibility as counselors to use our knowledge, skills and experience to lead her to an accurate understanding of the nature of her substance use disorder. This should be accomplished in a climate of respect and acknowledgement of the pressures that she is currently facing. An attitude of respect is particularly important when attempting to build a therapeutic alliance with clients like Sally that are mandated for assessment and treatment.

One way to engender open communication in a respectful way is to invite Sally to join you in a process of reviewing her responses on the SASSI face valid items. Acknowledging that it is important for you to understand her point of view, perhaps asking for further clarification or details as you actively listen is one way to cultivate trust and rapport. This communicates genuine concern and interest that may help Sally feel supported and empowered as she describes her experiences. Empathic responses that demonstrate a good understanding of the difficulties she is facing while helping her to gain insight regarding the nature of her substance use problems would be useful in making her an active partner in creating a treatment plan that she can accept.

Another effective way to increase Sally’s awareness of her substance use problems while maintaining a respectful relationship is to provide cognitively based educational programming. Didactic presentations of alcohol and drug information generally are viewed by clients as less threatening and often tend to elicit a more favorable response. Sally may particularly benefit from content that describes the impact of substance abuse on families and how, with proper treatment and aftercare, recovering individuals are often able to be reunited with their children and other family members.

PDF Version Available for Download

Profile Configurations: When the OAT is higher than the SAT vs when the SAT is higher than the OAT     

One question we field often on the clinical helpline is what does it mean when either the OAT (Obvious Attributes) is higher than the SAT (Subtle Attributes) or when the SAT is higher than the OAT when both are elevated above the 85th percentile?

Read more

A SASSI-4 Profile Analysis: Context Matters

If you have attended one of our trainings either in-person or online, you know the section on how to administer the SASSI to a client is one of the most important. A thoughtful approach can set the tone for the entire assessment by helping a client feel more at ease and engaged in the treatment process. We emphasize the importance of first establishing rapport with the client. The questionnaire is presented as an aid, not a test with right or wrong answers. We instruct to administer the true/false side first, then checking the appropriate time frame for the face valid side.  Letting the client know s/he will have a chance to discuss the results at a later time increases the client’s comfort level.

Our protocol is based on the recommended one-on-one consultation.  We realize that is not always possible. Administrators of the SASSI work in a variety of settings including schools, probation departments, EAP, treatment agencies, institutions and private practice. Since the SASSI does not require a professional to administer it, a variety of personnel can be trained, but both the context and the administrator can have a significant impact on the receptivity of the client.

This example of the context of a SASSI given to a client dramatically shows the difference the setting can make in the results. One of our clinicians fielded this call. The administrator did not know which results to use even though both profiles came up with a high probability of having a Substance Use Disorder.

The client is a 46-year-old male who was given the SASSI at the Courthouse in a packet of material he was instructed to complete. Two weeks later he was given another SASSI to complete. This time with a counselor assigned to evaluate him.

Here are the results of the first SASSI he completed at the Courthouse:

As you can see, he meets Decision Rule # 9.  Looking at the graph, some scales and numbers stand out.  On his face valid scales, including SYM, his numbers were within the norm, between the 15th and 85th percentile. His OAT score is extremely low which indicates he has a hard time acknowledging personal limitations or shortcomings and may have difficulty in groups. The other significant score is the DEF score of 8. In spite of the elevated DEF score, he did meet one rule. The SAM is almost at the 85th percentile so, in my mind, I might be more inclined to say he was defensive about his substance use and perhaps minimizing on the face valid scales. This hypothesis would depend on the rest of the assessment with any additional information. However, he was given the SASSI to complete within a packet of materials, and it is very unclear what instructions he was given, if any, on how to complete the SASSI.

Let’s look at the results of the 2nd administration given just two weeks later in the office of the counselor who was evaluating him after meeting and talking with the counselor.

In this profile, the client meets multiple decision rules including numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. All it takes is one rule to meet high probability and more than one does not mean a more severe substance use disorder. Diagnosis and severity are based on the DSM-5 criteria.  It is evident his raw scores have changed to impact the decision rule results.

There is a significant change in his Face Valid Scales with an FVA of 11 and an FVOD of 14. His SYM score of 6 also shows elevation. OAT has changed from a 0 to a 9. He is now indicating a willingness to acknowledge shortcomings and limitations. In addition, he probably can identify with other substance abusers so a referral to a group treatment program can be considered.

The significant drop in the DEF score from an 8 to a 5 is nice to see.  The client met with the counselor who was able to establish rapport by making the client more comfortable and explaining what the SASSI is and how it will be used in the context of the assessment. The low FAM score reflects the client’s internal state of mind. He is probably very concerned about what is going on within himself and not so concerned about others.

The final interesting scale change is the COR score and probably more representative of the client’s self- assessment at this point. Perhaps he is more able to identify impulsive or anger management issues, risk-taking behaviors, low frustration issues, or poor social skills. It gives the counselor some insight on what to explore, regarding behaviors which are impacting the client’s choices.

The most important difference in these two profiles was how the SASSI was presented to the client. Context, and establishing rapport can produce a more useful SASSI by obtaining a depth of clinical information. As an aside, we were not informed on why the SASSI was administered twice within a two-week time frame. We do not usually recommend doing so. It may have been the counselor was unaware of the first SASSI administration until receiving the completed materials from probation.

We hope you find this useful information regarding clinical issues.  As always, the Clinical Helpline at 888-297-2774 is open to serve you Monday through Friday, 9 am to 5 pm (EST).

PDF Version Available for Download