Retrospective Self-Reports by Clients Differ from Original Reports: Implications for Drug Treatment

In a longitudinal study, 344 drug addicts in treatment described their status at three points in time: at treatment intake, and at 2 months and 8 months after intake. At the final interview they retrospectively described their prior status at treatment entry and 2 months after treatment entry. The retrospective reports were systematically more negative than the original reports in such areas as illicit behavior, sources of income, and life satisfaction. The results were interpreted in terms of an impression management explanation which suggests that clients distort their early self-presentations to access desired treatment services. A consequence of having artificially elevated pretreatment measures is that even if treatment is beneficial, elevated pretreatment measures may obscure true gains during treatment.

[1]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  L. Aiken,et al.  Ex-addict versus nonaddict counselors' knowledge of clients' drug use. , 1985, The International journal of the addictions.

[3]  H. Skinner.  Assessing Alcohol Use by Patients in Treatment , 1984 .

[4]  D. Nurco,et al.  The day-to-day criminality of heroin addicts in Baltimore--a study in the continuity of offence rates. , 1983, Drug and alcohol dependence.

[5]  M. Hesselbrock,et al.  "Never believe an alcoholic"? On the validity of self-report measures of alcohol dependence and related constructs. , 1983, The International journal of the addictions.

[6]  L. Midanik.  The validity of self-reported alcohol consumption and alcohol problems: a literature review. , 1982, British journal of addiction.

[7]  L. Sobell,et al.  Corroboration of drug abusers' self-reports through the use of multiple data sources. , 1982, The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse.

[8]  J. Kuldau,et al.  The validity of self-reported heroin use. , 1981, International Journal of the Addictions.

[9]  B. Rounsaville,et al.  Comparison of opiate addicts' reports of psychiatric history with reports of significant-other informants. , 1981, The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse.

[10]  L. Sobell,et al.  Effects of three interview factors on the validity of alcohol abusers' self-reports. , 1981, The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse.

[11]  Linda C. Sobell,et al.  CONVERGENT VALIDITY: AN APPROACH TO INCREASING CONFIDENCE IN TREATMENT OUTCOME CONCLUSIONS WITH ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSERS , 1980 .

[12]  N. ben-yehuda.  Are addicts' self-reports to be trusted? , 1980, The International journal of the addictions.

[13]  George S. Howard,et al.  Response-shift bias: A source of contamination of self-report measures. , 1979 .

[14]  P. Appel,et al.  Manipulativeness among drug abusers: reliability and validity of the Mach IV Scale. , 1977, The British journal of addiction to alcohol and other drugs.

[15]  L. Johnston,et al.  Conducting followup research on drug treatment programs , 1977 .

[16]  J J Bartko,et al.  ON THE METHODS AND THEORY OF RELIABILITY , 1976, The Journal of nervous and mental disease.

[17]  R. Stephens,et al.  The truthfulness of addict respondents in research projects. , 1972, The International journal of the addictions.

[18]  M. R. Novick,et al.  Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. , 1971 .

[19]  J. Ball.  The Reliability and Validity of Interview Data Obtained from 59 Narcotic Drug Addicts , 1967, American Journal of Sociology.

[20]  E. Goffman.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .