This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
This article provides an overview of the tools for psychosocial assessment of substance use disorders. Various psychosocial factors need to be assessed for effective management of individuals and to carry out research in the field. These factors include socio-demographic characteristics, neuropsychological functions, psychiatric co-morbidities, psychological vulnerabilities such as personality traits, motivation, and cognitions related to drug use, and the psychosocial functioning of the individual and his family. The various tools used to assess these aspects have been outlined below and the brief descriptions provided can help in choosing the right tool based on the characteristics that need to be measured and logistics.
Keywords: Substance-related disorders, Outcome and Process AssessmentUsing assessment tools is an important aspect of management and research in addiction psychiatry. Addiction is a bio-psycho-social-spiritual disorder and the evaluative and management process of those suffering from addiction is incomplete if the psychosocial aspects are not accounted for 1 . This article outlines assessment tools used for those with substance use disorder that have a psychosocial focus.
Both biological and psychosocial factors influence the initiation and progression of dependence and their effects are not exclusive of each other. The following psychosocial aspects of substance abuse can be assessed:
Social determinants of substance use: For e.g. age, gender, socio-economic status, cultural affiliation, etc.
Psychological vulnerabilities: temperament, personality, developmental influences such as parenting Cognitions related to substance: craving, salience, expectancy from substance use, etc. Motivational level Psychosocial impact on substance use: quality of life, disability experienced, etc.The illness trajectory of an individual with substance use disorder is affected by socio-demographic factors such as gender, age, and factors that impact the socio-economic status of the person and his family 2 ,3 . Socio-economic class of a person can be determined by taking note of the socio-demographic details of an individual by asking questions off a semi-structured socio-demographic pro forma. These pro forma are the foremost section of any clinical assessment or research questionnaire for substance use disorders and contain information on age, gender, educational qualifications, professional qualification, current employment status, marital status, family background (joint family or nuclear family), place of residence (urban, rural, etc.), religion, etc., In India, the revised Kuppuswamy scale and BG Prasad socio-economic scale are used to determine an individual's socio-economic status 4 . These scales are revised regularly due to changes in the Consumer Price Index of India, as they are dependent on income evaluation.
Modified Kuppuswamy's socio-economic status scale, revised for 2016: The Kuppuswamy scale classifies the family into lower class, upper lower class, lower middle class, upper middle class, and upper class based on the monthly family income, the family head's occupation and education level.
The modified BG Prasad scale uses only the monthly family income to classify the family into lower class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class and upper class. It has some added advantages over the Kuppuswamy scale: applicable to both urban and rural areas, applicable to both individuals and families.
Certain psychological deficits make a person more vulnerable to SUDs and relapse. Craving is a strong, uncontrollable desire to do a specific activity. Its neurobiological correlates and its impact on the course of SUDs is well documented 5 . Impulsivity is an important determinant of an individual's vulnerability to drug abuse 6 . The tools that can measure craving and impulsivity are described below:
Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS): This is a 14-item self-rated instrument used to quantify and monitor obsessive thoughts about alcohol use and compulsive behavior towards drinking 7 . The three aspects regarding thoughts related to alcohol use: “resistance/control impairment,” “obsession,” and “interference” can be measured. The scale also has an adolescent version given by Deas et al. (2001) 8 called the OCDS-A that can differentiate between problem drinkers and experimental drinkers in this age group.
Obsessive Compulsive Drug Use Scale (OCDUS) is a well known 12-item measure used to measure drug use craving. It measures three factors: thoughts about drugs and interference, desire and control, and resistance against thoughts and intention to use drugs 9 .
Desire for Drug Questionnaire (DDQ): is a 13-item self-report instrument that can measure three domains of craving for drug use: intention to use drugs, and negative reinforcement and control over desire to use drugs 10 .
Penn Alcohol Craving Scale (PACS): this is a short 5-item self-reported questionnaire that can be used in all age groups 11 . It assesses frequency, intensity, and duration of thoughts about drinking and the ability to resist drinking.
Alcohol Craving Questionnaire (ACQ-NOW) is a 47-item self-administered tool that can measure 4 dimensions of acute alcohol craving: emotionality, purposefulness, compulsivity, and expectancy 12 . A shorter version, ACQ-SF-R is also available that is reliable and sensitive to change.
UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale (UPPS): This is a 45-item scale measures impulsivity across dimensions of the Five Factor Model of personality. The scale consists of 4 sub-scales: Premeditation, Urgency, Sensation and Perseverance 13 . The revised version, UPPS-P is a 59-item scale that assesses additional personality features for impulsive behavior 14 .
Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS): This scale is commonly used to measure impulsive personality traits 15 . There are 30 items in the latest version and they are classified into 3 sub-scales: attentional impulsiveness, motor impulsiveness and motor-impulsiveness.
A cognitive vulnerability is defined as ‘an erroneous belief, cognitive bias, or pattern of thought that predisposes an individual to psychological problems’ 16 . Individual with SUDs deal with certain cognitive vulnerabilities that arise due to their expectations from substance use, how confident do they feel about managing their craving and control towards their primary substance of abuse and what benefits and harms do they perceive from continuing to use drugs. The tools mentioned below help screen for and record the nature of these cognitive vulnerabilities:
Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ) is a 120 item self-report assessment tool that can measure one's expected positive reinforcement from alcohol use 17 . The responses can help determines the specific personal expectations from alcohol use in 6 domains: more positive experience, assertiveness, relaxation, arousal, sexual enhancement, greater social and physical pleasure and more assertiveness. The tool has an adolescent version, AEQ-A which has 90 items and notes expectation in the following 7 domains: “Global positive changes, sexual enhancement, cognitive and motor impairment, increased arousal, relaxation and tension reduction, enhanced social facilitation, and enhanced cognitive and motor skills” 18 .
Negative Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (NAEQ) is a 60-item self-report instrument that can measure what would be negative consequences of immediate alcohol use. These expected outcomes can indicate the motivation to quit alcohol use and monitored during therapy to gauge process. The questions enquire about outcomes expected in 3 different time frames: same day, next day and long-term outcomes. A shorter 22-item version is also available.
Cannabis Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) is a 45 item self report tool that can record both positive and negative outcomes that a person associates with cannabis use 19 .
Marijuana Effect Expectancy Questionnaire (MEEQ) and Stimulant Effect Expectancy Questionnaire (SEEQ) by are self report tools that assess the expectations of an individual from cannabis and cocaine use 20 . MEEQ also has smaller 6-itm version called the MEEQ-B 21 .
Alcohol Abstinence and Self Efficacy Scale (AASE): this is a self-administered scale that measures self-efficacy i.e. ability to avoid alcohol use in 20 different drinking situations such ‘When I am on vacation and want to relax’ or ‘When I am feeling angry inside’ 22 . The responses to each of the situation are used to score items in 4 5-item sub-scales: ‘Negative Affect, Social/Positive, Physical and Other Concerns, and Withdrawal and Urges’.
Drink Refusal Self Efficacy Questionnaire (DRSEQ): is a self-administered 31-item measure of drinking that measures a person's self- perceived ability to resist drinking 23 . The questionnaire has three factors: drinking in situ ations characterized by social pressure, opportunistic drinking, and emotional relief. It is useful to monitor progress in therapy and to screen for problematic drinking. A revised version with sound psychometric properties, DRSEQ-R is also available 24 .
Drug Avoidance Self Efficacy Scale (DASES): consists of 16 situations that a client is asked to imagine self in 25 . The responses on a 7-point scale can adjudge a client's ability to cope with high-risk situations related to drug use.
Alcohol (and Illegal Drugs) Decisional Balance Scale: This is a 20-item self-rated instrument used the pros and cons of alcohol and drug use that are perceived by an individual on a 5 point likert scale 26 .
Alcohol and Drug Consequences Questionnaire (ADCQ): This is a 28-item self-rated instrument that measures that indicates the consequences of alcohol and drug use as experienced by a substance user 27 . This is useful information in case of individuals undergoing cognitive therapy for relapse prevention.
Brief Situational Confidence Questionnaire (BSCQ) This instrument lists 8 situations to the person in which they are likely to experience a drug or alcohol related problem 28 . Then they are asked how confident are they (in percentage) that they will be able to resist the urge to use the psychoactive substance. The information provided for each of the situations becomes a useful talking point when discussing relapse prevention in high-risk situations.
Motivation to seek treatment for SUDs and to abstain from drug use has an important role to play in determining the treatment plan for a client. Commonly, motivation is defined by the readiness to seek treatment and readiness to change of an individual 29 . The stages of change: pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action and maintenance are used to slot the client based on how motivated he/she is to quit substance use. Based on the stage, certain pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions can be planned to reduce the possibility of continued drug use. Commonly used instruments to assess motivation are described below:
Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES): This is a 19-item self-report questionnaire that scores an individual's motivation by assessing 3 domains: recognition of having a problem related to alcohol use; ambivalence regarding alcohol use; and steps being taken by a person to bring down alcohol use 30 . The individual's scores in these 3 domains helps to decide further psychosocial management of the individual.
University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (URICA): This is a 31-item self-report tool to assess how a person feels about rectifying a ‘problem’ in their life and/or approaching therapy 31 . The term ‘problem’ could mean substance use. Based on the average scores on pre-determined sets of questions from the scale, it can be determined whether a person is in pre-contemplation, contemplation, action or maintenance stage of change, to provide a composite change score (C + A+ M-PC).
Readiness to change questionnaire (RCQ): This is a 12-item self-report questionnaire that is based on URICA 32 . It is structured around deciding whether a person is in pre-contemplation, contemplation, or action stage of change. For use in treatment settings, there is a treatment version available – RCQ-TV.
Motivation for Addiction Treatment-Hindi scale 33 : This scale was specifically developed for the Indian population. It assesses motivation to quit substance use and seek treatment irrespective of the kind of substance being used.
It is important to measure the psychosocial impact of substance use and to assess the change in the psychosocial status in an objective manner so as to plan targeted psychosocial interventions. The tools that assess disability due to SUDs and impact of SUDs on quality of life can be helpful objective measures that bring out these issues. Some of them are described below:
WHO Quality of Life (WHO-QOL) Assessment: The WHO-QOL is a 100 item questionnaire that assesses an individual's quality of life in 6 domains: physical, psychological, social relationships, environment, level of independence and spirituality 34 . The other versions of the scale are the WHO-QOL BREF which is an abbreviated version of WHOQOL-100. The WHO-QOL instruments for people living with HIV-AIDS is called WHOQOL-HIV. It is a 120 item questionnaire that assesses quality of life in the 6 domains. The Hindi version of WHO-QOL is useful for Indian populations 35 .
WHODAS 2.0: Several versions (36 and 12 item version; interviewer, self-rated or proxy version) of WHODAS are available for assessment of an individual's health status and disability experienced due to mental, physical and substance use related disorders 36 . Six domains of functioning are covered: cognition, mobility, self-care, getting along, life activities, and participation.
The primary aim of treatment of SUDs is to improve their functioning. The client should be able to perceive the impact of interventions on their functioning and the treating team too needs to measure the functioning to decide if their efforts have been of any consequence. The functionality of an individual with SUDs is also an important research outcome. The tools that are commonly used to measure functioning are outlined below:
Global Assessment of functioning (GAF): This scale can be used to quantify the psychosocial functioning of an individual on a scale on 0 (inadequate information) to 100 (optimum functioning). The scale does not include impairment in functioning experienced due to physical ailments and environmental factors 37 .
Personal and Social Performance scale (PSPS): This scale was developed from the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) 38 . It tests functioning in 4 domains: self-care, social useful activities, personal and social relationships, and disturbing and aggressive behavior. A score between 0 (inadequate information) to 100 (optimum functioning) can be given based on the assessments.
The instruments described so far are necessary for assessment of psychosocial functioning. In addition, impaired neuropsychological functioning and co-occurrence of psychiatric co-morbidity need to be screened and managed in individuals with SUDs. The sections below provide an overview of some of the instruments that can be used for this purpose.
Substance use disorders could lead to impaired cognitive functioning and it is important to assess the baseline and changes in the neuropsychological performance and behavior of a person undergoing treatment, or as part of research. The neuropsychological functioning of a person can determine what sort of treatment approach will be best of a person, what will be the best rehabilitative plan, what kind of management strategy should be employed and what is the prognosis. Table 1 outlines the list of instruments that can be used to assess neuropsychological performance.
Tests to assess neuropsychological performance
Individuals with SUDs often suffer from psychiatric disorders. The prevalence of dual diagnosis among the Indian population has been shown to be as high as 60% alcohol and opioid dependent patients 52 . It is essential to screen patients for psychopathology such as psychotic symptoms, mood and anxiety symptoms, and other specific psychiatric disorders such as eating disorder, sexual dysfunction that impact the diagnosis and management. An analysis for stress related disorders such as Post-traumatic Disorder (PTSD) is necessary, as those with SUDs have often experienced a traumatic event which acts as perpetuating factor for drug abuse 53 . Thus, an important part of psychosocial assessment is to screen and diagnose for these co-morbid conditions. Table 2 outlines some of the tools that have been used to assess psychiatric disorders in those with SUDs.
Tests to assess psychiatric comorbidity
Psychosocial assessment of those with substance use disorders is an important step in formulation of a management plan and it also holds an important place as an outcome measure in substance use research. The tools described above are useful in screening for psychosocial deficits that one commonly comes across in those with SUDs. While some of these instruments have been adapted to be used on the Indian population, it is important to develop more such measurements that are appropriate and effective.[54-73]
There are no conflicts of interest.
1. Smith DE. Editor's note: The process addictions and the new ASAM definition of addiction. Journal of psychoactive drugs. 2012 Jan 1; 44 (1):1–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Cavazos-Rehg PA, Housten AJ, Krauss MJ, Sowles SJ, Spitznagel EL, Chaloupka FJ, Grucza R, Johnston LD, O’malley PM, Bierut LJ. Selected state policies and associations with alcohol use behaviors and risky driving behaviors among youth: findings from Monitoring the Future study. Alcoholism: clinical and experimental research. 2016 May 1; 40 (5):1030–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Lal R, Deb KS, Kedia S. Substance use in women: Current status and future directions. Indian journal of psychiatry. 2015 Jul; 57 (Suppl 2):S275. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Shaikh Z, Pathak R. Revised Kuppuswamy and B G Prasad socio-economic scales for 2016. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2017; 4 :997–9. [Google Scholar]
5. Dom G, Sabbe B, Hulstijn W, Brink W. van den. Substance use disorders and the orbitofrontal cortex: Systematic review of behavioural decision-making and neuroimaging studies. The British J of Psych. 2005; 187 (3):209–220. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp. 187.3.209 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Perry J. L, Carroll M. E. The role of impulsive behavior in drug abuse. Psychopharmacology. 2008; 200 (1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-008-1173-0 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Anton RF, Moak DH, Latham PK. The obsessive compulsive drinking scale: a new method of assessing outcome in alcoholism treatment studies. Archives of Gen Psych. 1996 Mar 1; 53 (3):225–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Deas D, Roberts J, Randall C, Anton R. Adolescent Obsessive-Compulsive Drinking Scale: an assessment tool for problem drinking. Journal of the National Medical Association. 2001 Mar; 93 (3):92. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Franken IH, Hendriks VM, van den Brink W. Initial validation of two opiate craving questionnaires: the Obsessive Compulsive Drug Use Scale and the Desires for Drug Questionnaire. Addictive behaviors. 2002 Oct 31; 27 (5):675–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Flannery BA, Volpicelli JR, Pettinati HM. Psychometric properties of the Penn alcohol craving scale. 8. Vol. 23. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research; 1999. Aug 1, pp. 1289–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Singleton EG, Henningfield JE, Tiffany ST. Alcohol craving questionnaire: ACQ-Now: background and administration manual. Baltimore: NIDA Addiction Research Centre; 1994. [Google Scholar]
12. Whiteside SP, Lynam DR. The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and individual differences. 2001 Mar 31; 30 (4):669–89. [Google Scholar]
13. Cyders MA. Impulsivity and the sexes: Measurement and structural invariance of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. Assessment. 2013 Feb; 20 (1):86–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Barratt ES. Anxiety and impulsiveness related to psychomotor efficiency. Perceptual and motor skills. 1959 Sep; 9 (3):191–8. [Google Scholar]
15. Felgoise S, Nezu A. M, Nezu C. M, Reinecke M. A. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Behavior Therapy. Springer Science and Business Media; 2006. [Google Scholar]
16. Brown SA, Christiansen BA, Goldman MS. The Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire: an instrument for the assessment of adolescent and adult alcohol expectancies. J of Studies on Alcohol. 1987 Sep; 48 (5):483–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Aldrich FK, Wilson B. Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test for Children (RBMT-C): A preliminary evaluation. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1991 May 1; 30 (2):161–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Stein LA, Katz B, Colby SM, Barnett NP, Golembeske C, Lebeau-Craven R, Monti PM. Validity and reliability of the alcohol expectancy questionnaire-adolescent, brief. J of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse. 2007 Mar 6; 16 (2):115–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Connor JP, Gullo MJ, Feeney GF, Young RM. Validation of the Cannabis Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) in adult cannabis users in treatment. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2011 Jun 1; 115 (3):167–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Schafer J, Brown SA. Marijuana and cocaine effect expectancies and drug use patterns. J of Consult and Clin Psychol. 1991 Aug; 59 (4):558. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Torrealday O, Stein LA, Barnett N, Golembeske C, Lebeau R, Colby SM, Monti PM. Validation of the marijuana effect expectancy questionnaire-brief. Journal of child and adolescent substance abuse. 2008 Aug 20; 17 (4):1–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. DiClemente CC, Carbonari JP, Montgomery RP, Hughes SO. The alcohol abstinence self-efficacy scale. Journal of studies on alcohol. 1994 Mar; 55 (2):141–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Oei TP, Burrow T. Alcohol expectancy and drinking refusal self-efficacy: a test of specificity theory. Addictive Behaviors. 2000 Aug 31; 25 (4):499–507. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Oei TP, Hasking PA, Young RM. Drinking refusal self-efficacy questionnaire-revised (DRSEQ-R): a new factor structure with confirmatory factor analysis. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2005 Jun 1; 78 (3):297–307. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Martin GW, Wilkinson DA, Poulos C ×. The drug avoidance self-efficacy scale. Journal of substance abuse. 1995 Dec 31; 7 (2):151–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. DiClemente CC. Alcohol (and illegal drugs) decisional balance scale. Enhancing Motivation for Change in Substance Abuse Treatment. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series. 1999:35. [Google Scholar]
27. Cunningham JA, Sobell LC, Gavin DR, Sobell MB, Curtis Breslin F. Assessing motivation for change: Preliminary development and evaluation of a scale measuring the costs and benefits of changing alcohol or drug use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 1997 Jun 1; 11 (2):107–14. [Google Scholar]
28. Breslin FC, Sobell LC, Sobell MB, Agrawal S. A comparison of a brief and long version of the Situational Confidence Questionnaire. Behaviour research and therapy. 2000 Dec 1; 38 (12):1211–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Prochaska J. O, Diclemente C. C. Treating Addictive Behaviors. Boston, MA: Springer; 1986. Toward a Comprehensive Model of Change; pp. 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2191-0_1 . [Google Scholar]
30. Miller WR, Tonigan JS. Assessing drinkers' motivation for change: the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES) Psychol of Addictive Behaviors. 1996 Jun; 10 (2):81. [Google Scholar]
31. DiClemente CC, Hughes SO. Stages of change profiles in outpatient alcoholism treatment. Journal of substance abuse. 1990 Dec 31; 2 (2):217–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Heather N, Gold R, Rollnick S. Readiness to change questionnaire: User's manual. Kensington, Australia: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales; 1991. [Google Scholar]
33. Mattoo SK, Basu D, Malhotra A, Malhotra R. Motivation for addiction treatment-Hindi scale: Development and factor structure. Indian journal of psychiatry. 2002 Apr; 44 (2):131. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med. 1998; 46 :1569–1585. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Saxena S, Chandiramani K, Bhargava R. WHOQOL-Hindi: A questionnaire for assessing quality of life in health care settings in India. World Health Organization Quality of Life. Natl Med J India. 1998; 11 :160–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Üstün TB, editor. Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO disability assessment schedule WHODAS 2.0. World Health Organization. 2010 [Google Scholar]
37. Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Endicott J. Handbook of psychiatric measures. Washington: American Psychiatric Association; 2000. Global assessment scale (GAS), global assessment of functioning (GAF) scale, social and occupational functioning assessment scale (SOFAS) pp. 96–100. [Google Scholar]
38. Morosini PL, Magliano L, Brambilla L, Ugolini S, Pioli R. Development, reliability and acceptability of a new version of the DSM-IV Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) to assess routine social functioning. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2000 Apr; 101 (4):323–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J of psychiatric research. 1975 Nov 30; 12 (3):189–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Wechsler D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV) Vol. 22. San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson; 2008. p. 498. [Google Scholar]
41. Weintraub S, Mesulam MM. Visual hemispatial inattention: stimulus parameters and exploratory strategies. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 1988 Dec 1; 51 (12):1481–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Golden C. J. Stroop Color and Word Test: A Manual for Clinical and Experimental Uses. Chicago, IL: Stoelting Co; 1978. [Google Scholar]
43. Reitan RM. Investigation of the validity of Halstead's measures of biological intelligence. AMA Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry. 1955 Jan 1; 73 (1):28–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Nelson HE. A modified card sorting test sensitive to frontal lobe defects. Cortex. 1976 Dec 31; 12 (4):313–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Lezak MD. Neuropsychological assessment. USA: Oxford University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]46. Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, Anderson SW. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition. 1994 Jun 30; 50 (1):7–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Wechsler D. Wechsler memory scale (WMS-III) San Antonio, TX: Psychological corporation; 1997. [Google Scholar]
48. Schmidt M. Rey auditory verbal learning test: A handbook. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services; 1996. [Google Scholar]
49. Kaplan E. The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1983. [Google Scholar]
50. Bennett-Levy J. Determinants of performance on the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test: An analysis, and a new technique for single-case assessment. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1984 May 1; 23 (2):109–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Nelson HE, Willison J. National adult reading test (NART) Windsor: Nfer-Nelson; 1991. [Google Scholar]
52. Murthy P, Manjunatha N, Subodh B. N, Chand P. K, Benegal V. Substance use and addiction research in India. Indian J of Psychiatry. 2010; 52 (7):189. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.69232 . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Cottler L. B, Compton W. M, Mager D, Spitznagel E. L, Janca A. Posttraumatic stress disorder among substance users from the general population. The Am J of Psychiatry. 1992; 149 (5):664–670. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.149.5.664 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Tombaugh TN, McIntyre NJ. The mini-mental state examination: a comprehensive review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1992 Sep 1; 40 (9):922–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Derogatis LR, Cleary PA. Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the SCL-90: a study in construct validation. Journal of clinical psychology. 1977 Oct 1; 33 (4):981–9. [Google Scholar]
56. Hathaway SR, McKinley JC. Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems; 1970. [Google Scholar]
57. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 1960; 23 (1):56. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Beck depression inventory-II. San Antonio. 1996; 78 (2):490–8. [Google Scholar]
59. Young RC, Biggs JT, Ziegler VE, Meyer DA. A rating scale for mania: reliability, validity and sensitivity. Br J Psychiatry. 1978; 133 :429–435. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Beck AT, Kovacs M, Weissman A. Assessment of suicidal intention: The scale of suicide ideation. J Consult Clin Psychology. 1979; 47 :343–352. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Hamilton M. Diagnosis and rating of anxiety. Br J Psychiatry. 1969; 3 (special issue):76–79. [Google Scholar]
62. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE, Vagg PR. State-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) BiB. 2010; 1970 :180. [Google Scholar]
63. Goodman WK, Price LH, Rasmussen SA, Mazure C, Fleischmann RL, Hill CL, Heninger GR, Charney DS. The Yale-Brown obsessive compulsive scale: I. Development, use, and reliability. Archives of general psychiatry. 1989 Nov 1; 46 (11):1006–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Blake DD, Weathers FW, Nagy LM, Kaloupek DG, Klauminzer G, Charney DS, Keane TM. A clinician rating scale for assessing current and lifetime PTSD: The CAPS-1. 1990 [Google Scholar]
65. Overall JE, Gorham DR. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychological Report. 1962; 10 :799–812. [Google Scholar]
66. Loranger AW, Janca A, Sartorius N, editors. Cambridge University Press; 1997. Apr 17, Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorders: The ICD-10 international personality disorder examination (IPDE) [Google Scholar]
67. Eysenck S. B. G, Eysenck H. J, Barrett P. A. revised version of the psychoticism scale, Personality and Individual Differences. 1985; 6 :21–29. [Google Scholar]
68. Craig RJ. US: Springer; 2001. Millon clinical multiaxial inventory-III (MCMI-III). In Understanding psychological assessment; pp. 173–186. [Google Scholar]
69. Garner DM, Olmstead MP, Polivy J. Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. International journal of eating disorders. 1983 Jan 1; 2 (2):15–34. [Google Scholar]
70. Clayton AH, McGarvey EL, Clavet GJ. Changes in sexual functioning questionnaire (CSFQ)-Validation study. In Psychopharmacology Bulletin. 1996 Jan 1; 32 (3):423–423. Supt of Documents, Washington, DC 20402-9325: US Government Printing Office. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Derogatis LR. The Derogatis interview for sexual functioning (DISF/DISF-SR): an introductory report. Journal of sex and marital therapy. 1997 Dec 1; 23 (4):291–304. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Conners CK, Erhardt D, Sparrow EP. North Tonawanda: MHS; Conners' adult ADHD rating scales (CAARS): technical manual. [Google Scholar]
73. Kessler RC, Adler L, Ames M, Demler O, Faraone S, Hiripi EV, Howes MJ, Jin R, Secnik K, Spencer T, Ustun TB. The World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): a short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychological medicine. 2005 Feb; 35 (2):245–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Indian Journal of Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer -- Medknow Publications
