Sassi: a Response to Lazowski & Miller (2007)

that a significantly higher proportion of non-Caucasian students were learning-disabled and that learning disability predicted whether students tested positive on the SASSI, but that ethnicity, while correlated, did not. None of the findings cited show bias in SASSI scores as a function of subject characteristics. A central theme is that the authors believe the SASSI subtle scales do not add enough sensitivity to warrant their use. They misquote the SASSI-3 manual [14] to make this point: 'The test manual reports that the direct scales [rules 1–3] detected only 79% [actually 74%] of actual SUDs, whereas adding the indirect [subtle] scales increased sensitivity to 94%'. Also, although the positive predictive power of the face valid scales was 100%, their negative predictive power was 50%. That the subtle scales improve detection appears to be evidence for using, not discarding them. Evidence of the advantage of the subtle scales has also been shown in other research. Myerholtz & Rosenberg [15] found that scores on the SASSI face valid alcohol (FVA) and drug (FVOD) scales dropped between one and two standard deviations to average scores for the normative population under instructions to fake good. Scores on the Subtle Attributes scale, designed to resist faking, did not change with attempts to fake good, and scores on the Defensive-ness (DEF) scale, developed to identify response sets to minimize problems, increased nearly two standard deviations. These scores indicate that none of the fake good subjects would have been identified by the face valid scales, and yet nearly all subjects would have been recognized as having extreme DEF scores. Access to a defen-siveness scale allows one to examine possible minimization. A final advantage to using both direct and indirect scales goes beyond mere screening. Just as a diagnostic interview to determine if a client has an SUD provides information beyond the presence or absence of SUD, so the SASSI can provide information in addition to classification. Just as two eyes can serve not just as an independent check on what each eye can see but also provide depth perception, subtle and direct scales give a more complete picture. What clinician would be indifferent to the degree to which a new client is unwilling to recognize the impact of alcohol and drug use in his or her life? A critical evaluation of several alcohol screening instruments using the CIDI-SAM as a criterion measure. of the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening …