Witnessing domestic abuse, diagnoses, and
antisocial traits among substance users: Relationships relating to sober
support and the global assessment of functioning
Madeline J Schlosser 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
v
Abstract
v
Methods
v
Results
Methods
Participants
Upon admission to a Midwestern, all-male, substance use halfway house, residents were asked if they would like to consent to have their demographic and treatment information used for research purposes. A total of 143 residents agreed to participant in the study. Residents were assured the information would be kept confidential and that names would never be associated with the demographic and treatment information. Participants received no compensation for participation. Data regarding how many residents refused participation was not available.
Regardless of whether residents consented and agreed to participate in the study, upon entry to the halfway house, residents filled out several measures and questionnaires including a demographic questionnaire, a trauma history survey, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV axis II diagnoses (SCID-II), and were asked to disclose any mental health history. For the current study, only consenting participants’ demographic questionnaires, trauma histories, SCID-II, and mental health histories were used. In addition, participants’ progress was tracked throughout the participants’ stay at the halfway house. Information such as how many AA meetings were attended, if house meetings were attended, and treatment outcomes were used to assess progress. This information was also utilized in the current study to assess amount of sober support, and GAF change.
Witnessing
Domestic abuse
Witnessing domestic abuse was assessed upon participants’ admission into the halfway house, and was used in the current study as an independent variable. During intake, participants were given a short list of traumatic events, including witnessing domestic abuse, and were asked to indicate if they had never experienced the event, or had experienced the event as a child, adult, or both. For the current study, if participants reported witnessing domestic abuse at any point in their life, the participants were considered as having witnessed domestic abuse and were coded as a one. If participants reported never witnessing domestic abuse, the participants were coded as a zero. The frequency and severity for each of the traumatic events was not asked upon intake.
Psychological
Diagnosis
Participants’ mental health histories were requested upon intake. Participants were asked to disclose any mental health history that they were aware of. If participants reported any history of severe mental illness, they were considered as having a psychological diagnosis and were coded as a one. If participants indicated no history of severe mental illness, they were not considered to have a psychological diagnosis and were coded as a zero. Thus, psychological diagnosis functioned in the current study as a dichotomized independent variable.
Antisocial
Personality Disorder Symptomatology
Participant’s ASPD scores were assessed utilizing the ASPD subscale of the SCID-II. Participants were presented with the 119 items SCID-II, 15 of which assessed ASPD, using statements such as “[b]efore you were 15, did you lie a lot or con other people” and were asked to respond to each question by marking either a yes or no. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the 15 items assessing the ASPD subscale of the SCID-II was 0.84. ASPD scores were then split into three categories and used as an independent variable: low scores, moderate scores, and high scores. Low scores were coded as a one, moderate scores were coded as a two, and high scores were coded as a three.
Sober
Support Compliance
Sober support compliance was tracked each week of a participant’s stay. Sober support compliance consisted of number of AA meetings attended, and whether or not participants attended weekly house meetings, counseling sessions, and peer-support groups. Employment was not integrated into sober support because employment was not mandatory among residents. Sober support compliance was calculated by first creating a weekly score of sober support for each week a participant stayed at the halfway house. A one was added to number of AA meetings attended in a week if the participant attended the weekly house meeting, counseling session, and peer-support group, creating a total of three possible points that could be added to number of AA meetings. This was done for each week of the participant’s stay. The sober support for each week of a participant’s stay was then added together and divided by the number of total weeks the participant resided at the substance use halfway house. This created an average number of sober support compliance for each participant, which was then used in the current study as a dependent variable.
Global
Assessment of Functioning
Global assessment of functioning (GAF) was measured upon a participant’s intake, and again during a participant’s discharge from the substance use halfway house. Due to the majority of participants obtaining the same GAF score upon intake, the change in GAF between a participant’s intake and discharge was used as a dependent variable to assess how much treatment improved a participant’s ability to psychologically, socially, and occupationally function (DSM-IV-TR, 2000).