| Measure Description | Source of measure | Rahdert, 1991 |
| Mode of administration | Self report |
| Age range for use | Teen |
| Domains Assessed | Subscales include: Substance use, mental health, family relations, peer relations, social relations, aggressive behavior |
| Related Measures | |
| Burden | Training needed to administer | Minimal staff training required for this self-report measure. Staff need to be familiar with all items before administering to a participant. |
| Minutes to complete | 20-30 |
| # of items | 139 "yes/no" questions |
| Cost | Free |
| Adaptation for AIAN use | Adapted | No |
| Developer allows adaptation? | Unclear - contact developer |
| Used with AIAN populations? | Yes |
| Psychometrics | Norm-referenced | No |
| AIAN: Cronbach's alpha range | Cronbach's alpha ranges from 0.60-0.83 across scales. Test-retest reliability ranged from 0.44-0.72. Reported by Johns Hopkins University Center for American Indian Health |
| AIAN: Evidence of validity | Content validity appears high; Construct validity is moderate to good (mental health subscale has decent correlation with CESD and ASEBA withdrawal and depression subscales; substance abuse subscale has strong predictive correlation with recent - but not lifetime - substance use). Reported by Johns Hopkins University Center for American Indian Health |
| Other populations: Cronbach's alpha range | 0.44-0.86 |
| Other populations: Evidence of validity | Various studies (Latimer, Winters, & Stinchfield, 1997; Marques, Rahdert, & Danseco, 1999; Santisteban, Tejeta, Dominicis ,& Szapocznik, 1999; Scafidi, Field, Prodromidis, & Rahdert, 1997) have established the POSIT as a useful and valid screening instrument for adolescents of both genders, various ages, and different races. Latimer et al. (1997) report sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 79%. Scafidi et al. (1997) demonstrate the utility of the POSIT as a measure to identify the stressors that put pregnant teens at risk for drug abuse. |
| Source | Developer | Elizabeth Rahdert |
| Link | emcdda.europa.eu |
| Summary | Comments about sensitivity to change | |
| General remarks | Doesn't appear to be as widely used in literature, so difficult to find comparisons with other populations; Family functioning scale is unique and seemed sensitive in our population. |