A comparison of actual and perceived problem drinking among driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenders.

A comparison of actual and perceived problem drinking among driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenders. ABSTRACT Problem drinkers account for a large proportion of those convictedof driving while intoxicated driving while intoxicatedn. see driving under the influence. (DWI An abbreviation for driving while intoxicated, which is an offense committed by an individual who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or Drugs and Narcotics. ). Nevertheless, specific rates ofproblem drinking among D WI offenders have been shown to exhibit widevariability. Therefore, we seek to (a) present the rate and severity ofproblem drinking among a sample of DWI offenders, (b) contrastoffender-perceived proportion of problem drinking against two separateindicators of problem drinking, and (c) determine demographiccharacteristics affecting the likelihood an offender would self-identifyas a problem drinker problem drinkerSubstance abuse A person who meets 2 of the 3 criteria in the last 12 months, for alcoholics. See Alcohol, Binge drinking. Cf Social drinker. . The sample consisted of DWI offenders (n=199)participating in a court-mandated education program. Results highlight asignificant discrepancy between DWI offenders "perceptions of theirdrinking problems, compared to other, more objective measures. Theobjective measures revealed that offenders were much more likely to beproblem drinkers than shown by self-ratings. These stark differenceshighlight potential focus/refinement areas for DWI rehabilitative re��ha��bil��i��tate?tr.v. re��ha��bil��i��tat��ed, re��ha��bil��i��tat��ing, re��ha��bil��i��tates1. To restore to good health or useful life, as through therapy and education.2. programs. Key Words: DWI, Offenders, Drinking Problem, Intoxicated in��tox��i��cate?v. in��tox��i��cat��ed, in��tox��i��cat��ing, in��tox��i��catesv.tr.1. To stupefy or excite by the action of a chemical substance such as alcohol.2. Driving INTRODUCTION Despite a consistent decline in the prevalence of alcohol-relatedtraffic fatalities in the United States United States,officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area. throughout the 1980s and 1990s(Williams, 2006), drinking and driving remains an important publichealth concern (UDHHS, 2010). Consequently, new substance abuseobjectives proposed for Healthy People 2020 (a set of science-basedten-year national objectives designed to promote health and preventdisease) include decreasing the rate of alcohol-impaired drivingfatalities (SA HP2020-20) and !ncreasing the number of driving whileimpaired (DWI) courts m the United States (SA HP2020-17). A nationalemphasis on drinking and driving behaviors seems prudent consideringconservative estimates report 159 million alcohol-impaired drivingepisodes annually (Quinlan et al., 2005), resulting in analcohol-related traffic fatality fa��tal��i��tyn.1. A death resulting from an accident or disaster.2. One that is killed as a result of such an occurrence. every 48 minutes (NHTSA NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (US government), 2010a). Forthat reason, it is not surprising the vast majority (81%) of theAmerican public judge drinking and driving by others as a threat totheir safety, as well as their families (NHTSA, 2010b). Individuals who report driving within two hours of drinking in thepast year not only drink in greater frequency but also consumesignificantly greater quantities per sitting than those who do not driveafter drinking (Royal, 2003). Moreover, Voas & Fisher (2001) contend"more than two-thirds of all DWI offenders who come before thecourt can be classified as hard core drinking drivers" (p33).Categorized cat��e��go��rize?tr.v. cat��e��go��rized, cat��e��go��riz��ing, cat��e��go��riz��esTo put into a category or categories; classify.cat as multiple offenders and/or first-time offenders with bloodalcohol concentrations (BACs) of 0.15 or greater at the time of arrest,"hard core" drinking drivers are at particularly high risk ofbeing involved in an alcohol-related crash (Simpson, Mayhew, Beimess,1996). When compared to fatally injured drivers with a zero BAC BACabbr.blood alcohol concentration , fatallyinjured drivers with BACs of 0.15 or higher were much more likely to beclassified by informants (e.g., spouses, parents, siblings, children) asproblem drinkers (Baker, Braver, Chen & Williams, 2002). Together,these findings echo the Highway Safety Bureau's (now the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration) earlier assertion that problemdrinkers account for as much as 66% of those involved in fatalalcohol-related crashes (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1968). Even though problem drinking is common among DWI offenders,specific rates across studies exhibit wide variability (Stasiewicz,Nochajski, Homish, 2007). In a review of literature published between1955 through 1981, between 4-87% of DWI offenders were classified asmeeting the criteria for 'alcoholism' (Vingillis, 1983).Reviews of literature published between 1990 through 2004 documentsimilar dispersion, reporting alcohol use disorders among 4-92% of DWIoffenders (Stasiewicz, Nochajski, Homish, 2007). Therefore, the purposeof the current study is threefold. First, we will present the rate andseverity of problem drinking among a sample of DWI offenders. Second,the proportion of DWI offenders who self-identify as a problem drinkerwill be compared against two separate, objective indicators of problemdrinking. Lastly, we will determine the demographic and personalcharacteristics affecting the likelihood that an offender wouldself-identify as a problem drinker. METHODS In an effort to supplement the various state-level legal sanctionsenacted to dissuade TO DISSUADE, crim. law. To induce a person not to do an act. 2. To dissuade a witness from giving evidence against a person indicted, is an indictable offence at common law. Hawk. B. 1, c. 2 1, s. 1 5. impaired driving (Hingson, 1996; Voas & Fisher,2001), Texas also implemented a court-mandated, comprehensive DWIeducation program (TCADA TCADA Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse , 2001). Designed as an educational curriculumto positively influence one's alcohol-related decision-making, thistwelve-hour course spans a period of three four-hour sessions or fourthree-hour sessions. Overall, the course seeks to present accurate,straightforward information covering four major content areas. The fourmajor components include (a) the alcohol/drug traffic safety problem,(b) effects of alcohol/drugs on the driving task, (c) alcohol/drug abuseand dependency, and (d) personal actions to avoid future DWI behavior.In addition to attending and participating in educational sessions,offenders also complete pre and postknowledge tests, drinking profiles,and an exit interview with the course instructor. Data for the currentinvestigation will focus on the self-reported drinker profile andoverall instructor evaluation of the offender's drinking problem.Specifics regarding both of these measures are provided herein. Sample Data were collected from DWI offenders enrolled in acourt-mandated, postoffense program within the state of Texas. Spanningtwo years of classes, the final sample for this investigation consistedof 199 total offenders. Instruments/Measures Offender Self-Identified Drinking Problem To determine whether participants would self-identify as a problemdrinker, offenders were asked to complete a drinking profile. One itemfrom that drinking profile served as the measure determining offenderself-report problem drinking: "Have you ever thought you might havea drinking problem?" The response scale consisted of dichotomous di��chot��o��mous?adj.1. Divided or dividing into two parts or classifications.2. Characterized by dichotomy.di��chot yes/no options. Numerical Drinking Profile (NDP NDP New Democratic Party (Canada)NDP National Development Plan (Republic of Ireland)NDP National Development PlanNDP National Democratic Party (Barbados)) In order to objectively assess the extent of each participatingoffender's drinking problem, the Numerical Drinking Profile (NDP)(Winter, 1979) was employed. The NDP was considered appropriate for thisinvestigation, since it was originally developed to be used ineducational programs designed for DWI offenders. In all, the NDPconsists of six distinct factors. Intended to determine one'sstatus along a problem-drinking continuum, these six factors includepersonal data items (5 total) and a cumulative score from an adaptedversion of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST). Personal dataitems include (a) "How many time have you been arrested on chargesinvolving alcohol (not including the present DWI charge)?" (b)"Is someone close to you concerned about your drinking?" (c)"With whom did you do most of your drinking before thisarrest?" (d) "Do you believe your drinking may be causing youproblems?" and (e) "Do you want help for a drinkingproblem?" (Winter, 1979). One's overall NDP score is interpreted on a continuum from oneto seven, with the severity of a drinking problem increasing as scoresbecome greater. NDP scores are categorized in the following manner: --No Problem: indicates a NDP score of 1. These individuals have noprior arrests, do not believe any individuals are concemed about theirdrinking, and have a MAST score ranging from 0 to 3. --Potential Problem: indicates a NDP score ranging from 2 to 5.These individuals must indicate one or more of the following: onealcohol-related arrest, drank alone or with strangers prior to arrest,answered "yes" or "not sure" alcohol is causingproblems in your life, believed someone close to them was concerned withyour drinking, and had a MAST score ranging from 4 to 6. A greaternumber of responses meeting these parameters resulted in a higher NDPscore and also indicated a more severe drinking problem. --Evident Problem: indicates a NDP score of 6 or 7. Theseindividuals must meet one or more of the following criteria: two or morealcohol-related arrests, a MAST score of seven or greater, and anacknowledgment acknowledgment,in law, formal declaration or admission by a person who executed an instrument (e.g., a will or a deed) that the instrument is his. The acknowledgment is made before a court, a notary public, or any other authorized person. that the offender wants help for a drinking problem(Winter, 1979). For this investigation the NDP exhibited acceptable internalconsistency In statistics and research, internal consistency is a measure based on the correlations between different items on the same test (or the same subscale on a larger test). It measures whether several items that propose to measure the same general construct produce similar scores. (Cronbach's alpha Cronbach's (alpha) has an important use as a measure of the reliability of a psychometric instrument. It was first named as alpha by Cronbach (1951), as he had intended to continue with further instruments. coefficient = 0.71), supportingprevious evidence indicating the scale's reliability among a DWIoffender population (Barry, Misra, Dennis, 2006; Malfetti & Winter,1976). Course Exit Interviews To provide an additional measure of each offender's drinkingproblem, DWI course instructor evaluations were used. At the conclusionof each court-mandated DWI education course, the instructor conducts anexit interview with each offender. Exit interviews are required of allparticipating offenders. If not fulfilled, offenders will not receiveacknowledgement of their participation in and completion of the course,which is required by the court system. During the exit interview process, offenders identify extenuatingcircumstances Facts surrounding the commission of a crime that work to mitigate or lessen it.Extenuating circumstances render a crime less evil or reprehensible. They do not lower the degree of an offense, although they might reduce the punishment imposed. surrounding their arrest and discuss strategies they canimplement in their personal lives to prevent another DWIincident/conviction. In addition, the instructor reviews eachoffender's pre and post test scores, NDP score, and overallbehavior/participation throughout the course. At the conclusion of thisexit interview, the instructor determines the extent of eachoffender's drinking problem (considering all the aforementionedfacets jointly), and makes one of the following recommendations: --Low risk of drinking problem indicated at this time. --Potential problem. Evaluation needed to determine if furthercounseling is require. --Evident problem. Referral to counseling is necessary. --Other problems indicated, which may require counseling. Data Analysis The Predictive Analytics Predictive analytics encompasses a variety of techniques from statistics and data mining that process current and historical data in order to make “predictions” about future events. SoftWare (PASW PASW Performing Arts Studio West ) (version 18.0) wasutilized to generate descriptive statistics descriptive statisticssee statistics. regarding the sample'sdemographic characteristics. In addition, a chi-square test for goodnessof fit Goodness of fit means how well a statistical model fits a set of observations. Measures of goodness of fit typically summarize the discrepancy between observed values and the values expected under the model in question. Such measures can be used in statistical hypothesis testing, e. was employed to compare the proportion of offenders thatself-identified as problem drinkers with the two separate measures ofproblem drinking (e.g., offender NDP score and course instructorevaluation). A univariate logistic regression In statistics, logistic regression is a regression model for binomially distributed response/dependent variables. It is useful for modeling the probability of an event occurring as a function of other factors. was subsequently conductedto assess the impact of each independent variable and variousdemographic characteristics on the likelihood an offender wouldself-identify as a problem drinker. RESULTS Offenders in this sample were an average of 29 years of age (SD =10.7) and began drinking at an average age of 18 (SD = 3.2). The vastmajority of offenders were males (80%) of Caucasian decent (65%) who hadearned a high school education or equivalent (73%). Table 1 provides acomplete breakdown of the sample's demographic characteristics andprevalence of problem drinking. With regard to alcohol use, both indicators of problem drinking(NDP score and DWI instructor evaluations) classify the majority ofparticipants as exhibiting a potential drinking problem (see Table 1).Conversely, offenders were nearly universal (90%) in responding"no" to the question "Have you ever thought you mighthave a drinking problem?" This personal assessment drasticallycontradicted both of the problem drinking indicators employed in thecourt-mandated DWI offender course. Specifically, NDP scores classifyapproximately 78% of the offenders as having a potential (score between2-5) to evident (score between 6-7) drinking problem. Course instructorsevaluated 72% of the sample as having a potential to evident drinkingproblem. In order to assess inherent differences between the level ofproblem drinking perceived by the offenders against actual proportion ofproblem drinking (determined utilizing NDP scores and course instructorevaluations), two separate one-sample chi-square tests were performed.In the first test, NDP scores were used to establish the expectedproportion of offenders having a potential drinking problem. Based ontheir respective NDP scores, this chi-square goodness-of-fit testindicated there was a significant difference in the proportion ofoffenders in the current sample who thought they had a drinking problem(10%) as compared to the actual percentage of offenders who exhibitedproblem drinking (78%) [[chi square chi square (kī),n a nonparametric statistic used with discrete data in the form of frequency count (nominal data) or percentages or proportions that can be reduced to frequencies. ] (1, n=199) = 496.79, p < .0001].To further examine the accuracy of offenders in self-identifying apersonal drinking problem, a second one-sample chi-square test wasperformed using exit interview instructor evaluations as the expectedproportion of offender drinking problems. This chi-squaregoodness-of-fit test also indicated there was a significant differencein the proportion of offenders who thought they had a drinking problem(10%) versus the percentage of offenders course instructors identifiedas having a drinking problem (72%) [[chi square] (1, n=181) = 381.27,p< .0001]. Direct logistic regression was subsequently performed to assess theimpact of the independent variables, as well as a number of demographicand personal factors, on the likelihood that an offender wouldself-identify as having a drinking problem. In all, the model containedseven variables: NDP score, instructor evaluation of drinking problem,age, age of initiation into alcohol use, gender, ethnicity, highestlevel of education completed. Prior to conducting the analysis,correlations among the independent variables were assessed to determineif multicollinearity would impact the logistic regression analysis. Theonly correlation among model variables above .291 was the Pearsoncorrelation between NDP score and instructor evaluation/recommendation(.598). However, this bivariate bi��var��i��ate?adj.Mathematics Having two variables: bivariate binomial distribution.Adj. 1. correlation still fell below therecommended cut-off of .70 (Huck huck?n.Huckaback.Noun 1. huck - toweling consisting of coarse absorbent cotton or linen fabrichuckabacktoweling, towelling - any of various fabrics (linen or cotton) used to make towels , 2004; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).The full model was statistically significant ([chi square] with 15 df =41.900,p < .0001), indicating that the predictor variables includedwere able to distinguish between offenders who self-identified asproblem drinkers, and those who had not. The Homer and Lemeshow test wasnot statistically significant ([chi square] with 8 df = 5.831, p <.666), further substantiating the model's reliability and overallgoodness-of-fit. The model as a whole explained between 25.9% (Cox &Snell Snell, George 1903-1996.American geneticist. He shared a 1980 Nobel Prize for discoveries concerning cell structure that enhanced understanding of the immunological system, resulting in higher success rates in organ transplantation. R Square) and 54.1% (Nagelkerke R Square) of the variance inoffenders self-identifying as a problem drinker, and correctlyclassified 95% of all cases. As evident in Table 2, only three variablesmade a unique statistically significant contribution to the model (NDPscore, age, and age of initiation into alcohol use). The strongestpredictor of self-identifying a drinking problem was offender's NDPscore, recording an odds ratio of 2.069 (Wald = 5.172, df = 1, p <.023). This indicated that offenders who self-identified as problemdrinkers were two times more likely to have a higher NDP score thanthose who did not self-identify as problem drinkers. The odds ratio of.650 for age of initiation to alcohol use (Wald = 3.929, df = 1, p <.047) was less than 1, indicating that, for each additional year anindividuals put-off initiating alcohol use, they were .65 times lesslikely to self-identify as problem drinkers. Age was also significantlyrelated to self-identifying as problem drinkers (OR = 1.159, Wald =4.626, df = 1,p < .031), in that older offenders (B = .147) were morelikely to identify themselves as problem drinkers. Table 2 summarizesthe contributions of all independent variables included in the logisticregression analysis. DISCUSSION Results from this investigation highlight a clear discrepancybetween DWI offender's perceived drinking behaviors compared toother, more objective measures. While being in a court-mandated DWIeducation course is not the quintessential quin��tes��sen��tial?adj.Of, relating to, or having the nature of a quintessence; being the most typical: "Liszt was the quintessential romantic"Musical Heritage Review. factor for determining if aperson has a drinking problem, some contend, "an arrest for DWI inand of itself can signal a need for treatment" (Lapham, C'deBaca, McMillan, Hunt, 2004, p135). Overall, published research suggestsa large proportion of DWI offenders exhibit signs of alcohol abuseand/or dependence (Caetano & Rasberry, 2000; McCord, 1984; Pristach,Nochajski, Wieczorek, Miller, Greene, 1991; Lapham et al., 2001).Moreover, problem drinkers account for nearly half (46%) of all annualdrinking-driving trips (Royal, 2003). Reports estimate problem drinkersdrive with BACs of more than twice that of other drinking-drivers.Specifically, problem drinkers were estimated to have a BAC of 0.05 ontheir most recent drinking-driving trip, compared to that of 0.02 fordrivers who drink alcohol (Royal, 2003). Furthermore, problem drinkersand people with alcohol dependence account for a large portion ofalcohol-related crashes, including those that are fatal (Hingson &Winter, 2003). Thus, our sample's interpretation of personalalcohol consumption contradicts not only the indicators employed as apart of a court-mandated DWI course but also prevalence ratesestablished by previous research. Such a stark difference between offender-perceived problem drinkingand actual problem drinking levels highlight potential focus/refinementareas for DWI rehabilitative programs. Since it is unlikely DWIoffenders would enact strategies to curtail their drinking behaviors ifthey did not consider their personal alcohol consumption to beproblematic, future efforts should attempt to neutralize neutralizeto render neutral. thismisperception mis��per��ceive?tr.v. mis��per��ceived, mis��per��ceiv��ing, mis��per��ceivesTo perceive incorrectly; misunderstand.mis by establishing accurate social norms and prevalencerates. Additionally, efforts should be made to (a) determine howoffenders personally define problem drinking, and (b) establish whatbehaviors/characteristics are common across offender-provideddefinitions. Once established, approaches can be developed to bridge thegap between offender definitions/perceptions of problem drinking and thedefinitions/ interpretations of researchers. It is important to note,however, that published definitions/characterizations of problemdrinking vary. Specifically, some definitions of problem drinking focusupon quantity [e.g., binge drinking binge drinkingAn early phase of chronic alcoholism, characterized by episodic 'flirtation' with the bottle by binges of drinking to the point of stupor, followed by periods of abstinence; BD is accompanied by alcoholic ketoacidosis–accelerated lipolysis and (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, &Rimm, 1995)] or frequency (Paradis, Demers, Picard & Graham, 2009)of consumption while others primarily emphasize alcohol-relatedconsequences (Perkins, 2002). The NDP measure used in the currentinvestigation more closely aligns with a definition of problem drinkingthat focuses on consequences resulting from personal alcoholconsumption. Misperceptions stemming from one's alcohol consumption are notrestricted to the offender population. Among the general public there isfailure to accurately discern the amount of alcohol that can safely beconsumed prior to operating a motor vehicle. Specifically, among driverswho drink polled by the most recent National Survey of Drinking andDriving Attitudes and Behaviors, 40% felt it was safe for them to havethree drinks within a two-hour period before driving (NHTSA, 2010b).These beliefs are discerning considering driving-related performanceskills are impacted by alcohol at the lowest measurable levels(Moskowitz, Burns, Fiorentino, Smiley See emoticon. smiley - emoticon , Zador, 2000; Ogden &Moskowitz, 2004). Moreover, the relative risk of involvement in a fataltraffic crash rises exponentially as one's BAC increases (Zador,Krawchuck, & Voas, 2000). Previous research examining the drinking behaviors of DWI offendersidentifies age of alcohol initiation as a significant predictor ofproblem drinking (Barry, Misra, Dennis, 2006). Among the current sample,those who delay the age of alcohol onset were less likely to reportbeing a problem drinker. Considering individuals who begin drinking atan earlier age are significantly more likely to report impaired drivingever in their life, and within the past year (Hingson, Heeren, Levenson,Jamanka, Voas, 2002), it is important that alcohol-related preventionefforts focus on delaying drinking onset. Thus, future drinking anddriving prevention efforts should consider tailoring messages orprograms to young people who have not yet engaged in alcohol use and/ordriving. By initiating into alcohol use prior to the minimum legaldrinking age The legal drinking age is a limit assigned by governments to restrict the access of children and youth to alcoholic beverages. In most countries the legal age to purchase alcohol is at least 18, but there are notable exceptions. , as the average offender in our sample did, individualsplace themselves at elevated risk for developing alcohol dependence atsome point in their life (Grant & Dawson, 1997). The contributions of this research should be considered in unisonwith several limitations. Foremost, this investigation is limited by theself-report nature of the collected data. Thus, it is possible offendersdid not accurately represent their alcohol consumption behaviors due tofear of perceived negative consequences if identified as a problemdrinker. Also, it is noteworthy that NDP scores are interpreted across acontinuum. Even though individuals with scores ranging from 2-5 werecategorized as having a potential drinking problem, scores within thesame category are not necessarily equivalent. Thus, higher NDP scoresare much more indicative of problematic drinking behaviors than lowerscores. In this investigation, the majority of offenders scored a 3 (outof a possible 7) on the NDP. Although the current sample consists of adisproportionate number of males, this overrepresentation is consistentwith the elevated risk of males to be involved in alcohol-relatedtraffic fatalities (Hnigson & Winter, 2003) and their propensity todrive longer distances while intoxicated when compared to females(Royal, 2000). Furthermore, the demographic distribution of theoffenders in our sample (overwhelmingly male, Caucasian, young adults)parallels the characteristics of those most likely to (a) drive afterdrinking (Royal, 2003), (b) be involved in alcohol-related fatal crash(Hingson & Winter, 2003), and (c) drive with BACs at or above 0.05(Voas, Wells, Lestina, Williams, Greene, 1998). Consequently, thehomogenous homogenous - homogeneous distribution among our sample mirrors previously documentedcharacteristics of the "typical" drinking driver. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: AdamE. Barry, PhD, Assistant Professor, Purdue University Purdue University(pərdy`, -d`), main campus at West Lafayette, Ind. , Department ofHealth and Kinesiology kinesiologyStudy of the mechanics and anatomy of human movement and their roles in promoting health and reducing disease. Kinesiology has direct applications to fitness and health, including developing exercise programs for people with and without disabilities, preserving , 800 W. Stadium Avenue, West Lafayette West Lafayette,city (1990 pop. 25,907), Tippecanoe co., W Ind., a suburb of Lafayette, on the Wabash River; inc. 1924. A primarily residential city, it is the seat of Purdue Univ. , IN47907-2046; Phone: (765) 496-6723; E-mail: aebarry@purdue.edu. Additional author is: Maurice Dennis, PhD, Professor Emeritus e��mer��i��tus?adj.Retired but retaining an honorary title corresponding to that held immediately before retirement: a professor emeritus.n. pl. ,Director of Center for Alcohol and Drug Education Studies, Texas A&MUniversity, P.O. Box S-5, College Station, TX 77844-9175; Phone:(979)845-3046, Fax: (979)847-9579 REFERENCES Baker, S.P., Braver, E.R., Chen, L.H. & Williams, A. (2002).Drinking histories of fatally injured drivers. Injury Prevention, 8,221-226. Barry, A.E., Misra, R., & Dennis, M. (2006). Assessing drivingwhile intoxicated (DWI) offender characteristics and drinking problemsutilizing the numerical drinking profile (NDP). Journal of Alcohol andDrug Education, 50(3), 66-79. Caetano, R. & Rasberry, K. (2000). Drinking and DSM-IV alcoholand drug dependence among white and Mexican-American DUI offenders.Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61,420-426, 200 Grant, B.F. & Dawson, D.A. (1997). Age at onset of alcohol useand its association with DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: Resultsfrom the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey epidemiologic survey,n See research, epidemiologic survey. . Journal ofSubstance Abuse, 9, 103-110. Hingson, R. (1996). Prevention of drinking and driving. AlcoholHealth & Research World, 20(4), 219-226. Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Levenson, S., Jamanka, A., Voas, R.(2002). Age of drinking onset, driving after drinking and involvement inalcohol related motor-vehicle crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention,34, 85-92. Hingson, R. & Winter, M. (2003). Epidemiology and consequencesof drinking and driving. Alcohol Research & Health, 27(1), 63-78. Huck, S.W. (2004). Reading statistics and research (4th ed.).Boston, MA: Pearson Education Pearson Education is an international publisher of textbooks and other educational material, such as multimedia learning tools. Pearson Education is part of Pearson PLC. It is headquartered in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. . Lapham, S.C., C'de Baca, J., McMillan, G., Hunt, W.C. (2004).Accuracy of alcohol diagnosis among DWI offenders referred forscreening. Drug and Alcohol Dependence Drug and Alcohol Dependence is an international scientific journal on biomedical and psychosocial approaches. Its mission is to publish original research, scholarly reviews, commentaries, and policy analyses in the area of drug, alcohol and tobacco use and dependence. , 76, 135-141. Lapham, S.C., Smith, E., C'de Baca, J., Chang, I., Skipper,B.J., Baum, G., Hunt, W.C. (2001). Prevalence of psychiatric disordersamong persons convicted of driving while impaired. Archives of GeneralPsychiatry Archives of General Psychiatry is a monthly professional medical journal published by the American Medical Association. Archives of General Psychiatry publishes original, peer-reviewed articles about psychiatry, mental health, behavioral science and related fields. , 58, 943-949. Malfetti, J.L. & Winter, D. J. (1976). Counseling manual forDWI counterattack programs. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of , United States: ColumbiaUniversity Columbia University,mainly in New York City; founded 1754 as King's College by grant of King George II; first college in New York City, fifth oldest in the United States; one of the eight Ivy League institutions. , Safety Research and Education Project. McCord, J. (1984). Drunken drivers in longitudinal perspective.Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 45(4), 316-320. Moskowitz, H., Burns, M., Firoentino, A., Smiley, A., Zador, P.(2000). Driver Characteristics and Impairment at Various BACs.Washington, DC: Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2010a).Traffic Safety Facts: Alcohol. Pub. No. DOT HS 811 363. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2010b).National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behaviors. Pub No.392. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Ogden, E.J.D., & Moskowitz, H. (2004). Effects of alcohol andother drugs on driver performance. Traffic Injury Prevention, 5,185-198. Paradis, C., Demers, A., Picard, E., Graham, K. (2009). Theimportance of drinking frequency in evaluating individuals'drinking patterns: implications for the development of national drinkingguidelines. Addiction, 104, 1179-1184. Perkins, H.W. (2002). Surveying the damage: A review of research onconsequences of alcohol misuse in college populations. Journal ofStudies on Alcohol, S14, 91 - 100 Pristach, E.A., Nochajski, T.H., Wieczorek, W.F., Miller, B.A.,Greene, B.W. (1991). Psychiatric symptoms and DWI offenders. AlcoholAlcohol Suppl. 1,493-496. Quinlan, K.P., Brewer, R.D., Siegel, P., Sleet sleet,precipitation of small, partially melted grains of ice. As raindrops fall from clouds, they pass through layers of air at different temperatures. If they pass through a layer with a temperature below the freezing point, they turn into sleet. , D.A., Mokdad, A.H.,Shuts, R.A., Flowers, N. (2005). Alcohol-impaired driving among U.S.adults, 1993-2002. American Journal of Preventitive Medicine, 28(4),346-350. Royal, D. (2003). 2001 National survey of drinking and driving,Iiol. III: Findings Report. Pub. No. DOT HS 809 551. Washington, DC:United States Department of Transportation The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) is a federal Cabinet department of the United States government concerned with transportation. It was established by an act of Congress on October 15, 1966 and began operation on April 1, 1967. . Royal, D. (2000). Racial and ethnic group comparisons: Nationalsurveys of drinking and driving attitudes and behavior--1993, 1995, and199Z Pub No. DOT HS 809 071. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of TrafficSafety. Simpson, H.M., Mayhew, D.R., Beirness, D.J. (1996). Dealing withHard Core Drinking Drivers. Ottawa, Canada: Traffic Injury ResearchFoundation. Stasiewicz, ER., Nochajski, T.H., Homish, D.L. (2007). Assessmentof alcohol use disorders among court-mandated DWI offenders. Journal ofAddiction 7 Offender Counseling, 27, 102-112. Tabachnick, B.G & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariatestatistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. (2001). Texas DWIEducation Program Administrator-Instructor Manual Austin, TX: TexasCommission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Timken, D.S., 1995. Motivational Interviewing Motivational interviewing refers to a counseling approach initially developed by clinical psychologists Professor William R Miller, Ph.D. and Professor Stephen Rollnick, Ph.D. and Counseling:Preparing Offenders to Change Drinking and Driving Behaviors. Timken& Associates Inc, Boulder, CO. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Noun 1. Department of Health and Human Services - the United States federal department that administers all federal programs dealing with health and welfare; created in 1979Health and Human Services, HHS . Developing HealthyPeople 2020. Proposed HP2020 Objectives: Substance Abuse. [Online].Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/HP2020/Objectives/TopicArea.aspx?id=46&TopicArea=Substance+Abuse. AccessedSeptember 22, 2010. U.S. Department of Transportation. (1968). 1968 Alcohol and highwaysafety. Report to the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. Vingillis, E. (1983). Drinking drivers and alcoholics: Are theyfrom the same population? In R. G. Smart, R B. Glaser, Y. Israel, H.Kalant, R. E. Popham, & W. Schmidt (Eds.), Research advances inalcohol and drug problems (Vol. 7, pp. 299-342). New York: Plenum In a building, the space between the real ceiling and the dropped ceiling, which is often used as an air duct for heating and air conditioning. It is also filled with electrical, telephone and network wires. See plenum cable. Press. Voas, R.B. & Fisher, D.A. (2001). Court procedures for handlingintoxicated drivers. Alcohol Research & Health, 25(1), 32-42. Voas, R.B., Wells, J., Lestina, D., Williams, A., Greene, M.(1998). Drinking and driving in the united states: The 1996 nationalroadside survey. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(2), 267-275. Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G., Davenport, A., & Rimm, E. (1995). Agender-specific measure of binge drinking among college students.American Journal of Public Health, 85(7), 982-985. Winter, D.J. (1979). The Numerical Drinking Profile (NDP). Paperpresented at the National DWI Conference, Orlando, FL. Williams, A.F. (2006). Alcohol-impaired driving and itsconsequences in the United States: The past 25 years. Journal of SafetyResearch, 37, 123-138. Zador EL., Krawchuck S.A. & Voas R.B. (2000). Alcohol-relatedrelative risk of driver fatalities and driver involvement in fatalcrashes in relation to driver age and gender: An update using 1996 data.Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61(3), 387-395. Adam E. Barry, PhD Purdue University & Maurice Dennis, PhD Texas A&M UniversityTABLE 1.Demographic and Personal CharacteristicsDemographic Items PercentageGenderMale 80.2Female 19.8Age18-20 11.1% (n = 22)21-34 68.2% (n = 135)35-54 15.1% (n = 30)55+ 5.6% (n = 11)Race/EthnicityAfrican-American 6.3Anglo-American 64.6Asian 1.1Hispanic 15.9Native-American 5.8OtherHighest Grade CompletedNone 7.8GED/HS Diploma 72.8Associates Degree 5.6Bachelors Degree 11.1Masters Degree 1.1Doctorate 1.7Offender Self-Identified Drinking ProblemNo 90.6Yes 9.4Instructor Evaluation of Offender DrinkingProblemLow Risk of Drinking Problem 26.1Potential Drinking Problem 63.3Evident Drinking Problem 8.5Other Problems Indicated 2.1NDP ScoreNo Problem: 1 22.6Potential Problem: 2 19.63 41.24 4.55 1.0Evident Problem: 6 6.07 5.0TABLE 2.Logistic Regression Predicting Offender Self Identifying DrinkingProblem 95% C.I. for Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Lower Upper BNDP Score 2.069 1.106 3.871 .727Instructor Evaluation 1.107 .240 5.117 .102Age 1.159 1.013 1.325 .147Age of Alcohol Initiation .650 .425 .995 -.431Gender .323 .048 2.173 -1.130Race * African-American (1) .257 .000 3135.242 -1.359 Anglo-American (2) 1.592 .064 39.447 .465 Asian (3) .000 .000 -- -37.402 Hispanic (4) 1.217 .024 60.475 .196 Native-American (5) 1.037 .016 66.367 .036Highest Education Attained ** GED/HS Diploma (1) 1.246E9 .000 -- 20.943 Associates Degree (2) 2.742 .000 -- 1.009 Bachelors Degree (3) 3.784E8 .000 -- 19.751 Masters Degree (4) 1.769E18 .000 -- 42.017 Doctorate (5) 1.258E18 .000 -- 41.676Constant .000 -- -- -21.585 95% C.I. for Odds Ratio S.E. Wald df Sig.NDP Score .320 5.172 1 .023Instructor Evaluation .781 .017 1 .896Age .069 4.626 1 .031Age of Alcohol Initiation .217 3.929 1 .047Gender .972 1.350 1 .245Race * .290 5 .998 African-American (1) 4.801 .080 1 .777 Anglo-American (2) 1.638 .081 1 .777 Asian (3) 56841.444 .000 1 .999 Hispanic (4) 1.993 .010 1 .921 Native-American (5) 2.122 .000 1 .986Highest Education Attained ** .785 5 .978 GED/HS Diploma (1) 11134.633 .000 1 .998 Associates Degree (2) 15964.398 .000 1 1.000 Bachelors Degree (3) 11134.633 .000 1 .999 Masters Degree (4) 70501.097 .000 1 1.000 Doctorate (5) 41706.773 .000 1 .999Constant 11134.634 .000 1 .998* Those classifying themselves as "Other" served as the referencegroup for this analysis.** Those with no formal education served as the reference group forthis analysis.