Psychometric Evaluation of Self- and Collateral Timeline Follow-Back Reports of Drug and Alcohol Use in a Sample of Drug-Abusing and Conduct-Disordered Adolescents and Their Parents Brad Donohue University of Nevada, Las Vegas Nathan H. Azrin Nova Southeastern University Marilyn J. Strada and N. Clayton Silver University of Nevada, Las Vegas Gordon Teichner Medical University of South Carolina Heather Murphy University of Nevada, Las Vegas One hundred eighty-eight drug-abusing and conduct-disordered adolescents and their parents pro- vided retrospective reports of the youths’ frequency of alcohol and illicit drug use for each of the 6 months preceding their initial session in an outpatient treatment program. Youths’ and parent reports of youths’ drug and alcohol use for each month were similar. For marijuana and alcohol, frequency reports were related for each month, whereas hard drug reports were related only for the 4 months preceding intake. Relationships among alcohol and hard drug reports were strong during Months 1, 2, and 4 preceding intake, whereas strength of relationship among marijuana reports was similar throughout the 6 months. As Searles, Helzer, and Walter (2000) reported, One of the central issues in human alcohol research is the ascertain- ment of reliable and valid quantity and frequency measures of con- sumption across time. Because much epidemiological research and almost all clinical interventions are based on these data, their impor- tance is fundamental. Currently the only practical way to gather such data is through retrospective self-report. (p. 277) Others have made the same claim in the assessment of drug use disorders, particularly in the evaluation of treatment outcome (Hersh, Mulgrew, Van Kirk, & Kranzler, 1999). Of course, self-reports of substance use offer distinct advantages over more costly procedures (e.g., urinalysis, blood tests, hair follicle analysis), including assessment of substance use behavior for extended retrospective periods of time, lack of invasiveness, and ease with which assessment procedures may be initiated. For instance, drug urinalysis testing is an objective biological indicator of drug use (Kaminer, Burleson, Blitz, Sussman, & Rounsaville, 1998) that is accurate in determining the presence or absence of substance use in a particular specimen (Cook, Bernstein, Ar- rington, Andrews, & Marshal, 1995). However, urinalysis testing is limited in that most substances cannot be detected 2 to 4 days after the substance is used (Howard, Bell, & Christie, 1995), and these tests are costly and invasive (Hersh et al., 1999). However, in using self-report measures, poor memory or deliberate under- or overreporting of substance use may influence the results (see Ehrman & Robbins, 1994). Indeed, the reliability and validity of self-reports of substance use frequency depend on the patient sample, setting, substances used, and method of inquiry (Hersh et al., 1999; Sherman & Bigelow, 1992), suggesting that these factors should be examined, and specified, in studies of drug use fre- quency methods. For instance, although evaluation of substance use self-report procedures in treatment programs that focus on specific drugs of abuse (e.g., methadone clinics for heroin abusers) are warranted, they may influence how particular drugs are re- ported (see Wish, Hoffman, & Nemes, 1997). The timeline follow-back (TLFB) method is a standardized assessment of substance use frequency that is increasingly gaining support (for a review, see L. C. Sobell & Sobell, in press). In this method, the frequency of substance use is assessed on a day-by- day basis over a specified period of time, typically 30 days to 1 year (Hersh et al., 1999). Standard holidays and dates of personal Brad Donohue, Marilyn J. Strada, N. Clayton Silver, and Heather Murphy, Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Nathan H. Azrin, Center for Psychological Studies, Nova Southeastern University; Gordon Teichner, Department of Psychiatry, Medical Univer- sity of South Carolina. This research was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant R01MH53455). Some of the data for a subsample of the youth in this study were summarized in a previously published treatment outcome study. We extend our appreciation to Dortha Ingham, Rocio Rosales, and Bruno Soares for their assistance with the preparation of this article, as well as to Christopher Martin for his comments. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brad Donohue, Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 455030, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5030. E-mail: donohueb@unlv.edu Psychology of Addictive Behaviors Copyright 2004 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 2004, Vol. 18, No. 2, 184 –189 0893-164X/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-164X.18.2.184 184