My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS), 1996-1999: [United States]

Version
v3
Resource Type
Dataset : survey data
Creator
  • United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Office of Applied Studies
Other Title
  • Version 3 (Subtitle)
Publication Date
2002-02-22
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Office of Applied Studies
Language
English
Free Keywords
AIDS; alcohol abuse; drug abuse; drug treatment; health care services; HIV; intervention; methadone maintenance; substance abuse; substance abuse treatment; treatment compliance; treatment outcome; treatment programs
Description
  • Abstract

    The Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS) was a national study of substance abuse treatment facilities and clients. The study was designed to develop estimates of the duration and costs of treatment and to describe the post-treatment status of substance abuse clients. ADSS continues and extends upon data collected in the Drug Services Research Survey, 1990: [United States] (ICPSR 3393) and the Services Research Outcome Study, 1995-1996: [United States] (ICPSR 2691) with a more complete sampling frame, an enhanced sampling design, and more detailed measures of treatment services provided, the costs of treatment, and clients in treatment. ADSS was implemented in three phases. In Phase I, a nationally representative sample of treatment facilities was surveyed to assess characteristics of treatment services and clients including treatment type, costs, program capacity, the number of clients served, waiting lists, and services provided to special populations. In Phase II, records were abstracted from a sample of clients in a subsample of Phase I facilities. This phase included four sub-components: (1) the Main Study, an analysis of abstracted records to assess the treatment process and characteristics of discharged clients, (2) the Incentive Study, which assessed the impact of varying financial payments on follow-up interview participation among non-methadone outpatient clients, (3) the In-Treatment Methadone Client study (ITMC), which assessed the treatment process of methadone maintenance, and (4) the comparison study of Early Dropout clients (EDO), which provided a proxy comparison group of records from substance abusers that went untreated. Phase III involved follow-up personal interviews with Phase II clients who could be located. This interview sought to determine post-treatment status in terms of substance use, economic condition, criminal justice involvement, and further substance abuse treatment episodes. Urine testing was conducted to validate self-reported drug use. Drugs included in the survey were alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, non-prescribed use of prescription medications, abuse of over-the-counter medications, and other drugs. ADSS also included a cost study, which involved obtaining additional financial information from the Phase II facilities. A computerized desktop audit was used in the cost study to conduct consistency and accuracy checks on selected questionnaire data from Phases I and II. Variables were subsequently updated to represent the most accurate data available. Additional analysis variables were then created using combinations of the revised Phase I and II data.
  • Methods

    The Phase I sampling design incorporated a stratified random probability sample. Weights were developed for the Phase I sample to facilitate overall and by stratum estimates of facility- and client-level characteristics of the nation's substance abuse treatment system. Final Phase I weights were constructed in a multistep process involving calculation of initial base weights, trimming to guard against excessive influence by a few highly loaded facilities, adjustment for facility nonresponse, and poststratification adjustment to initial frame counts. Because the Phase I sample was selected using a complex multistage design, resampling is the appropriate method of calculating the stability of computed statistics. Replicate weights based on the stratified jackknife procedure (JKn) are included in the ADSS Phase I dataset for the purpose of standard error calculations.
  • Methods

    ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Created online analysis version with question text.; Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
  • Methods

    Response Rates: Of the original 294 eligible facilities, 60 refused to participate, yielding a response rate of 79.6 percent.
  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS0: Study-Level Files
    • DS1: Phase I Facility Interview
    • DS2: Phase II Administrator Interview
    • DS3: Phase II Main/Incentive Abstract
    • DS4: Phase II In-Treatment Methadone Abstract
    • DS5: Phase II Early Dropout Abstract
    • DS6: Phase III Main Study Follow-Up
    • DS7: Phase III In-Treatment Methadone Follow-Up
    • DS8: Phase III Early Dropout Follow-Up
    • DS9: Phase I Finite Population Correction Factors
    • DS10: Phase I Stratified Jackknife Factors
    • DS11: Phase II/III Stratified Jackknife Factors
    • DS12: Cost Study
Temporal Coverage
  • 1996 / 1999
    Time period: 1996--1999
Geographic Coverage
  • United States
Sampled Universe
(1) Substance abuse treatment facilities in the United States registered in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Master Facility Inventory of known facilities. (2) Clients engaged in substance abuse treatment in these facilities.
Sampling
The Alcohol and Drug Services Study utilized a complex multistage sampling strategy. In Phase I, 2,395 substance abuse treatment facilities were selected from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) National Master Facility Inventory (NMFI) of known facilities. The sample was stratified to reflect the types of care offered within the nation's substance abuse treatment system. Selection strata included: (1) hospitals, (2) non-hospital residential treatment facilities, (3) outpatient-predominantly methadone treatment facilities, (4) outpatient-nonmethadone treatment facilities, (5) outpatient combined methadone and nonmethadone treatment, (6) facilities serving predominantly alcohol abusing clients, and (7) facilities whose type of care could not be determined based on existing information at the time of sampling. Excluded from the sampling frame were halfway houses lacking paid counselors, solo practitioners, treatment programs in jails and/or correctional facilities, Department of Defense and Indian Health Service facilities, and facilities that were prevention or intake and referral only. Selection was based on probability proportional to size (PPS), with a minimum of 300 facilities to be selected per stratum. Sampling in Phase II consisted of several stages. First, the country was partitioned into approximately 400 geographic primary sampling units (PSUs) from which a representative sample of 62 were selected on the basis of demographic and economic characteristics. Within these 62 PSUs, a stratified subsample of Phase I facilities (n = 306) was selected using PPS. The subsample utilized exclusionary criteria that eliminated 12 facilities: (a) facilities that had ceased operation prior to March 1, 1997, (b) facilities designated as hospitals (i.e., stratum 1), and (c) facilities in which 100 percent of clients were treated for alcohol abuse only. To ensure adequate sample size, sampled facilities were matched with "shadow" facilities. Shadow facilities were then used to replace 46 refusing facilities, producing a final sample size of 280. Shadows were not used for facilities found to be ineligible (e.g., closed). Following interviews with administrators in the participating facilities, two types of client records were randomly sampled: (1) clients who were discharged for any reason at least one day after their date of treatment initiation, and (2) clients still actively engaged in methadone treatment. Persons whose treatment episode was clearly limited to mental health, family counseling, or other non-substance abuse services were not considered substance abuse treatment clients and were excluded from the sampling frame, even if they had prior history of substance abuse treatment. The client must have been the substance abuser him- or herself and not a family member or other person receiving treatment in relation to the substance abuser. In addition to the random sample, a non-probability convenience sample of early dropout discharges (EDO) from outpatient programs was drawn as the comparison group. Early dropout clients were defined as clients who had been through assessment or an intake battery but completed no more than one day or one session of treatment. The comparison group was selected from cooperating facilities, to serve as a proxy for untreated substance abusers. In Phase III, clients randomly selected in the previous phase were approached for interview. Discharged clients younger than 18 years old at the time of interview and clients in the main study discharged group who were classified as methadone patients were excluded from this phase. The cost study included facilities from Phase II, and the design included splitting data by modality for facilities with more than one type of care (multi-modality).
Collection Mode
  • record abstracts, mail questionnaire, telephone interview

    The study was conducted by the Schneider Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University. Westat, Inc. collected and prepared the data.

    ADSS files underwent disclosure analysis by SAMHDA in order to ensure that the identities of facilities and clients were protected. This involved reviewing the data files for potential risks as well as examining any external threats to confidentiality, such as other data sources that could be linked to ADSS. Such external data sources were found. To address this problem while still creating a public use file of the greatest utility possible, micro-aggregation of certain variables was performed. This involved identifying the problematic variables, sorting records by the first problematic variable, grouping records into three based on their value for this variable, averaging the values for each grouping, and applying the average to the records in each group. This was repeated for each of the problematic variables, which included client count and financial data. Geographic identifiers were also removed. The overall impact of these protection procedures was small and should not affect most analytic uses of the data.

    The Phase I facility public use file includes 2,394 of the original 2,395 records. One facility's record was deleted due to the presence of outlying data.

    Client records can be matched between corresponding Phase II and Phase III abstract and follow-up data files using the CASEID variable. Facility data can be matched across the Phase I-III and cost study data files using the FACID variable.

    The unit of analysis for the Phase I facility (Part 1) and Phase II administrator (Part 2) data is the facility. Data from the Phase II and III abstract and follow-up files (Parts 3-8) are analyzed at the client level. Analyses for the cost study (Part 12) are conducted at the modality or "type of care" level within facilities.

    Please note that the unit of time for some variables in the facility file is specified in a separate variable, and these units are distinctly different from each other. For example, to analyze length of treatment, the researcher needs to examine two variables: QUANTITY VAR NAME and UNIT VAR NAME. QUANTITY specifies the "quantity" of treatment length while UNIT specifies the unit of QUANTITY such as days, weeks, months, years, or sessions.

    The Finite Population Correction Factor and the two Stratified Jackknife Factor data files are provided for use with the WesVar and SUDAAN statistical software, and are not intended for use with other statistical packages. WesVar was developed by Westat Incorporated and SUDAAN is a product of the Research Triangle Institute. These three files are being distributed as received from the principal investigator and have not been tested by SAMHDA.

    The data from the follow-up Incentive Study in Phase III are not released as part of this public use collection.

Note
2009-04-01 Question text was added into the codebooks for parts 1 through 8. The SAS transport (XPORT) and SPSS portable files were replaced with a SAS CPORT and SPSS system file. Additionally, a tab-delimited excel data file was included for download for each dataset.2007-07-17 New files were added to one or more datasets. These files included one or more of the following: Stata setup, SAS transport, SPSS portable, Stata system, SAS supplemental syntax, and Stata supplemental syntax files. This process affected some column locations, as a result, codebooks were updated to reflect correct new column locations.2006-06-09 The frequency output and metadata LRECL number corrected for Part 1: Phase 1 Facility Data2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions.2004-06-10 The ADSS cost study data (Part 12) were added to the ADSS public use collection with a separate codebook.2003-11-03 Three new data files were added to the ADSS collection: Phase I Finite Population Correction Factors (Part 9), Phase I Stratified Jackknife Factors (Part 10), and Phase II/III Stratified Jackknife Factors (Part 11). These factor files are intended for use with the WesVar and SUDAAN statistical software only. These three files are being distributed as received from the principal investigator and have not been tested by SAMHDA. Minor revisions were made to the Phase I facility codebook. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Office of Applied Studies (283-92-8331).
Availability
Delivery
This version of the study is no longer available on the web. If you need to acquire this version of the data, you have to contact ICPSR User Support (help@icpsr.umich.edu).
Alternative Identifiers
  • 3088 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Relations
  • Is previous version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR03088.v4
  • Is new version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR03088.v2
Publications
  • Sheedy, Cori Kautz. Organizational Characteristics of Outpatient Addiction Treatment Facilities and their Impacts on Client Services and Outcomes. Dissertation, Brandeis University. 2014.
  • Strickler, Gail K., Reif, Sharon, Horgan, Constance M., Acevedo, Andrea. The relationship between substance abuse performance measures and mutual-help group participation after treatment. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly.30, (2), 1902012.
    • ID: 10.1080/07347324.2012.663305 (DOI)
  • Zarkin, Gary A., Cowell, Alexander J., Hicks, Katherine A., Mills, Michael J., Belenko, Steven, Dunlap, Laura J., Houser, Kimberly A., Keyes, Vince. Benefits and costs of substance abuse treatment programs for state prison inmates: Results from a lifetime simulation model. Health Economics.21, (6), 633-652.2012.
    • ID: 10.1002/hec.1735 (DOI)
  • Reif, Sharon, Horgan, Constance M., Ritter, Grant A.. Treatment services: Triangulation of methods when there is no gold standard. Substance Use and Misuse.46, 620-632.2011.
    • ID: 10.3109/10826084.2010.528119 (DOI)
  • Vilardaga M.A., Roger, Luoma, Jason B., Hayes, Steven C., Pistorello, Jacqueline, Levin, Michael E., Hildebrandt, Mikaela J., Kohlenberg, Barbara, Roget, Nancy A., Bond Frank. Burnout among the addiction counseling workforce: The differential roles of mindfulness and values-based processes and work-site factors. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment.40, (4), 323-335.2011.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.jsat.2010.11.015 (DOI)
  • Kearns, Marie. The Relationship between Clients' History of Violence and Drug and Alcohol Treatment Outcome. Dissertation, Brandeis University. 2010.
  • Blome, Wendy Whiting, Shields, Joseph, Verdieck, Mary Jeanne. The association between foster care and substance abuse risk factors and treatment outcomes: An exploratory secondary analysis. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse.18, (3), 2572009.
    • ID: 10.1080/10678280902976214 (DOI)
  • Office of Applied Studies. Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS). Rockville, MD: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2009.
    • ID: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/adss.htm (URL)
  • Bruce, Douglas, Ramirez-Valles, Jesus, Campbell, Richard T.. Stigmatization, substance use, and sexual risk behavior among Latino gay and sexual men and transgender persons. Journal of Drug Issues.38, (1), 235-260.2008.
    • ID: 10.1177/002204260803800111 (DOI)
  • Cartwright, William S.. A critical review of accounting and economic methods for estimating the costs of addiction treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment.34, (3), 302-310.2008.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.jsat.2007.04.011 (DOI)
  • Delany, Peter J., Shields, Joseph J., Roberts, Dana L.. Program and client characteristics as predictors of the availability of social support services in community-based substance abuse treatment programs. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research.2008.
    • ID: 10.1007/s11414-008-9153-z (DOI)
  • Fry, Mary. Length of stay as a performance measure in substance abuse treatment. 136th APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition.San Diego, CA. 2008.
  • Ghose, Toorjo. Organizational- and individual-level correlates of posttreatment substance use: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment.34, (2), 249-262.2008.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.jsat.2007.04.007 (DOI)
  • Palacios, Wilson R.. Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Drug Issues.38, (1), 1-4.2008.
    • ID: 10.1177/002204260803800101 (DOI)
  • Reif, Sharon, Horgan, Constance M., Ritter, Grant A.. Hispanics in specialty treatment for substance use disorders. Journal of Drug Issues.38, (1), 311-334.2008.
    • ID: 10.1177/002204260803800113 (DOI)
  • Woodward, Albert M., Raskin, Ira E., Blacklow, Beatrice. A profile of the substance abuse treatment industry: Organization, costs, and treatment completion. Substance Use and Misuse.43, (5), 647-679.2008.
    • ID: 10.1080/10826080601096640 (DOI)
  • (author unknown). The effectiveness of methadone and the history of regulation. Methadone Maintenance Treatment in the U.S.: A Practical Question and Answer Guide.New York, NY: Springer. 2007.
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Organizational and Financing Factors and Patient Characteristics Affect How Substance Abuse Treatment Is Delivered. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 2007.
    • ID: http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/040213.htm (URL)
  • Shamblen, Stephen R., Springer, J. Fred. Improving the sensitivity of needs assessment for substance abuse prevention planning: the measurement of differential severity of consequences for individual substance types. Journal of Drug Education.37, (3), 295-316.2007.
    • ID: 10.2190/DE.37.3.e (DOI)
  • Strickler, Gail K.. Self-help Group Participation and Its Relationship to Substance Abuse Treatment Outcomes. Dissertation, Brandeis University. 2007.
  • Beaston-Blaakman, Aaron. A Three-Part Study to Advance Economic Analysis of Substance Abuse Treatment. Dissertation, Brandeis University. 2006.
  • Ghose, Toorjo. Organizational correlates of specialized substance abuse treatment provision to seropositive clients: A political economy perspective. Journal of HIV-AIDS and Social Services.5, (3-4), 141-159.2006.
    • ID: 10.1300/J187v05n03_10 (DOI)
  • Ghose, Toorjo. The State of the National Substance Abuse Treatment System: Multilevel Correlates of Service Provision and Treatment Outcomes. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 2006.
  • Humphries, Jennifer L. Social Vulnerabilities and Post Treatment Outcomes: A Study of Alcohol and Cocaine Dependency. Dissertation, Catholic University of America. 2006.
  • O'Rourke, Joanne McFarland, Roehrig, Stephen, Heeringa, Steven G., Reed, Beth Glover, Overcashier, Margaret, Zidar, Kelly. Solving problems of disclosure risk while retaining key analytic uses of publicly released microdata. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.1, (3), 63-84.2006.
    • ID: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.3.63 (DOI)
  • Woodward, Albert, Das, Abhik, Raskin, Ira E., Morgan-Lopez, Antonio A.. An exploratory analysis of treatment completion and client and organizational factors using hierarchical linear modeling. Evaluation and Program Planning.29, (4), 335-351.2006.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.005 (DOI)
  • Brady, Thomas M., Ashley, Olivia Silber. Women in Substance Abuse Treatment: Results from the Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS). Analytic Series A-26.SMA 04-3968, Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. 2005.
    • ID: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/womenTX/womenTX.pdf (URL)
  • Brady, Thomas M., Salvucci, Sameena, Sverdlov, Lev S., Male, Alisa, Kyeyune, Hannah, Sikali, Emmanuel, DeSale, Sameer, Yu, Ping. Methadone dosage and retention: An examination of the 60 mg/day threshold. Journal of Addictive Diseases.24, (3), 23-48.2005.
    • ID: 10.1300/J069v24n03_03 (DOI)
  • Krenzke, Thomas, Mohadjer, Leyla, Ritter, Grant, Gadzuk, Anita. Incentive effects on self-report of drug use and other measures of response quality in the alcohol and drug services study. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement.30, (2,3), 191 -2005.
  • Kulka, Richard A., Eyerman, Joe, McNeeley, Madeline. The use of monetary incentives in federal surveys on substance use and abuse. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement.30, (2,3), 233 -2005.
  • Ritter, Grant, Reif, Sharon, Gadzuk, Anita, Krenzke, Thomas, Mohadjer, Leyla, Lee, Margaret, Horgan, Constance M.. Incentive effects on cooperation rates and sample composition in the alcohol and drug services study. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement.30, (2,3), 171 -2005.
  • Council, C.L.. Health Services Utilization by Individuals with Substance Abuse and. Analytic Series A-25.SMA 04-3949, Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. 2004.
  • Lee, M.T., Reif, S., Ritter, G.A., Levine, H.J., Horgan, C.M.. Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS) Phase II: Client Record Abstract Report. Analytic Series No. A-27.SMA 04-3974, Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2004.
  • Levine, Helen J., Reif, Sharon, Lee, Margaret T., Ritter, Grant A., Horgan, Constance M.. Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS). The National Treatment System: Outpatient Methadone Facilities. The DASIS Report.Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. 2004.
    • ID: http://oas.samhsa.gov/ADSS/methadone.pdf (URL)
  • Office of Applied Studies. Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS) Cost Study. The DASIS Report.Rockville, MD: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2004.
    • ID: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/costs/costs.pdf (URL)
  • Reif, Sharon, Horgan, Constance M., Ritter, Grant A., Tompkins, Christopher P.. The impact of employment counseling on substance user treatment participation and outcomes. Substance Use and Misuse.39, (13-14), 2391-2424.2004.
    • ID: 10.1081/JA-200034661 (DOI)
  • Shepard, Donald S., Reif, Sharon. The value of vocational rehabilitation in substance user treatment: A cost-effectiveness framework. Substance Use and Misuse.39, (13-14), 2591-2609.2004.
    • ID: 10.1081/JA-200034732 (DOI)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Division of Biometry and Epidemiology, Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System. Alcohol Epidemiologic Data Directory. Arlington, VA: Department of Health and Human Services. 2003.
  • O'Rourke, JoAnne McFarland. Disclosure analysis at ICPSR. ICPSR Bulletin.XXIV, (1), 2003.
    • ID: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ICPSR/org/publications/bulletin/2003-Q3.pdf (URL)
  • Office of Applied Studies. Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS): Methodology Report: Phases I, II, and III. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2003.
    • ID: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/ADSS/ADSSmethods.pdf (URL)
  • Office of Applied Studies. Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS): The National Substance Abuse Treatment System: Facilities, Clients, Services, and Staffing. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2003.
    • ID: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/ADSS/ADSSorg.pdf (URL)
  • Office of Applied Studies. The ADSS Cost Study: Costs of Substance Abuse Treatment in the Specialty Sector. Analytic Series A-20.SMA 03-3762, Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. 2003.
    • ID: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/ADSS/ADSSCostStudy.pdf (URL)
  • Reif, Sharon. The Impact of Ancillary Services on Substance Abuse Treatment Outcomes. Dissertation, Brandeis University. 2002.
  • Schildhaus, S., Shaw-Taylor, Y.. Explaining Substance Abuse Treatment Outcomes, Using Individual and Programmatic Variables. Fairfax, VA: National Evaluation Data Services. 2002.
  • Harris, L.S.. Problems of Drug Dependence 2000: Proceedings of the Annual Scientific Meeting (62nd), The College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Inc. Held in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on June 17-22, 2000. Research Monograph 181.Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2001.
  • Horgan, C.M., D'Aunno, T., McLellan, A.T., Carise, D., Kleber, H.D., et al. Symposium XIV: Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS). NIDA Research Monograph.181, 99-107.2001.
  • Horgan, C.M., Reif, S., Ritter, G.A., Lee, M.T.. Organizational and financial issues in the delivery of substance abuse treatment services. Recent Developments in Alcoholism: Volume 15.New York: Kluwer Academic. 2001.
  • Lee, M.T., Reif, S., Ritter, G.A., Levine, H.J., Horgan, C.M.. Access to services in the substance abuse treatment system: Variations by facility characteristics. Recent Developments in Alcoholism: Volume 15.New York: Kluwer Academics. 2001.
  • Mohadjer, Leyla, Yansaneh, Ibrahim, Krenzke, Thomas, Dohrmann, Sylvia. Sample Design, Selection and Estimation for Phase I of ADSS . Final Report.Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies . 2000.
    • ID: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/ADSS/SampleDesign1.pdf (URL)
  • Jarrott, Shannon E., Zarit, Steven H., Parris-Stephens, Mary Ann, Townsend, Aloen, Greene, Rick. Caregiver satisfaction with adult day service programs. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease.14, (4), 233-244.1999.
    • ID: 10.1177/153331759901400403 (DOI)
  • Horgan, Constance M., Levine, Helen J.. Commissioned paper: The substance abuse treatment system: What does it look like and whom does it serve? Preliminary findings from the Alcohol and Drug Services Study. Bridging the gap between practice and research: Forging partnerships with community-based drug and alcohol treatment.Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 1998.
  • Lamb, Sara, Greenlick, Merwyn R., McCarty, Dennis. Bridging the Gap Between Practice and Research: Forging Partnerships with Community-Based Drug and Alcohol Treatment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 1998.

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 13 | Registration Date: 2015-06-18

United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Office of Applied Studies (2002): Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS), 1996-1999: [United States]. Version 3. Version: v3. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03088.v3