Evaluating the Computerized Assessment and Referral System (CARS) Screener: Sensitivity and Specificity as a Screening Tool for Mental Health Disorders among DUI Offenders.

Background/Purpose: A growing body of evidence suggests that people who are arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol are more likely to screen positive for psychiatric disorders than the general population. Additionally, psychiatric comorbidity has been shown to increase vulnerability to criminal re-offense. However, DUI programs face many barriers to screening for psychiatric disorders. This paper evaluates the sensitivity and specificity of a screening tool developed for these programs, the Computerized Assessment and Referral System (CARS) Screener. Methods: We used data from 381 DUI offenders in Massachusetts, as well as a secondary data source, the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication (NCS-R: N = 9,282) to examine the accuracy of the CARS Screener when compared to full assessment. Results: Based on both sets of analyses, we found that the CARS Screener offers a sensitive and specific method to screen for many psychiatric disorders. Specifically, the CARS Screener has a high sensitivity and specificity for bipolar disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, depressive disorders, generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol and drug use disorders, gambling disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks, and social phobia. Conclusion: The CARS Screener appears to be an effective tool that will help DUI programs better understand and address the mental health issues facing their clients.

A Scoping Review of "Responsible Drinking" Interventions.

Public health groups, researchers, the beverage alcohol industry, and other stakeholders have promoted and applied the concept of "responsible drinking" for the past 50 years. However, little is known about the state of the existing responsible drinking evaluation research and its application to policy and practice. This project provides a scoping review of studies evaluating responsible drinking interventions. Two primary research questions guided this investigation: (1) To what extent have authors attempted to define the concept of responsible drinking while evaluating responsible drinking interventions? and (2) What is the state of the responsible drinking intervention evaluation literature? We retrieved 49 peer-reviewed articles that evaluated interventions designed to promote "responsible drinking." Four articles provided, or attempted to provide, an explicit definition of responsible drinking; these four definitions lacked consensus. The existing responsible drinking interventions varied considerably in terms of the messages they attempted to convey (e.g., avoid binge drinking, use protective behavioral strategies, stick to relatively safe drinking limits), again suggesting lack of consensus. We observed greater consensus concerning the approach to evaluating responsible drinking interventions: studies typically recruited college students to complete brief, well-controlled experiments and measured potential predictors of drinking behavior (e.g., attitudes, expectancies, intentions) rather than actual drinking behavior. We discuss limitations of this methodological approach and the need for greater consensus regarding the concept of responsible drinking.

Correction to: Gambling Research and Funding Biases.

Unfortunately, the original publication contains errors. The authors would like to correct the errors.

Understanding the Relation Between Social Behaviors and Daily Fantasy Sports Risk Behavior.

In daily fantasy sports (DFS) contests, participants form a roster of athletes scheduled to perform in a pre-determined list of sporting contests or games. Each participant has the opportunity to win cash prizes, depending on the performance of the athletes on their roster and the performances of the athletes on the other participants' rosters. Some contests have higher variances than others (i.e., lower percentages of participants winning and higher payouts versus higher percentages of participants winning and lower payouts) and can be considered riskier propositions. DFS operators have mechanisms for interacting with friends on their servers (e.g., referral programs and incentives, friend lists, private contests). To determine whether use of these mechanisms (i.e., social behavior) was associated with preference for higher variance contests (i.e., risk behavior), we analyzed player records (N = 11,130) from a DFS service. We constructed a measure of risk behavior, player risk score, that is based on DFS contests' entry fees and payout structures. We observed that players referred to the DFS service by a friend and those who had a reciprocal friendship had similar player risk scores. However, those who referred a friend, both generally and among players with reciprocal friendships, were more likely than others to have greater player risk scores, and greater numbers of friend referrals also was associated with higher player risk scores. Although the observed effect sizes were small, the results point to a possible relationship between referring others to play and risk activity. Future research should assess how these small effects interact with other behaviors and motivations associated with DFS play, like playing to escape or playing to earn/win money. It also should examine the temporal relationships between refer-a-friend program participation and risk content choices.