RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Report the results of initial reliability and validity analyses for a revised Treatment Services Review (TSR-6) instrument which measures a broader range of services than the original TSR. METHOD: First, the number of services for a 28-day period was compared for three versions of the instrument varying in their reporting timeframes. Accordingly, four successive 7-day TSR-6s, two 14-day TSR-6s, or one 28-day TSR-6 were administered to more than 300 clients (30% women) in substance abuse treatment (SAT). Second, short-term (2-5 days) test-retest reliabilities were compared for an initial 7-, 14-, or 28-day version of the TSR-6. Third, test-retest reliabilities were compared when an initial in-person (IP) administration was followed by either IP or telephone (TEL) TSR-6 administration. Finally, preliminary discriminative validity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Few differences in the quantity of services reported for a 4-week period were found with versions of the TSR-6 that used different timeframes. Also, comparisons of test-retest reliabilities for the different version of the TSR-6 revealed few differences. Test-retest reliabilities were generally comparable for the IP-TEL and IP-IP conditions. Finally, analyses demonstrated preliminary discriminative validity for the instrument when services for three distinctive forms of treatment: intensive outpatient, methadone and residential were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study support the reliability and validity of the TSR-6 and suggest that a version with a 28-day reporting period can provide information comparable to that obtained with versions using shorter reporting periods.