| Course | PAC 302 Assessment Procedures in Addiction Studies |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Test selection and administration paper |
| Length | About 1,054 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PAC 302 Module 6
The Right Tests, Given the Right Way: Selection and Administration for an Employee Referred After a Positive Drug Test
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PAC 302: Assessment Procedures in Addiction Studies
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
The Right Tests, Given the Right Way: Selection and Administration for an Employee Referred After a Positive Drug Test
Marcus is forty-three and has operated a forklift at a distribution center for eleven years without an accident. Three weeks ago, a random drug test came back positive for cocaine. He told his supervisor he had used once at a friend's birthday party and had never used before. His employer placed him on leave and referred him through its employee assistance program to Lakeview Counseling and Recovery, the composite agency used in these papers, for an assessment. The employer's question is whether Marcus can safely return to operating heavy equipment and, if not, what treatment he needs. A former staff member had suggested including a projective drawing test to look for hidden problems. This paper selects and plans the administration of tests for Marcus. Marcus, his employer and the agency exist only in this paper, while every study cited is real.
The Referral Question and Selection Criteria
Good test selection begins with a precise question. Here, the question has two parts: does Marcus have a substance use disorder or a pattern of use that creates a safety risk at work, and if so, what level of care does he need? Instruments are chosen to answer that question, not to describe Marcus in general. Selection criteria include evidence of reliability and validity for adults in this setting, relevance to the referral question, practicality and the instrument's resistance to the pressures Marcus faces, since his job depends on the result.
The Addiction Severity Index
McLellan et al. (1992) described the fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index, a structured interview that assesses problems in seven areas: medical status, employment and support, alcohol use, drug use, legal status, family and social relationships and psychiatric status. For each area, the interviewer records objective information and the client's own ratings of how troubled they have been and how important treatment is, and the instrument produces composite scores that can be compared over time. The authors reported evidence of reliability and validity across many populations and settings and noted that the instrument was designed to guide treatment planning as well as to measure severity. For Marcus, it would show whether his drug use is isolated or connected to problems in other areas of his life.
When Self-Report Can Be Trusted
Del Boca and Darkes (2003) reviewed research on the validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption. They concluded that self-reports are generally valid under certain conditions: when people are assured of confidentiality, when they are not intoxicated at the time of reporting, when the questions are clear and the time frame is specific and when there is rapport with the interviewer. Underreporting is more likely when people expect negative consequences from honest answers. The authors recommended combining self-report with other sources, such as reports from family members and biological measures, especially where the stakes are high.
Marcus's job depends on the outcome, which creates exactly the pressure Del Boca and Darkes describe. His self-report should be paired with a repeat urine test, a hair test covering about ninety days, which can show whether his use was a single episode, and, with his consent, a conversation with his wife.
Why Not a Projective Test?
Lilienfeld et al. (2000) reviewed the scientific status of projective techniques, including the Rorschach inkblot test, the Thematic Apperception Test and human figure drawings. They found that a few Rorschach indices had reasonable support for limited purposes, such as detecting thought disorder, but that most projective techniques, especially human figure drawings, lacked adequate evidence of validity and were prone to overinterpretation. They cautioned against using them for high-stakes decisions. A drawing test would add no valid information about Marcus's substance use or safety at work and could introduce speculation into a decision about his livelihood.
Weighing the Candidates
| Instrument | What it adds | Evidence for this use | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Addiction Severity Index | Severity across seven life areas | Well established in adults | Include |
| Structured diagnostic interview for substance use disorders | DSM-5 diagnosis or its absence | Well established | Include |
| AUDIT | Alcohol use, since cocaine use often occurs with drinking | Well established in adults | Include |
| Repeat urine and hair testing | Objective evidence and time frame | Strong for detection | Include |
| Collateral interview with his wife, with consent | Independent account | Recommended where stakes are high | Include if he consents |
| Projective drawing test | Speculative impressions | Weak validity | Exclude |
Administration Conditions
Standardized administration protects validity. Marcus will be tested in the morning and asked whether he has used any substance in the past day; a breath alcohol test will confirm sobriety. Interviews will take place in a private room. Questionnaires will be checked for reading level and read aloud if he prefers. Before testing, he will be told plainly what the employer will receive and what will remain confidential under federal rules for substance use treatment records, and he will sign a specific consent for the report. Instructions will follow each instrument's manual. Any deviation, such as an interruption, will be recorded.
What the Tests Cannot Answer
Even a well-chosen battery has limits. The assessment can show whether Marcus has a substance use disorder and whether his use appears isolated or ongoing, but it cannot predict with certainty that he will not use again, and it cannot measure his reaction time on a forklift. The report should say so plainly, recommending follow-up testing as a safeguard rather than claiming certainty the instruments do not provide.
The Employer's Report
The employer will receive only what the referral requires: whether a substance use disorder was found, whether Lakeview considers Marcus safe to return to safety-sensitive work and, if treatment is recommended, the type and whether he is participating. Details of his history, his family and his answers will not be shared. If the results show an isolated episode with no disorder, the report will say so and recommend return with follow-up testing.
Conclusion
Marcus's assessment must answer a specific question with real consequences. McLellan and colleagues' Addiction Severity Index measures problems across his life, Del Boca and Darkes show why his self-report needs support from collateral and laboratory sources and Lilienfeld, Wood and Garb show why a projective drawing has no place in the decision. Careful selection and standardized administration give Marcus and his employer an answer built on evidence.
References
Del Boca, F. K., & Darkes, J. (2003). The validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption: State of the science and challenges for research. Addiction, 98(Suppl. 2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1359-6357.2003.00586.x
Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2), 27-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.002
McLellan, A. T., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters, R., Smith, I., Grissom, G., Pettinati, H., & Argeriou, M. (1992). The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9(3), 199-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-S
What the PAC 302 Module 6 instructions ask for
Test selection and administration form the sixth module of PAC 302, and assignments here often ask you to choose instruments for a referral question and specify how they should be given. Work from the Module 6 assignment Aspen posts; the client and employer here are invented. State the referral question precisely. Set selection criteria, including reliability, validity for the population, purpose and practicality. Weigh candidates against those criteria. Specify standardized administration conditions and the threats to validity they address. Plan what information goes into the report and to whom, cite every source in APA 7 and note what the assessment cannot answer. Explain how you will handle a client whose job depends on the result.
How the PAC 302 Module 6 example is put together
Marcus tested positive for cocaine after a weekend party and says it was a one-time use. The employer asks whether he can safely return to operating a forklift. McLellan and colleagues' Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment article describes the Addiction Severity Index's domains and composite scores. Del Boca and Darkes's Addiction review explains when self-report is trustworthy and why collateral information and biological tests help. Lilienfeld, Wood and Garb's Psychological Science in the Public Interest review explains why a drawing test is excluded. A six-row table weighs instruments. Administration conditions include confirming he is not intoxicated, private testing, reading level and plain explanations of confidentiality and of exactly what the employer's report will contain.
PAC 302 Module 6 rubric: what earns full marks
Selection papers earn credit for a precise referral question, explicit criteria and instruments matched to the question and population. This example rejects a projective technique on the evidence rather than by preference, and it pairs self-report with collateral and laboratory information because Del Boca and Darkes show that combined methods improve accuracy. Administration conditions are tied to specific threats to validity, such as intoxication and fear of consequences. The report section limits what the employer learns to what the referral requires, which protects Marcus and the integrity of the assessment. The paper also states what the tests cannot decide, which keeps the recommendation honest, and it records any deviation from standard conditions.
PAC 302 Module 6 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often choose tests because they are familiar rather than because they answer the referral question. Start with the question and set criteria. Check that instruments have evidence for the population and purpose. Avoid instruments without validity support, such as most projective drawings, for high-stakes decisions. Specify administration conditions: sobriety, privacy, language and reading level, instructions and accommodations. Consider pressures on self-report, such as job consequences, and add collateral or biological information. Plan the report's scope and recipients in advance. State what the assessment cannot answer, and get the client's informed consent for every disclosure before testing begins. Record any departure from the manual's instructions.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More PAC 302 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PAC 302 Module 1: Foundations of Psychological Assessment
- PAC 302 Module 2: Scores, Norms and Statistics
- PAC 302 Module 3: Reliability
- PAC 302 Module 4: Validity
- PAC 302 Module 5: Substance Use Screening Instruments
- PAC 302 Module 7: Ethics, Law and Cultural Fairness
- PAC 302 Module 8: Interpreting and Reporting Results
- PAC 405 Module 7: Behavioral, Cognitive-Behavioral and Family Systems Approaches
- SBS 105 Module 1: Psychology as a Science
- PAC 115 Module 8: Plain-Language Interpretation
- PAC 230 Module 6: Substance Use as a Health Behavior
PAC 302 Module 6 questions, answered
What does PAC 302 Module 6 usually ask for?
Aspen's PAC 302 covers selecting and administering tests in this module, so choosing instruments for a referral question and specifying administration conditions is typical. See the Module 6 prompt.
What is the Addiction Severity Index?
A structured interview described by McLellan and colleagues covering medical, employment, alcohol, drug, legal, family and social and psychiatric problems, with severity scores for each domain.
Are self-reports of substance use reliable?
Del Boca and Darkes found they are generally valid under good conditions, such as confidentiality and sobriety, but can underreport when consequences are high.
Where can I find a free PAC 302 Module 6 sample paper?
The full paper is posted here: tests selected and administered for an employee after a positive drug test, with a selection table and report scope.
Should projective tests be used in addiction assessment?
Lilienfeld, Wood and Garb found weak support for most projective techniques, so they are poor choices for high-stakes decisions.