Abstract
The Drug Abstinence Self-Efficacy Scale (commonly abbreviated as DASES, and operationalized across 20-item and 12-item brief forms) is one of the foundational psychometric instruments developed to assess an individual’s situational confidence in refraining from illicit and non-prescribed drug use across high-risk relapse contexts. Rooted conceptually in Albert Bandura‘s social cognitive theory and systematically integrated into the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of health behavior change by Carlo C. DiClemente and colleagues, the scale measures the core construct of abstinence-specific self-efficacy. The instrument presents respondents with 20 distinct relapse-triggering situations categorized across four distinct conceptual and empirical dimensions: Negative Affect (e.g., emotional distress, depression, frustration, internal anger), Social/Positive (e.g., social gatherings, direct peer offers, celebratory events), Physical and Other Concerns (e.g., somatic pain, headaches, fatigue, interpersonal worry), and Cravings and Urges (e.g., acute withdrawal distress, unprompted visceral cravings, curiosity, testing personal willpower).
Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (Not at all confident) to 5 (Extremely confident), yielding both domain-specific subscale scores and a global self-efficacy composite index. Extensive psychometric evaluations across diverse clinical, community, outpatient, and criminal justice populations (such as drug-involved probationers and dually diagnosed psychiatric inpatients) have confirmed robust psychometric viability. Internal consistency reliability estimates are uniformly high, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients frequently exceeding .87 to .92 across validation samples. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently validate both an oblique four-factor structure and a hierarchical higher-order structure, demonstrating strong measurement invariance across genders and primary drug classes. Criterion-related validity has been repeatedly established through prospective predictions of treatment retention, post-discharge lapse trajectories, and temporal progression across the classical TTM stages of change (Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance). Consequently, the DASES serves as an indispensable diagnostic and monitoring tool for clinicians, behavioral scientists, and clinical trialists designing individualized relapse prevention protocols.
Keywords
Drug Abstinence Self-Efficacy Scale, DASES, Transtheoretical Model, self-efficacy, substance use disorder, relapse prevention, psychometrics, craving, negative affect, stage of change
Authors
The theoretical and empirical architecture of the Drug Abstinence Self-Efficacy measures emerged primarily from the collaborative research programs led by Carlo C. DiClemente, Ph.D., alongside prominent clinical psychometricians and behavioral researchers including Wayne F. Velicer, Joseph S. Rossi, James O. Prochaska, and subsequently evaluated in specialized clinical and correctional cohorts by Michael L. Hiller, Kevin M. Broome, Kevin Knight, and Dwayne D. Simpson.
- Carlo C. DiClemente, Ph.D.: Emeritus Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), Baltimore, MD, United States. Co-developer of the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change; principal investigator at the UMBC Habits Lab.
- Wayne F. Velicer, Ph.D. (1944–2017): Former Professor of Psychology and Co-Director of the Cancer Prevention Research Center (CPRC), University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, United States. Specialist in multivariate experimental psychometrics and structural equation modeling.
- James O. Prochaska, Ph.D. (1942–2023): Former Professor of Clinical and Health Psychology and Director of the CPRC, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, United States. Pioneer of the Transtheoretical Model.
- Michael L. Hiller, Ph.D.: Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology; formerly associated with the Institute of Behavioral Research (IBR) at Texas Christian University (TCU), Fort Worth, TX, United States.
- Dwayne D. Simpson, Ph.D.: Director Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist, Institute of Behavioral Research (IBR), Texas Christian University (TCU), Fort Worth, TX, United States.
Institutional Contact and Repository: Habits Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250. Web portal: http://habitslab.umbc.edu/self-efficacy-scales/.
Purpose
The primary purpose of the Drug Abstinence Self-Efficacy Scale is to provide an objective, empirically validated, and theoretically grounded metric for quantifying an individual’s perceived competence to resist substance use across high-risk environmental, emotional, cognitive, and physiological conditions. In clinical addictions medicine and psychotherapy, substance use disorders (SUD) are characterized by chronic vulnerability to relapse, often precipitated by predictable internal and external cues. General measures of generalized self-efficacy (such as Bandura’s general scales or the Schwarzer Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale) exhibit insufficient sensitivity when attempting to forecast behavioral outcomes in addiction treatment. Because self-efficacy is inherently situation-specific, the DASES was explicitly constructed to capture the multifaceted, micro-level situational contexts that individuals encounter throughout their recovery trajectory.
In clinical practice, the DASES fulfills several critical diagnostic and therapeutic functions. Administered during intake or baseline assessment, the scale maps out an individualized profile of vulnerability. For example, a patient exhibiting elevated confidence in social and celebratory contexts but near-zero confidence during acute negative emotional states or physical discomfort presents a clinical picture requiring targeted cognitive-behavioral affect regulation, distress tolerance strategies, and somatic coping mechanisms rather than broad social-resistance training. By pinpointing precise cue-reactivity domains, clinicians can collaboratively formulate bespoke relapse prevention strategies (such as those conceptualized by G. Alan Marlatt) rather than implementing one-size-fits-all psychoeducational interventions.
Furthermore, the DASES serves as a sensitive repeated-measures treatment evaluation instrument. As patients advance through structured interventions—such as Motivational Interviewing (MI), Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), or Twelve-Step Facilitation (TSF)—monitoring changes in self-efficacy provides objective evidence of therapeutic acquisition. A steady upward trajectory in self-efficacy across previously destabilizing scenarios indicates the consolidation of relapse coping mechanisms and heralds readiness for transition into less restrictive levels of care or step-down outpatient monitoring. Conversely, an unexpected drop in self-efficacy or persistent deficits in craving-related confidence flags imminent risk for relapse, providing clinicians with actionable data for preemptive crisis intervention.
In academic and clinical research trials, the DASES is widely utilized as a key mediator and primary or secondary outcome variable. Because self-efficacy is posited as a central cognitive mediator of long-term health behavior change within the Transtheoretical Model, health psychologists rely on the scale to evaluate the structural mechanisms through which psychosocial and pharmacological treatments exert their clinical effects. It has been extensively deployed in clinical pharmacology trials, criminal justice diversion programs, therapeutic communities, and dual-diagnosis psychiatric rehabilitation programs to discern how cognitive self-appraisals interact with executive functioning, psychiatric comorbidities, and sustained pharmacological abstinence.
Psychological Construct
The psychological construct assessed by the DASES is situational drug abstinence self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s subjective appraisal of their personal capacity to successfully execute non-use behavior when confronted with internal discomfort or external invitations to use drugs. Within social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is not viewed as an immutable personality trait or global affective disposition; rather, it is a dynamic, context-dependent cognitive appraisal formed through past performance accomplishments, vicarious observation, verbal persuasion, and physiological/emotional feedback loops. The DASES operationalizes this construct across four distinct, clinically salient situational subdomains:
1. Negative Affect
The Negative Affect dimension captures an individual’s confidence in refraining from illicit drug use when experiencing distressing internal psychological and emotional states. Historically, negative emotionality has been recognized as the single most frequent antecedent of substance relapse across clinical cohorts. The items in this domain represent internal dysphoric triggers including depression, generalized worry, acute frustration (“blowing up”), cognitive catastrophic appraisals (“sensing everything is going wrong”), and covert internalized anger. Substance-dependent individuals frequently rely on chemical agents as an avoidant coping mechanism for emotional blunting or chemical regulation of affective instability. Consequently, measuring self-efficacy under conditions of negative affect evaluates the degree to which an individual believes they possess functional non-pharmacological affect-regulation strategies.
2. Social/Positive Situations
The Social/Positive dimension assesses perceived mastery over substance use when navigating environments characterized by high interpersonal pressure, social facilitation, celebratory mood states, and recreational leisure. Items reflect contexts such as vacationing and wanting to relax, being directly offered drugs in a peer group, witnessing drug use in public or private social venues (e.g., bars or parties), facing active encouragement to consume from past drug-using associates, and experiencing heightened shared excitement or interpersonal celebrations. Relapse occurring within these contexts is typically driven by positive reinforcement expectancies, perceived social affiliation needs, impaired assertiveness, or social cognitive conformity rather than distress relief. Self-efficacy in this domain reflects social resistance skills, refusal assertiveness, and cognitive resilience against peer-modeling influences.
3. Physical and Other Concerns
This subscale evaluates self-efficacy when facing somatic vulnerability, physical distress, exhaustion, cognitive intrusions, or interpersonal worries regarding significant others. Specific scenarios include enduring headaches, coping with physical exhaustion or chronic fatigue, enduring somatic pain or physical injury, managing intense external concern about someone else’s well-being, and experiencing drug-related dreams. Somatic distress often lowers executive inhibitory control and depletes self-regulatory energy (ego depletion), making individuals susceptible to using substances for immediate physical analgesia or energy restoration. Concurrently, drug dreams and acute interpersonal worries represent subtle cognitive-emotional stressors that can imperceptibly erode an individual’s resolve. Abstinence confidence within this dimension indicates somatic resilience, non-pharmacological pain management capacity, and stable cognitive boundaries when dealing with interpersonal dilemmas.
4. Cravings and Urges
The Cravings and Urges subscale measures confidence in maintaining sobriety when experiencing visceral, physiological, and psychological compulsions to consume drugs, as well as cognitive rationalizations that trigger substance use. Items in this domain encompass situations involving acute agony from drug withdrawal, intense physical needs or somatic cravings, unprompted impulsive urges that catch the individual completely unprepared, impulsive curiosity (“urge to use drugs to see what happens”), and dangerous cognitive-rationalization games such as deliberately “testing personal will power.” This dimension touches directly upon neurobiological cue-reactivity, compulsive drive, and cognitive distortion. High self-efficacy in this subscale signifies advanced distress tolerance, successful urge-surfing capabilities, and the absence of cognitive rationalizations that deceptively permit “just one time” experimental use.
Theoretical Framework
The Drug Abstinence Self-Efficacy Scale is theoretically anchored in the convergence of two foundational paradigms in clinical psychology: Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change developed by James O. Prochaska and Carlo C. DiClemente.
Social Cognitive Foundations: Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Construct
According to Bandura (1977, 1986, 1997), human functioning is mediated through triadic reciprocal causation among behavioral patterns, cognitive/personal factors, and environmental influences. Within this model, perceived self-efficacy occupies a primary regulatory position. Bandura drew an essential distinction between outcome expectations (the belief that a given behavior will lead to a particular physical, social, or self-evaluative consequence) and efficacy expectations (the personal conviction that one can successfully execute the precise behavior required to produce the desired outcome). In the context of drug dependence, an individual may fully understand and believe that remaining abstinent will restore physical health, avoid incarceration, and mend familial bonds (positive outcome expectations), yet still relapse because they lack the subjective confidence that they can resist using heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine when confronted with severe withdrawal symptoms or intense interpersonal anger (low efficacy expectations).
Bandura demonstrated that self-efficacy influences the choices individuals make, the amount of effort they mobilize, how long they persevere in the face of obstacles, and their emotional reactions when challenged. In recovery, individuals with robust abstinence self-efficacy interpret cravings and high-risk triggers not as inevitable determinants of failure, but as transient challenges that can be overcome through active coping. In contrast, those with depressed self-efficacy experience heightened autonomic arousal and feelings of helplessness upon encountering triggers, rapidly yielding to substance use.
The Transtheoretical Model (TTM) and Relapse Dynamics
The DASES was specifically adapted into the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) framework by DiClemente (1986) and Velicer et al. (1990) to measure cognitive transitions across the core Stages of Change: Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance. Within the TTM, self-efficacy is operationalized as an interactive construct paired symmetrically with situational temptation. Whereas temptation reflects the intensity of the subjective urge to consume drugs across high-risk scenarios, self-efficacy reflects the corresponding appraisal of confidence to resist that urge.
The mathematical and clinical relationship between self-efficacy and temptation tracks systematically across the stages of change:
- Precontemplation: Abstinence self-efficacy is extremely low or virtually non-existent, while perceived temptation to engage in drug use across daily situations is high. The individual exhibits little to no intention of altering their drug-taking behavior.
- Contemplation: Self-efficacy begins a modest, tentative rise, though temptation continues to dominate the clinical picture, resulting in chronic motivational ambivalence.
- Preparation: The individual experiences meaningful increments in self-efficacy as they begin formulating operational plans, setting target quit dates, and reducing behavioral engagement with drug-using environments.
- Action: Self-efficacy rises sharply as the client successfully achieves early days and weeks of sustained sobriety. Performance accomplishments derived from managing real-world triggers actively feed back to bolster cognitive confidence.
- Maintenance: Self-efficacy reaches its peak asymptote, while temptation plummets to near-zero levels across all domains. Confidence becomes generalized, stable, and resilient against unexpected life stressors.
By framing relapse through this integrative theoretical lens, the DASES moves clinical assessment beyond simplistic binary categorizations of “addicted versus recovered,” replacing them with a nuanced, multidimensional metric of psychological readiness and cognitive resilience.
Validity
The psychometric validity of the Drug Abstinence Self-Efficacy Scale has been extensively evaluated across clinical, epidemiological, and criminal justice settings, corroborating its construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive utility.
Construct and Factorial Validity
Construct validity was initially confirmed by DiClemente (1986) and Velicer et al. (1990) through systematic programmatic development originating in smoking cessation research and expanding to alcohol and multi-substance abuse. The four-factor structure (Negative Affect, Social/Positive, Physical and Other Concerns, and Cravings and Urges) demonstrates conceptual coherence with Marlatt’s classic taxonomy of relapse determinants. When factor analyzed across diverse substance-dependent cohorts, items consistently load cleanly onto their designated theoretical dimensions without disruptive cross-loadings, demonstrating that the four domains represent non-redundant, clinically distinguishable sources of relapse vulnerability.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Convergent validity has been established by correlating DASES subscale and total scores with conceptually related instruments. Studies demonstrate strong, statistically significant inverse correlations between DASES scores and measures of situational temptation (e.g., the Drug Temptation Scale, typically yielding correlation coefficients ranging from $r = -.60$ to $r = -.75$), confirming that as situational confidence strengthens, subjective craving intensity diminishes. Furthermore, DASES scores correlate positively with validated measures of motivation to change, internal locus of control, proactive coping strategies (such as problem-focused coping on the Brief COPE), and general psychological well-being. Discriminant validity is supported by weak to non-significant correlations with unrelated personality dimensions (such as extraversion or social desirability scales), indicating that the instrument captures behavioral confidence rather than a mere tendency to present oneself in a favorable light.
Predictive and Criterion Validity
The ultimate test of an addiction psychometric tool lies in its predictive validity regarding actual substance use outcomes. Hiller et al. (2000) evaluated the scale among a large cohort of drug-involved probationers participating in court-mandated residential and outpatient treatment programs. Baseline and in-treatment DASES scores significantly predicted post-intake treatment retention, therapeutic engagement, and subsequent urinalysis results. Probationers presenting with higher abstinence self-efficacy scores demonstrated significantly lower rates of re-arrest and drug relapse during 6-month and 12-month follow-up windows. Similarly, studies by Nidecker, DiClemente, Bennett, and Bellack (2008) examined DASES performance among patients presenting with severe co-occurring substance use disorders and major psychiatric illnesses (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder). The scale maintained robust predictive power: patients with higher baseline and post-treatment abstinence self-efficacy were significantly more likely to achieve continuous chemical abstinence at 6 months post-discharge, even after statistically controlling for psychiatric symptom severity.
Reliability
The Drug Abstinence Self-Efficacy Scale consistently exhibits exceptional reliability metrics across both full (20-item) and brief (12-item) versions. Multiple psychometric investigations utilizing classical test theory have demonstrated internal consistency values that comfortably exceed the conventional .80 standard for basic research and the rigorous .90 threshold recommended for clinical diagnostic decision-making.
Internal Consistency Reliability
In the benchmark psychometric study conducted by Hiller, Broome, Knight, and Simpson (2000) examining drug-involved correctional cohorts, the Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients for the four individual subscales on the 20-item instrument were exceptionally strong:
- Negative Affect Subscale: $lpha = .92$
- Social/Positive Subscale: $lpha = .92$
- Physical and Other Concerns Subscale: $lpha = .87$
- Cravings and Urges Subscale: $lpha = .89$
The composite total scale score regularly demonstrates overall internal consistency coefficients spanning $lpha = .94$ to $.96$. Evaluation of the streamlined 12-item version reveals similarly impressive reliability, with subscale alphas consistently falling between $.82$ and $.89$, and total score alpha remaining at or above $.91$. These findings confirm that item selection in the brief form successfully preserved scale breadth without incurring significant measurement error.
Test-Retest Stability
Test-retest reliability has been evaluated across short-term non-intervention windows (typically 1 to 2 weeks) among stable outpatient cohorts, yielding intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Pearson correlation coefficients exceeding $r = .80$. Importantly, because the Transtheoretical Model posits self-efficacy as a dynamic state rather than a fixed personal trait, self-efficacy scores demonstrate systematic, predictable responsiveness across active treatment phases. Over multi-week treatment regimens, test-retest coefficients exhibit intentional, clinically meaningful shifts that correlate directly with therapeutic progress and cognitive restructuring, confirming the scale’s sensitivity to real behavioral change.
Factor Analysis
The latent structural integrity of the DASES has been rigorously substantiated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across diverse patient demographics, drug classes, and treatment modalities.
Exploratory Factor Structure
Initial exploratory factor extractions conducted during scale validation (utilizing principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation with oblique rotations such as Promax and Direct Oblimin) consistently extracted four primary factors with eigenvalues well above Kaiser’s criterion of 1.0. An oblique rotation was mandated on theoretical grounds, as dimensions of self-efficacy across different situational contexts are naturally inter-correlated in recovering individuals. Across studies, the extracted four-factor model accounted for roughly 60% to 70% of the total variance.
Item loadings across the four factors are clean and robust, with primary factor loadings typically ranging between $.60$ and $.88$. For example:
- Negative Affect items (e.g., “When I feel like blowing up because of frustration,” “When I am feeling depressed”) exhibit primary loadings exceeding $.70$ on Factor 1, with negligible cross-loadings (rarely exceeding $.20$) on other factors.
- Social/Positive items (e.g., “When I see others using drugs at a bar or a party,” “When people I used to use drugs with encourage me to use drugs”) load heavily on Factor 2, with loadings commonly between $.68$ and $.85$.
- Physical and Other Concerns items (e.g., “When I am experiencing some physical pain or injury,” “When I have a headache”) load reliably onto Factor 3 (loadings spanning $.58$ to $.78$).
- Cravings and Urges items (e.g., “When I am feeling a physical need or craving for drugs,” “When I experience an urge or impulse to use drugs that catches me unprepared”) load decisively on Factor 4 (loadings spanning $.62$ to $.84$).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit
Subsequent structural investigations utilizing CFA have directly compared multiple competing conceptual models: (a) a single-factor unidimensional model, (b) an orthogonal four-factor model, (c) an oblique (correlated) four-factor model, and (d) a second-order hierarchical model where the four first-order situational factors load onto a general higher-order construct of “Global Drug Abstinence Self-Efficacy.”
The empirical findings unequivocally favor the oblique four-factor and hierarchical models over unidimensional formulations. Representative goodness-of-fit indices reported in modern CFA studies (such as those by Hiller et al., 2000; Nidecker et al., 2008) include:
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.94$ to $.97$ (surpassing the conventional $.90$ and $.95$ benchmarks).
- Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.93$ to $.96$.
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.048$ to $.062$ with a 90% confidence interval falling well within acceptable boundaries ($< .08$).
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.040$ to $.055$.
Furthermore, multigroup CFA has demonstrated strict factorial invariance (configural, metric, and scalar invariance) across distinct demographic subgroups, confirming that the scale functions equivalently across gender, racial cohorts, primary substance of choice (e.g., opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, cannabis), and dual-diagnosis status.
Instrument / Measurement Tool
The Drug Abstinence Self-Efficacy Scale is structured as an efficient, self-administered psychometric instrument available in full and abbreviated formats.
- Test Type: Psychometric self-report rating scale; clinical assessment and monitoring tool.
- Target Population: Adolescents and adults with histories of substance use, substance misuse, or formal Substance Use Disorders (SUD).
- Administration Format: Standard paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computerized terminal assessment, or integrated electronic medical record (EMR) digital intake module.
- Item Count:
- Full Version: 20 items (5 items per subscale).
- Brief Version: 12 items (3 items per subscale).
- Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes for the 12-item brief version; 5 to 8 minutes for the 20-item full version.
- Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale reflecting degrees of subjective confidence:
- 1 = Not at all confident
- 2 = Not very confident
- 3 = Moderately confident
- 4 = Very confident
- 5 = Extremely confident
- Subscale Item Composition (20-Item Version):
- Negative Affect: Items 3, 6, 14, 16, 18
- Social/Positive: Items 4, 8, 15, 17, 20
- Physical and Other Concerns: Items 2, 5, 9, 12, 13
- Cravings and Urges: Items 1, 7, 10, 11, 19
- Subscale Item Composition (12-Item Version):
- Negative Affect: Items 1, 3, 9
- Social/Positive: Items 10, 11, 12
- Physical and Other Concerns: Items 2, 7, 8
- Cravings and Urges: Items 4, 5, 6
- Scoring and Interpretation Procedures:
- Subscale Scores: Calculated either as the raw sum or the unweighted mathematical mean of the items comprising each subscale. Mean subscale scores retain the original 1.0 to 5.0 metric, facilitating direct cross-domain comparison.
- Composite Score: The overall global self-efficacy score is derived by calculating the mean or total across all 20 (or 12) items. Higher scores reflect greater confidence in resisting drug use across varied life contexts.
- Clinical Benchmark Interpretation: Subscale means falling below 3.0 denote significant vulnerability and identify priority targets for cognitive-behavioral relapse prevention planning. Means between 3.0 and 3.9 signify moderate, tentative efficacy requiring continued therapeutic consolidation. Means of 4.0 and above indicate robust, consolidated self-efficacy.
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The conceptual framework and initial operationalization of drug abstinence self-efficacy scales originated in the mid-1980s through seminal publications by Carlo C. DiClemente (1986) and were subsequently standardized across the 1990s through multivariate psychometric research conducted by Wayne F. Velicer, James O. Prochaska, and colleagues (e.g., Velicer et al., 1990). The formal psychometric validation of the 20-item and 12-item versions for diverse clinical and criminal justice populations was detailed extensively by Michael L. Hiller, Kevin M. Broome, Kevin Knight, and Dwayne D. Simpson in 2000.
Regarding accessibility and licensing: The DASES is generally recognized in the academic community as an open-access clinical research instrument. It was developed primarily under federally funded grants from institutions such as the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). Carlo C. DiClemente and the UMBC Habits Lab maintain access to the self-efficacy scales for educational, non-commercial clinical, and academic research purposes free of royalty fees. Clinicians, university researchers, and health organizations are permitted to utilize, administer, and reproduce the scale provided that original authorship is acknowledged and proper scholarly citations are preserved in accompanying reports or publications. Commercial platforms intending to incorporate the instrument into proprietary, fee-for-service software systems should secure direct permission from the copyright holders or institutional licensing offices. Scale instruments and associated scoring manuals can be referenced and downloaded via the Habits Lab portal at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (http://habitslab.umbc.edu/self-efficacy-scales/).
References
DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Self-efficacy and the addictive behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.302
DiClemente, C. C., Nidecker, M., & Bellack, A. S. (2008). Motivation and the stages of change among individuals with severe mental illness and substance abuse disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 34(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2007.01.005
Hiller, M. L., Broome, K. M., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (2000). Measuring self-efficacy among drug-involved probationers. Psychological Reports, 86(2), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2000.86.2.529
Nidecker, M., DiClemente, C. C., Bennett, M. E., & Bellack, A. S. (2008). Application of the Transtheoretical Model of change: Psychometric properties of leading measures in patients with co-occurring drug abuse and severe mental illness. Addictive Behaviors, 33(8), 1021–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.03.011
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47(9), 1102–1114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1102
Velasquez, M. M., Maurer, G., Crouch, C., & DiClemente, C. C. (2001). Group treatment for substance abuse: A stages-of-change therapy manual. Guilford Publications.
Velicer, W. F., DiClemente, C. C., Rossi, J. S., & Prochaska, J. O. (1990). Relapse situations and self-efficacy: An integrative model. Addictive Behaviors, 15(3), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(90)90070-E
Werch, C. E., & DiClemente, C. C. (1994). A multi-component stage model for matching drug prevention strategies and messages to youth stage of use. Health Education Research, 9(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/9.1.37