Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy Scale (DASES)

Abstract

The Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy Scale (DASES) is a psychometric instrument designed to evaluate an individual's perceived task-specific confidence in their ability to resist or avoid the consumption of illicit drugs and alcohol across high-risk relapse situations. Grounded theoretically in Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory and G. Alan Marlatt and Judith R. Gordon's cognitive-behavioral relapse prevention model, the DASES assesses a critical cognitive mediator of behavioral change and relapse vulnerability in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment populations. Originally developed by Garth W. Martin, D. Adrian Wilkinson, and C. X. Poulos at the Addiction Research Foundation in Toronto, Canada, the instrument operationalizes drug avoidance self-efficacy through 16 standardized scenario-based items. Each item presents a common intrapersonal, interpersonal, or physiological trigger—ranging from acute interpersonal conflict, depressive affect, and social celebration to physical insomnia and the occurrence of an initial lapse—and asks respondents to evaluate their likelihood of avoiding drug or alcohol consumption on an authentic 7-point Likert-type scale spanning from 1 = certainly yes to 7 = certainly no.

Psychometric evaluations of the DASES have demonstrated internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficients typically ranging between .89 and .92 in clinical and community-based addiction samples) and short-term test-retest stability ($r = .78 ext{–}.84$). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses support a robust higher-order unidimensional construct of generalized drug avoidance confidence, alongside multidimensional first-order situational clusters encompassing Negative Affect/Intrapersonal Disturbance, Social Facilitation/Peer Pressure, Physical Discomfort/Insomnia, and Coping with Initial Lapses (the Abstinence Violation Effect). The instrument exhibits convergent validity with related measures such as the Situational Confidence Questionnaire (SCQ-39) and the Brief Situational Confidence Questionnaire (BSCQ), discriminant validity relative to generalized self-efficacy and trait anxiety, and predictive validity regarding treatment completion, latency to initial substance lapse, and frequency of post-discharge drug use. This comprehensive review examines the theoretical framework, psychometric architecture, factor structure, scoring mechanics, clinical utility, and research applications of the DASES.

Keywords

Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy Scale, DASES, substance use disorder, self-efficacy, relapse prevention, addiction assessment, psychometrics, coping self-efficacy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, abstinence violation effect, craving, situational confidence

Authors

The Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy Scale was developed and validated by a team of clinical addiction researchers based at the Addiction Research Foundation (now integrated into the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health [CAMH]) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

• Garth W. Martin, Ph.D. — Primary investigator and clinical research psychologist; specialized in behavioral interventions, assessment methodology, and cognitive determinants of addictive behaviors. (Contact: [email protected]).
• D. Adrian Wilkinson, Ph.D. — Senior scientist at the Addiction Research Foundation; authority on the neuropsychological, behavioral, and psychometric dimensions of alcohol and substance dependence.
• C. X. Poulos, Ph.D. — Research scientist specializing in behavioral pharmacology, Pavlovian conditioning mechanisms in drug tolerance, and relapse vulnerability.

Purpose

The central purpose of the Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy Scale (DASES) is to provide clinicians, clinical trialists, and psychometricians with a validated, scenario-specific assessment tool that quantifies an individual's subjective confidence in their capacity to abstain from psychoactive substance use when confronted with high-risk triggers. While general self-efficacy scales measure an individual's overarching belief in their ability to overcome ambiguous or novel life obstacles, Bandura's socio-cognitive framework emphasizes that self-efficacy is inherently domain- and task-specific. Within the field of substance dependence, an individual may manifest high self-efficacy in vocational or academic endeavors while simultaneously harboring low self-efficacy when facing drug cues, emotional distress, or social pressure to consume intoxicants.

The clinical and empirical rationale underpinning the DASES addresses several essential objectives across substance abuse research and clinical care:

• Baseline Relapse Vulnerability Profiling: At the onset of inpatient, outpatient, or residential addiction treatment, clinicians utilize the DASES to construct a baseline vulnerability profile. By evaluating item-level responses across various situational antecedents, treatment teams can identify idiosyncratic high-risk triggers (e.g., negative interpersonal affect versus social-recreational settings) that present the greatest hazard to long-term recovery.
• Targeted Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Planning: In line with Marlatt and Gordon's Relapse Prevention (RP) model, cognitive-behavioral interventions require the precise matching of coping skills training to specific risk profiles. Low self-efficacy scores on items depicting interpersonal conflict (e.g., Items 3, 7, and 14) indicate a clinical need for assertiveness training, emotional regulation strategies, and couples or family communication interventions. Conversely, deficits on items linked to unstructured time or boredom (e.g., Item 16) signal the need for behavioral activation, schedule restructuring, and recreational substitutions.
• Continuous Treatment Monitoring and Discharge Readiness: Administered longitudinally at regular treatment intervals (e.g., weekly or bi-weekly), the DASES serves as a dynamic index of therapeutic progress. Increases in avoidance self-efficacy over the course of an intervention reflect the internal consolidation of coping competencies. A client who exits treatment with persistently low avoidance self-efficacy in specific situational domains is at substantial risk for an immediate post-discharge lapse.
• Mitigation of the Abstinence Violation Effect (AVE): Items 11 and 12 specifically assess an individual's confidence in arresting substance use after an initial lapse occurs. By evaluating an individual's perceived capacity to prevent a single slip from degenerating into a full-blown relapse, the DASES allows clinicians to directly evaluate vulnerability to the Abstinence Violation Effect, providing opportunities for targeted cognitive reframing prior to discharge.
• Empirical Research and Pharmacological/Psychotherapeutic Clinical Trials: In clinical outcome studies, self-efficacy functions as both an essential primary or secondary endpoint and a key statistical mediator of treatment success. Researchers deploy the DASES to assess whether novel psychosocial therapies (such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Motivational Interviewing, or Contingency Management) or pharmacotherapies exert their therapeutic effects via enhancements in self-efficacy.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the DASES is drug avoidance self-efficacy—defined as the subjective probability or perceived judgment of personal agency that an individual can successfully execute avoidance, resistance, and self-restraint behaviors when exposed to internal or external stimuli historically paired with substance consumption. This construct occupies a critical position at the intersection of cognitive appraisal, self-regulation, affective neuroscience, and behavioral conditioning.

Rather than conceptualizing self-efficacy as a static, unitary personality trait, psychometric theory posits drug avoidance self-efficacy as a multidimensional, contextually bound cognitive evaluation. The DASES specifically operationalizes this construct across four major contextual domains:

1. Negative Affective and Intrapersonal Distress

A substantial body of clinical addiction literature establishes that negative emotional states constitute the single most frequent antecedent of substance relapse. The DASES operationalizes negative affect-driven self-efficacy through items simulating depression, occupational failure, loneliness, and acute personal loss (e.g., Item 2: blowing a good job and being home alone and depressed; Item 8: the termination of an important romantic relationship; Item 13: being home alone, depressed, and experiencing an urge to seek substances). The construct here captures the individual's perceived capability to endure and regulate dysphoric mood states without resorting to chemical self-medication, negative reinforcement, or chemical escapism.

2. Interpersonal Conflict and Social Resentment

Interpersonal interactions, specifically those characterized by hostility, criticism, or romantic discord, evoke intense autonomic and emotional arousal that frequently triggers drug-seeking behaviors. The DASES explicitly examines self-efficacy in the context of interpersonal tension (e.g., Item 3: feeling angry after a fight with a loved one while concurrently wanting to get intoxicated; Item 7: the temptation to use drugs as a retaliatory or vengeful mechanism against a romantic partner; Item 14: experiencing feelings of hurt following an accusation of insensitivity by a close friend). This facet reflects the respondent's capacity for distress tolerance, assertive communication, and the decoupling of interpersonal grievance from compensatory substance use.

3. Positive Affect, Social Facilitation, and Celebration

Substance use is fundamentally socialized and frequently reinforced through positive emotional experiences, celebrations, and peer affiliation. Relapse often occurs not in moments of misery, but in moments of euphoria, relaxation, or peer pressure. The DASES samples this psychological domain through scenarios involving novel social gatherings (Item 1: attending a party with unfamiliar individuals where substances might reduce social anxiety), unexpected celebrations (Item 6: celebrating a new job starting the next day; Item 9: encountering friends celebrating a lottery win), and unstructured leisure time (Item 4: experiencing freedom from obligations for several days). In these contexts, drug avoidance self-efficacy reflects resistance to social compliance, hedonistic impulsivity, and the illusion of control.

4. Physical Discomfort, Insomnia, and Physiological Triggers

Conditioned withdrawal, sleep architecture disruption, and somatic tension represent significant hurdles in early and intermediate recovery. Item 5 of the DASES specifically examines the individual's confidence in resisting chemical sleep aids or recreational drugs when experiencing acute late-night insomnia in the presence of accessible substances. The psychological construct tapped here involves tolerance for physiological discomfort and faith in non-chemical sleep-induction and relaxation alternatives.

5. Resilience Following an Initial Slip (Lapse vs. Relapse Self-Efficacy)

A distinct and clinically groundbreaking feature of the DASES is its direct operationalization of coping self-efficacy immediately following an initial violation of an abstinence commitment. Items 11 and 12 measure an individual's perceived ability to arrest consumption after breaking a multi-week sobriety commitment with a single drink or drug hit. This construct measures cognitive resilience against catastrophic attribution patterns, dichotomous (all-or-nothing) thinking, and internal, stable, and global self-blame that typify the Abstinence Violation Effect.

Theoretical Framework

The Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy Scale is rooted in two intersecting theoretical models of human behavior and addiction science: Social Cognitive Theory, formulated by Albert Bandura (1977, 1986, 1997), and the Relapse Prevention Model, formulated by G. Alan Marlatt and Judith R. Gordon (1985).

Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory

Bandura posits that human functioning is governed by triadic reciprocal causation, wherein cognitive and biological events, behavioral patterns, and environmental influences continuously interact. Within this framework, self-efficacy is defined as "people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives" (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy beliefs influence whether people think self-enhansingly or self-debilitatingly, how well they motivate themselves and persevere in the face of adversities, and their vulnerability to stress and depression.

Critically, Bandura distinguished between two distinct cognitive appraisals:

• Outcome Expectancies: The belief that a given behavior will lead to specific outcomes (e.g., "Abstaining from drugs will improve my physical health, mend my marriage, and restore my financial stability" or "Consuming alcohol will immediately numb my social anxiety").
• Efficacy Expectancies (Self-Efficacy): The subjective conviction that one is personally capable of executing the behavior required to produce the desired outcome in a specific context (e.g., "Regardless of my emotional distress or peer pressure, I have the personal capacity to decline drugs tonight").

Bandura argued, and clinical empirical data corroborate, that outcome expectancies alone are insufficient to sustain behavioral change. An individual may possess clear awareness that drug use carries catastrophic personal, medical, and legal consequences (negative outcome expectancies), yet if their drug avoidance self-efficacy expectancy is low, they will succumb to urges in moments of acute environmental stress. The DASES specifically operationalizes these efficacy expectancies across a range of context-dependent challenges.

Marlatt and Gordon's Cognitive-Behavioral Relapse Prevention Model

The operational architecture of the DASES draws directly from Marlatt and Gordon's (1985) taxonomy of high-risk relapse situations. Marlatt and colleagues conducted seminal post-treatment relapse debriefings and discovered that over 75% of substance use relapses could be mapped onto a discrete set of situational categories: intrapersonal negative emotional states, interpersonal conflict, and social pressure. The Relapse Prevention framework dictates that when an individual in recovery encounters a high-risk situation, two divergent pathways emerge:

1. Adaptive Pathway: If the individual executes an effective behavioral or cognitive coping response (e.g., cognitive reframing, seeking social support, stimulus control), their self-efficacy increases. This heightened self-efficacy decreases the probability of future lapses.
2. Maladaptive Pathway: If the individual lacks an effective coping response, their self-efficacy plummets, while positive outcome expectancies for drug effects rise. This state culminates in an initial lapse. Upon taking that first drink or drug hit, the individual confronts the Abstinence Violation Effect (AVE), which consists of cognitive dissonance and personal attribution of failure (e.g., "I have no willpower; I blew it, so I might as well stay high"). The AVE dramatically accelerates the progression from an isolated lapse to a full-blown relapse.

The DASES synthesizes these theoretical insights into an empirical assessment instrument. By placing respondents into simulated, highly evocative scenario descriptions, the scale forces an introspective appraisal of coping self-efficacy under conditions that match the core clinical triggers identified by Marlatt and Gordon.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the DASES has been established across clinical and empirical investigations encompassing diverse substance-dependent cohorts, including outpatients, residential rehabilitation clients, polydrug users, alcohol-dependent individuals, and forensic populations.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale's ability to reflect predicted theoretical gradients across differing stages of change, clinical severity levels, and treatment settings. In their original validation investigations, Martin, Wilkinson, and Poulos (1995) established that DASES total scores correlate inversely with severity of substance dependence as measured by the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) and the Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS). Individuals presenting with long-standing, severe polysubstance use profiles display lower baseline avoidance self-efficacy scores relative to individuals with shorter histories of mild or moderate substance misuse.

Convergent Validity

The DASES demonstrates convergent validity through statistically significant correlations with alternative, established measures of situational confidence, coping behaviors, and motivation to change:

• Situational Confidence Measures: DASES scores correlate strongly and positively ($r = .72 ext{ to }.81, p < .001$) with the Situational Confidence Questionnaire (SCQ-39) and its abbreviated variant, the Brief Situational Confidence Questionnaire (BSCQ; Annis & Davis, 1988). The DASES Negative Affect scenarios align with the SCQ unpleasant emotions and conflict subscales.
• Coping Strategies: Research examining the relationship between DASES and the Coping Strategies Inventory (CSI) indicates that high drug avoidance self-efficacy correlates positively with problem-focused engagement strategies, cognitive restructuring ($r = .48, p < .001$), and active social support seeking, while exhibiting strong negative correlations with emotion-focused disengagement strategies such as wishful thinking and social withdrawal ($r = -.52, p < .001$).
• Stages of Change / Readiness to Change: In studies utilizing the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA), DASES scores demonstrate a graded positive association with the Action and Maintenance stages of change, while correlating negatively with the Precontemplation stage ($r = -.44, p < .01$).

Discriminant Validity

To confirm that the DASES measures domain-specific drug avoidance self-efficacy rather than generalized psychological well-being, neuroticism, or general self-worth, researchers have examined its divergence from unrelated constructs:

• Generalized Self-Efficacy: Correlations between the DASES and the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982) are moderate ($r = .28 ext{ to }.36$), indicating that while a modest positive relationship exists between broad self-efficacy and specific avoidance confidence, the DASES retains substantial unique variance ($>85%$) specific to chemical avoidance triggers.
• Affective and Personality Measures: The DASES correlates only modestly with generalized state-trait anxiety (STAI; $r = -.31$) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; $r = -.34$). While depressed or anxious individuals often report diminished self-efficacy, the shared variance is sufficiently constrained to demonstrate that the DASES is not an artifact of negative affective disposition.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive validity of the DASES regarding clinical outcomes represents its strongest empirical asset. Numerous prospective longitudinal studies have tracked substance use outcomes following DASES assessment:

• Time to First Lapse: In survival analyses tracking post-treatment outcomes, baseline and post-treatment DASES scores significantly predict latency to first substance use. Clients scoring in the highest tertile of drug avoidance self-efficacy exhibit longer periods of continuous abstinence post-discharge ($p < .001$) compared to those in the lowest tertile (Martin et al., 1995).
• Post-Discharge Relapse Rates: In longitudinal regression models controlling for baseline demographic variables, addiction severity, and primary drug class, end-of-treatment DASES total scores remain an independent predictor of abstinence status at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up evaluations ($\eta = .38 ext{ to }.45, p < .001$).
• Treatment Retention: Low intake DASES scores, particularly on items assessing interpersonal hostility and boredom, significantly predict premature, against-medical-advice (AMA) treatment dropout.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the DASES has been evaluated across multiple clinical trials and validation protocols, consistently demonstrating internal consistency, temporal stability, and measurement precision.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the initial psychometric validation study conducted by Martin, Wilkinson, and Poulos (1995) among clinical substance abuse outpatients and residential clients, the 16-item DASES yielded a Cronbach's alpha ($lpha$) coefficient of .91, indicating high internal consistency without excessive item redundancy. Subsequent cross-validation investigations across diverse clinical populations have consistently replicated these values:

• Inpatient polysubstance dependence samples: Cronbach's $lpha = .89 ext{ to }.92$.
• Community-based opioid agonist maintenance (methadone/buprenorphine) cohorts: Cronbach's $lpha = .90$.
• Adolescent and emerging adult substance misuse samples: Cronbach's $lpha = .88 ext{ to }.91$.
• Cross-cultural and linguistically adapted international cohorts (e.g., European and Asian validation studies): Cronbach's $lpha$ consistently exceeding .85, typically stabilizing around .89.

Corrected item-total correlations across the 16 items generally exceed .45, with the vast majority falling between .52 and .74. This indicates that every item contributes meaningfully to the shared variance of the drug avoidance construct.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because self-efficacy is a dynamic cognitive appraisal sensitive to experiential learning, clinical interventions, and somatic state changes, test-retest reliability must be examined within a time window that minimizes actual clinical change while preventing immediate memory recall effects. Across non-treatment control intervals of 1 to 2 weeks, test-retest reliability coefficients have ranged from $r = .78$ to $r = .84$ ($p < .001$), demonstrating temporal stability in the absence of targeted cognitive-behavioral interventions.

Standard Error of Measurement

The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) for the DASES composite score is approximately 3.8 to 4.5 points on the cumulative scale. This enables clinicians to calculate 95% confidence intervals around individual client scores and derive the Reliable Change Index (RCI) to determine whether changes observed pre- to post-treatment reflect authentic cognitive gains rather than psychometric error.

Factor Analysis

The latent structural architecture of the DASES has been examined through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), clarifying the debate between unidimensional versus multidimensional conceptualizations of avoidance self-efficacy.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original structural analysis by Martin and colleagues, principal component analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations revealed a strong primary general factor accounting for 38% to 46% of the total variance. The Scree plot inspection and Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) supported an overarching common factor of General Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy, but also demonstrated distinct secondary components reflecting contextual clusters:

• Factor 1: Negative Affect and Interpersonal Discord (Items 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 14). High factor loadings (.58 to .81) across scenarios involving depression, loneliness, fights with significant others, and hurt feelings.
• Factor 2: Positive Affect, Social Celebration, and Opportunity (Items 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16). Factor loadings ranging from .52 to .77 on scenarios characterized by parties, celebration of life milestones, peer invitations, and unstructured leisure time.
• Factor 3: Response to Initial Lapses / Loss of Control (Items 11, 12). Robust loadings (.71 to .84) specifically isolating self-efficacy to stop using following an initial slip or broken sobriety record.
• Factor 4: Physical Distress and Insomnia (Item 5; occasionally clustering with Item 13). Focused on physiological discomfort and insomnia as precipitants to chemical coping.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit Indices

Subsequent psychometric investigations utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have formally tested competing structural models:

• Single-Factor Model: While the single-factor model exhibits acceptable fit in some brief clinical screening environments, fit indices are often marginal (Comparative Fit Index [$CFI$] $pprox .84 ext{–}.87$, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [$RMSEA$] $pprox .09 ext{–}.11$).
• Correlated Multi-Factor Model (3 or 4 Factors): Models grouping items into Negative Affect, Social/Positive Pressure, and Slip/Lapse Resilience demonstrate good structural fit across diverse addiction populations: $CFI = .93 ext{–}.96$, Tucker-Lewis Index ($TLI$) $= .92 ext{–}.95$, and $RMSEA = .051 ext{–}.064$ (90% CI [.042, .071]).
• Bifactor Model: Recent psychometric assessments favor a bifactor structure comprising a general drug avoidance self-efficacy factor ($ECV > .65$) alongside specific orthogonal group factors. This bifactor representation confirms the clinical validity of reporting both an aggregate DASES total score and discrete situational subscale profiles.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The DASES is an easily administered, self-report psychometric inventory designed for rapid completion in clinical, outpatient, and research settings.

• Instrument Name: Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy Scale (DASES)
• Test Type: Scenario-based, self-report psychometric rating scale
• Format: Pen-and-paper questionnaire, interactive electronic survey, or computerized clinical assessment module
• Item Count: 16 scenario-based items
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16+) presenting with, or at risk for, substance use disorders (illicit drugs, prescription drug misuse, and/or alcohol use)
• Estimated Completion Time: 5 to 10 minutes
• Authentic Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale formatted as follows:
  • 1 = certainly yes
  • 2 = probably yes
  • 3 = likely yes
  • 4 = can't say
  • 5 = probably no
  • 6 = likely no
  • 7 = certainly no
• Scoring Architecture and Directionality:

  A critical psychometric characteristic of the DASES is that the 16 items are phrased using two opposing linguistic orientations to mitigate acquiescence response bias:

  • Avoidance/Resistance Phrased Items (Items 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 15): These items inquire whether the respondent could avoid or resist drug/alcohol use (e.g., "Could you avoid drug/alcohol use?" or "Could you resist the urge…?"). For these items, responding with "yes" indicates high self-efficacy. They are scored directly: 1 = certainly yes (7 points), 2 = probably yes (6 points), 3 = likely yes (5 points), 4 = can't say (4 points), 5 = probably no (3 points), 6 = likely no (2 points), and 7 = certainly no (1 point).
  • Give-in/Use Phrased Items (Items 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16): These items ask whether the respondent would give in, take drugs, or use (e.g., "Would you give in to the urge…?" or "Would this situation lead you to take a second one?"). For these items, responding with "no" indicates high self-efficacy. They are scored directly: 1 = certainly yes (1 point), 2 = probably yes (2 points), 3 = likely yes (3 points), 4 = can't say (4 points), 5 = probably no (5 points), 6 = likely no (6 points), and 7 = certainly no (7 points).
• Score Computation and Interpretation:
  • Total Score Range: 16 to 112 points (higher scores reflect greater drug avoidance self-efficacy).
  • Mean Item Score: Total score divided by 16 (range: 1.0 to 7.0), providing an intuitive index of typical avoidance confidence.
  • Clinical Thresholds:
    • 16–48 (Mean 1.0–3.0): Markedly Low Self-Efficacy. Indicates extreme vulnerability to relapse across diverse triggers; high priority for intensive coping skills acquisition, stimulus control, and external support systems.
    • 49–79 (Mean 3.1–4.9): Moderate / Ambivalent Self-Efficacy. Demonstrates situational variability in coping confidence; indicates a need for targeted interventions focusing on specific weak domains (e.g., interpersonal conflict or slip resilience).
    • 80–112 (Mean 5.0–7.0): High Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy. Reflects robust confidence in sustaining abstinence; clinicians should nonetheless review scores to ensure high numbers do not reflect overconfidence or denial.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy Scale (DASES) was formulated and validated between 1992 and 1995 by Garth W. Martin, D. Adrian Wilkinson, and C. X. Poulos under the auspices of the Addiction Research Foundation in Toronto, Canada. The foundational validation paper was published in 1995 in the Journal of Substance Abuse.

The DASES resides in the public domain for academic, clinical, and scientific research endeavors. No licensing fees, user royalties, or formal commercial permissions are required to administer, score, or electronically implement the scale for non-commercial clinical or empirical research purposes. The scale has been disseminated internationally through major public health and substance abuse research repositories, including the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and governmental health agencies. When utilizing or publishing data derived from the DASES, standard academic attribution and formal citation of the authors' 1995 publication are required. Researchers wishing to incorporate the instrument into commercial software applications or proprietary assessment batteries may direct correspondence to the primary developer (Garth W. Martin; [email protected]).

References

• Annis, H. M., & Davis, C. S. (1988). Assessment of expectancies in alcohol dependent clients. In G. A. Marlatt & D. M. Donovan (Eds.), Assessment of Addictive Behaviors (pp. 84–111). Guilford Press.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (Eds.). (1985). Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors. Guilford Press.
• Martin, G. W. (1992). The Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy Scale: Development and Psychometric Evaluation. Addiction Research Foundation internal monograph, Toronto, ON, Canada.
• Martin, G. W., Wilkinson, D. A., & Poulos, C. X. (1995). The Drug Avoidance Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Substance Abuse, 7(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0899-3289(95)90002-0
• Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

Items of the Scale