Before AARC clients are subjected to the the Synanon-derived program of thought reform used by the amateur staff, each client is diagnosed as an addict. This diagnosis is not made by licensed mental health professionals, nor by physicians. Here is what AARC claims:
"•Patton’s research (2003) reviewed AARC intake records and concluded that “on admission to treatment all 85 interviewed clients met the criteria for a Substance Dependence Disorder, according to SASSI, Adolescent version. Of those matching this level, 85.8% of the 85 interviewed qualified for two or more drugs"
http://www.aarc.ab.ca/qa.php#q2What do we know about SASSI?
"The SASSI is not intended to prove or diagnose an individual as an alcoholic or addict; it is intended to screen for a person who has a "high probability of having a substance dependence disorder."
http://www.minddisorders.com/Py-Z/Subst ... ntory.htmlSo the AARC graduates met the criteria for a Substance Dependence Disorder according to an instrument that is not intended to prove or diagnose an individual as an alcoholic or addict.
"It appears, then, that the SASSI-A (a) should not be employed to classify adolescents as chemically dependent and (b) has a circumscribed role in screening for suspected substance abuse."
http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/1/114What else is involved in an AARC diagnosis?
"•The AARC assessment is comprehensive, using diagnostic instruments that have demonstrated a high level of clinical validity and reliability including the Adolescent Diagnostic Interview (ADI) and the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI)."
http://www.aarc.ab.ca/qa.php#q2So what do we know about the ADI?
"Also, they consider that the validity of the ADI is essentially undetermined, as well as its advantages over other diagnostic instruments available in the same area. Therefore, they suggest that the ADI could be consider as a useful clinical tool, but not be regarded as a validated research or clinical instrument."
http://eib.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index3607EN.htmlSo the instrument that has demonstrated a high level of clinical validity could not be considered as a validated research or clinical instrument.
