Chapter 9: Screening and Assessment

Choosing the right screening instrument matters, but the tool itself is only one part of the process. The way assessment is conducted often determines how much information a person is willing to share and whether they feel safe enough to continue seeking help. Assessment is not separate from clinical practice. It is one of the earliest forms of clinical practice.

Many people enter treatment during difficult periods of their lives. Some arrive feeling ashamed about their substance use. Others are worried about legal consequences, family relationships, employment, or health concerns. Some are experiencing a crisis. Others have spent years hiding their struggles before finally reaching out for support. The assessment process begins within that reality.

Research connected to trauma-informed care, motivational interviewing, stigma, and behavioral health engagement consistently shows that early interactions shape a person’s sense of safety and trust (Brown, 2021; Coble, 2024). Those early experiences also influence whether individuals feel comfortable discussing sensitive topics and whether they remain engaged in treatment. In many cases, how a person feels during an assessment can be just as important as the information collected.

Historically, intake procedures have often focused heavily on documentation and diagnosis. Questions about substance use history, trauma experiences, mental health concerns, legal involvement, and personal identity may feel intrusive when they are asked without explanation or context. This concern becomes even more significant for individuals who have experienced discrimination, criminalization, interpersonal violence, systemic barriers, or previous negative experiences with institutions.

Trauma-informed practice reminds us that intake is much more than paperwork. For the person being assessed, those first conversations may shape whether they feel safe enough to return. Building trust begins through respectful communication. It continues through transparency, empathy, and genuine curiosity about a person’s experiences (Goodman, 2017; Ringel & Brandell, 2020).

Motivational interviewing supports a similar approach. Rather than relying on confrontation or persuasion, motivational interviewing emphasizes collaboration and respect for individual autonomy (Jacobs et al., 2016). Practitioners should begin assessment conversations by exploring a person’s goals, concerns, hopes, or immediate needs (K. Minkoff, personal communication, March 12, 2024). These conversations help reduce defensiveness and allow people to feel understood rather than judged.

Screening and assessment tools are valuable sources of information, but they should never replace human connection. Trauma-informed and culturally responsive approaches recognize that meaningful assessment depends on dignity, collaboration, and emotional safety from the very beginning of the helping relationship.

Although screening and assessment are closely related, they serve different purposes. Screening is usually brief. Its purpose is to identify whether a concern may be present and whether additional evaluation is needed. Assessment moves beyond identification. It explores the nature of the concern. It examines severity. It helps practitioners understand how substance use affects a person’s daily life, relationships, responsibilities, and overall functioning.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), published by the American Psychiatric Association, provides the primary diagnostic framework currently used in the United States for classifying substance use disorders. Rather than treating substance use as a simple yes-or-no issue, the DSM-5-TR evaluates patterns of behavior and the consequences associated with use. The criteria help clinicians determine whether a substance use disorder is present. They also help determine the level of severity.

The DSM-5-TR includes eleven diagnostic criteria. These criteria are organized across four functional areas. Impaired control refers to difficulty limiting or stopping substance use. Social impairment involves the ways substance use interferes with relationships, responsibilities, or expected roles. Risky use refers to continued substance use in situations where harm is likely or where use continues despite known problems. Pharmacological indicators include tolerance and withdrawal.

Severity is determined by the number of criteria that are met. A mild substance use disorder is identified when two or three criteria are present. A moderate disorder is identified when four or five criteria are present. A severe disorder is identified when six or more criteria are present.

Two key pharmacological concepts anchor the diagnostic criteria. Tolerance refers to the body’s adaptation to a substance over time. As that adaptation develops, a person may need larger amounts of the substance to achieve the same effect. In other situations, the same amount produces a much weaker effect than it once did. Tolerance can become especially dangerous when someone returns to substance use after a period of abstinence. A person may assume their body can tolerate the same amount they used previously. In reality, that tolerance may have diminished. This creates a significantly higher risk of overdose.

Withdrawal refers to the characteristic syndrome that emerges when a substance is reduced or discontinued after the body has adapted to its presence. The symptoms vary depending on the substance involved. Some withdrawal symptoms are uncomfortable. Others can be medically dangerous. Withdrawal from alcohol and sedative-hypnotics can be fatal if unmanaged. For this reason, accurate assessment of physical dependence is a matter of patient safety rather than an administrative procedure.

Different settings serve different purposes. Assessment approaches vary depending on the population being served, the questions practitioners are trying to answer, and the resources available within a particular environment. The following sections describe the major clinical settings where screening and assessment occur, and Table 9.2 presents the instruments associated with each.

Primary Care and Hospital Settings

Healthcare settings often rely on brief screening tools that can be completed quickly during routine appointments. These tools help identify concerns early and support timely intervention. Several brief tools are built for this. SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment) is a structured process for spotting risky use and connecting people to care. The AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, consumption items) is a three-question alcohol screen. The DAST-10 (Drug Abuse Screening Test) screens for drug-related problems, and the TAPS (Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use) tool screens across several substance types at once. Each is designed to fit within a time-limited encounter while producing useful information about the nature and severity of substance use.

Behavioral Health and Community Treatment Settings

Behavioral health settings generally require a more detailed understanding of how substance use affects daily functioning. Practitioners often need information across multiple life domains. Three tools each address a different dimension of that picture. The ASI (Addiction Severity Index) measures the severity of substance use across life domains. The GAIN (Global Appraisal of Individual Needs) gathers detailed information on use, mental health, and co-occurring concerns. The URICA (University of Rhode Island Change Assessment) gauges a person’s readiness to engage in change.

Detoxification and Medical Stabilization Settings

Assessment in detoxification settings is closely linked to patient safety. Practitioners must determine whether withdrawal symptoms are present and how severe they may become. Two tools are built specifically for this. The CIWA-Ar (Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol, revised) rates the severity of alcohol withdrawal, and the COWS (Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale) rates opioid withdrawal. Both guide medication decisions and monitoring during medically supervised withdrawal.

Adolescent and Youth Services

Assessment with adolescents requires approaches that reflect developmental differences and age-appropriate communication. Three tools are validated for school and pediatric settings: the CRAFFT (Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble), the S2BI (Screening to Brief Intervention), and the BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and other Drugs). Each is designed to identify risk level and guide next steps without clinical complexity that may not fit youth-serving environments.

Research and Diagnostic Precision Settings

Some settings require highly structured diagnostic interviews designed to maximize consistency and accuracy across clinicians and research contexts. Two interviews provide that level of rigor. The SCID (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5) is a thorough, standardized diagnostic interview, and the MINI (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview) covers similar ground in less time when full SCID depth is not required.

One of the most important lessons for helping professionals is that substance use is rarely the only challenge affecting a person’s life. Many individuals who experience substance misuse are also managing mental health concerns, physical health conditions, or both. These conditions influence one another in ways that can complicate assessment, treatment, and recovery. Understanding those connections helps practitioners move beyond identifying symptoms and toward understanding the whole person.

One of the most challenging aspects of assessment involves determining the source of a person’s symptoms. Some symptoms reflect an independent mental health condition. Others may result from substance use itself. Still others may emerge during withdrawal. Distinguishing among these possibilities often requires observation over time because many substance-induced symptoms improve with abstinence while primary mental health conditions remain present.

Mental Health Co-Occurring Conditions

Before turning to specific conditions, a brief note about how to read the numbers in this section. Prevalence estimates for co-occurring conditions are often reported as ranges, and some of those ranges are wide. The width does not reflect weak science. It reflects the fact that studies differ in who they sample, where the sampling occurs, and how the condition is measured. A brief screening tool will flag more people than a full diagnostic interview. A residential program serves a different population than a primary care clinic. When a range appears in the paragraphs that follow, the lower bound is the more useful anchor. It represents the most conservative estimate available, and in every case it still describes a level of overlap too large for assessment to ignore.

Anxiety disorders frequently occur alongside substance use disorders. In a large national survey of adults in the United States, nearly 18 percent of individuals with a past-year substance use disorder also met the criteria for an independent anxiety disorder in that same year, meaning an anxiety disorder judged not to be a symptom of intoxication or withdrawal (Grant et al., 2004). Those estimates rest on DSM-IV criteria, so they are not directly comparable to prevalence figures built on current DSM criteria. Among people who reach treatment settings, rates are higher still, and the combination brings more severe symptoms, greater disability, and a more difficult course than either condition alone (McHugh, 2015).

Depression is also highly prevalent among individuals seeking treatment for substance use disorders. A systematic review of Australian treatment services found that between half and three quarters of people presenting for substance use treatment met criteria for at least one co-occurring mental health condition, and depression was among the most commonly identified (Kingston et al., 2017). That range spans different service types and different assessment methods, but its floor is the important number. Even the most conservative estimate means that at least every other person a practitioner assesses is carrying something more than substance use. Depressive symptoms may continue for months after substance use has stopped, which can create additional challenges during recovery.

Schizophrenia and substance use disorders occur together at rates substantially higher than those found in the general population. A meta-analysis of 123 studies covering 165,811 people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders found that 41.7 percent had a co-occurring substance use disorder, most often involving cannabis (26.2 percent) or alcohol (24.3 percent), with rates roughly three times higher among men than among women (Hunt et al., 2018). Tobacco use is also far more common than in the general population: a meta-analysis of 61 studies found that 57 percent of people presenting with a first episode of psychosis were smokers (Gurillo et al., 2015).

Borderline personality disorder shares several characteristics with substance misuse. Difficulties with emotional regulation often appear in both conditions. Impulsivity is common. Interpersonal relationships may also be significantly affected. The overlap is substantial in both directions. Roughly one in five people in substance use treatment meets criteria for borderline personality disorder, and among people living with the disorder, nearly half have a current substance use disorder and about three quarters will experience one during their lifetime (Trull et al., 2018).

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is another important consideration. Across studies of people in treatment for substance use disorders, nearly one in four also meets criteria for co-occurring ADHD (van Emmerik-van Oortmerssen et al., 2012). ADHD is easily missed in these settings because its features can resemble the effects of substance use itself, which is why careful assessment and thoughtful sequencing of treatment for each condition are recommended (Wilens & Morrison, 2011).

Trauma is particularly common among individuals experiencing substance use disorders. Approximately one in three people who have experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have also experienced alcohol use disorder at some point in their lives, and 30 to 60 percent of patients seeking treatment for alcohol use disorder also meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD (Anthenelli et al., 2018). The second figure varies as widely as it does because treatment settings and assessment methods differ from study to study. What holds constant is the direction of the finding. In any treatment population, trauma will be present far too often to treat as an exception, and research consistently supports integrated approaches that address both PTSD and substance use at the same time.

Physical Health Co-Occurring Conditions

Substance use can also have significant effects on physical health. Injection drug use increases the risk of exposure to blood-borne infections such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).

Tobacco use remains one of the leading preventable causes of disease and death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that cigarette smoking causes about one out of every three cancer deaths in the United States, and that more than 742,000 tobacco-associated cancers occurred nationwide in 2022, a count based on cancer type rather than an estimate of how many of those cancers tobacco caused (CDC, 2024, 2025). Alcohol use increases the risk of cancers affecting the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and substance misuse share a well-established, bidirectional relationship. Alcohol and other drug use increase the risk of sustaining a TBI, and most studies estimate that 30 to 50 percent of patients treated for TBI were intoxicated at the time of injury (Weil et al., 2018). The risk runs the other way as well. Experiencing a TBI raises the likelihood of developing or worsening substance misuse during recovery (Olsen & Corrigan, 2022), and between 38 and 63 percent of individuals receiving treatment for substance use disorders have experienced a TBI (Corrigan, 2005). These ranges reflect differences in the populations studied, the severity of injuries, and how substance use is defined and measured; the pattern they describe is consistent at every point. Cognitive difficulties associated with TBI may interfere with treatment participation, and programs that fail to recognize these limitations may unintentionally increase the likelihood of treatment failure or relapse.

A clear theme runs throughout this chapter: substance use rarely occurs in isolation. When mental health conditions, physical health concerns, trauma histories, and substance use interact, treatment approaches that focus on only one issue often fall short. Integrated treatment approaches that address multiple concerns at the same time are consistently associated with better outcomes, and matching a specific intervention to each condition is the recommended standard of care (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2020).

Effective assessment begins with accurate information, but it does not end there. Practitioners must combine evidence-based screening tools with trauma-informed care and a relationship-centered approach. They must remain attentive to co-occurring conditions from the earliest stages of contact. They must also recognize that the accuracy of any assessment depends partly on whether a person feels safe enough to answer honestly.

Several evidence-based approaches have shown effectiveness across a range of co-occurring conditions. These include cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, assertive community treatment, therapeutic communities, and contingency management.

Good assessment requires practitioners to balance two responsibilities. One involves gathering accurate information through reliable tools and evidence-based practices. The other involves never losing sight of the person behind that information. Screening instruments provide valuable guidance, but they cannot replace empathy, trust, and meaningful human connection.

People do not arrive as diagnoses. They arrive with experiences, strengths, challenges, and stories that deserve to be understood within the broader context of their lives. Effective screening and assessment require practitioners to recognize what exists alongside the presenting concern and to approach every clinical encounter with the respect and relational care that makes honest disclosure possible.

Assessment. A fuller process that gathers detailed information to understand a person’s situation and guide treatment planning.

Co-occurring disorders. The presence of a substance use disorder and at least one mental health condition in the same person, also once called dual diagnosis.

Integrated assessment. An approach that evaluates substance use together with mental and physical health rather than treating each in isolation.

Person-centered care. Care planned around the individual’s needs, strengths, and goals rather than the diagnosis alone.

Readiness to change. How prepared a person is to make changes to their substance use, which shapes how assessment findings are used.

SBIRT. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment: a public health approach that identifies risky substance use in general health care settings and connects people to the level of care they need.

Screening. A brief process used to identify whether a substance use concern may be present and whether fuller evaluation is needed.

Screening instrument. A standardized tool, such as a short questionnaire, used to flag possible substance use concerns.

Trauma-informed care. A way of working that recognizes the effects of trauma and prioritizes emotional safety throughout the encounter.

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787

Anthenelli, R. M., Brady, K. T., Grandison, L., & Roach, D. (2018). Co-occurring alcohol use disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder [From the editors]. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 39(2), 111–112. https://arcr.niaaa.nih.gov/co-occurring-alcohol-use-disorder-and-post-traumatic-stress-disorder/co-occurring-alcohol-use-editors-note

Babor, T. F., McRee, B. G., Kassebaum, P. A., Grimaldi, P. L., Ahmed, K., & Bray, J. (2007). Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). Substance Abuse, 28(3), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J465v28n03_03

Brown, V. B. (2021). A trauma-informed approach to enhancing addiction treatment. In Textbook of addiction treatment: International perspectives (pp. 401–415).

Bush, K., Kivlahan, D. R., McDonell, M. B., Fihn, S. D., & Bradley, K. A. (1998). The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): An effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(16), 1789–1795. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Health effects of cigarettes: Cancer. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/about/cigarettes-and-cancer.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). Tobacco and cancer. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/risk-factors/tobacco.html

Coble, S. (2024). Integrating trauma-informed care and motivational interviewing within the intake process: Strategies for chemsex engagement among men who have sex with men (MSM) [Conference poster]. Middle Tennessee State University, Department of Social Work.

Corrigan, J. D. (2005). Substance abuse. In W. M. High, A. M. Sander, M. A. Struchen, & K. A. Hart (Eds.), Rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury (pp. 133–155). Oxford University Press.

Dennis, M. L., Titus, J. C., White, M. K., Unsicker, J. I., & Hodgkins, D. (2003). Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN): Administration guide. Chestnut Health Systems.

First, M. B., Williams, J. B. W., Karg, R. S., & Spitzer, R. L. (2016). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorders, Clinician Version (SCID-5-CV). American Psychiatric Association.

Goodman, R. (2017). Contemporary trauma theory and trauma-informed care in substance use disorders: A conceptual model for integrating coping and resilience. Advances in Social Work, 18(1), 201–217.

Grant, B. F., Stinson, F. S., Dawson, D. A., Chou, S. P., Dufour, M. C., Compton, W., Pickering, R. P., & Kaplan, K. (2004). Prevalence and co-occurrence of substance use disorders and independent mood and anxiety disorders: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61(8), 807–816. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.61.8.807

Gurillo, P., Jauhar, S., Murray, R. M., & MacCabe, J. H. (2015). Does tobacco use cause psychosis? Systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(8), 718–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00152-2

Hunt, G. E., Large, M. M., Cleary, M., Lai, H. M. X., & Saunders, J. B. (2018). Prevalence of comorbid substance use in schizophrenia spectrum disorders in community and clinical settings, 1990–2017: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 191, 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.07.011

Jacobs, E. E., Schimmel, C. J., Masson, R. L., & Harvill, R. L. (2016). Group counseling: Strategies and skills (8th ed.). Cengage.

Kelly, S. M., Gryczynski, J., Mitchell, S. G., Kirk, A., O’Grady, K. E., & Schwartz, R. P. (2014). Validity of brief screening instrument for adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and drug use. Pediatrics, 133(5), 819–826. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2346

Kingston, R. E. F., Marel, C., & Mills, K. L. (2017). A systematic review of the prevalence of comorbid mental health disorders in people presenting for substance use treatment in Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review, 36(4), 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12448

Knight, J. R., Sherritt, L., Shrier, L. A., Harris, S. K., & Chang, G. (2002). Validity of the CRAFFT substance abuse screening test among adolescent clinic patients. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156(6), 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.156.6.607

Levy, S., Weiss, R., Sherritt, L., Ziemnik, R., Spalding, A., Van Hook, S., & Shrier, L. A. (2014). An electronic screen for triaging adolescent substance use by risk levels. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(9), 822–828. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.774

McConnaughy, E. A., Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1983). Stages of change in psychotherapy: Measurement and sample profiles. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 20(3), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0090198

McHugh, R. K. (2015). Treatment of co-occurring anxiety disorders and substance use disorders. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 23(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000058

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

McNeely, J., Wu, L.-T., Subramaniam, G., Sharma, G., Cathers, L. A., Svikis, D., Sleiter, L., Russell, L. A., Nordeck, C. D., Sharma, A., O’Grady, K. E., Bouk, L. B., Cushing, C., King, J., Wahle, A., & Schwartz, R. P. (2016). Performance of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance Use (TAPS) Tool for substance use screening in primary care patients. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(10), 690–699. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-0317

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020). Common comorbidities with substance use disorders research report. National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/common-comorbidities-substance-use-disorders

Olsen, C. M., & Corrigan, J. D. (2022). Does traumatic brain injury cause risky substance use or substance use disorder? Biological Psychiatry, 91(5), 421–437. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/113763

Ringel, S., & Brandell, J. R. (Eds.). (2020). Trauma: Contemporary directions in trauma theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Columbia University Press.

Sheehan, D. V., Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, K. H., Amorim, P., Janavs, J., Weiller, E., Hergueta, T., Baker, R., & Dunbar, G. C. (1998). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59(Suppl. 20), 22–33.

Skinner, H. A. (1982). The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addictive Behaviors, 7(4), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(82)90005-3

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2020). Substance use disorder treatment for people with co-occurring disorders (Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 42). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK571020/

Sullivan, J. T., Sykora, K., Schneiderman, J., Naranjo, C. A., & Sellers, E. M. (1989). Assessment of alcohol withdrawal: The revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar). British Journal of Addiction, 84(11), 1353–1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb00737.x

Trull, T. J., Freeman, L. K., Vebares, T. J., Choate, A. M., Helle, A. C., & Wycoff, A. M. (2018). Borderline personality disorder and substance use disorders: An updated review. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 5, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-018-0093-9

van Emmerik-van Oortmerssen, K., van de Glind, G., van den Brink, W., Smit, F., Crunelle, C. L., Swets, M., & Schoevers, R. A. (2012). Prevalence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in substance use disorder patients: A meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 122(1–2), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.12.007

Weil, Z. M., Corrigan, J. D., & Karelina, K. (2018). Alcohol use disorder and traumatic brain injury. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 39(2), 171–180. https://arcr.niaaa.nih.gov/co-occurring-alcohol-use-disorder-and-post-traumatic-stress-disorder/alcohol-use-disorder-and-traumatic-brain-injury

Wesson, D. R., & Ling, W. (2003). The Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS). Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 35(2), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2003.10400007

Wilens, T. E., & Morrison, N. R. (2011). The intersection of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24(4), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e328345c956