Reinstatement Review Inventory (RRI) a unique or different approach to screening applicants applying for reinstatement of their driver’s license after it was suspended or revoked. The RRI explores the question “Has the applicant changed since their driver’s license was suspended or revoked?”
Why have a test for driver’s license reinstatement?
Because the information needed to decide whether or not to reinstate a suspended or revoked driver’s license is in many ways unique. For example, has the applicant changed since their driver’s license was suspended or revoked? Does the applicant have a drug or alcohol problem? Does the applicant have emotional or attitudinal problems that could overwhelm their stress coping abilities? Does the applicant have adequate stress management skills? Questions that should be answered before driver’s license reinstatement go beyond checking their driver records to see if the applicant drove while his or her driver’s license was suspended.
It is assumed that a state reviews an applicant’s court and driving history prior to reinstating a revoked or suspended driver’s license. It is also assumed that somebody interviews the applicant. Is this enough? Considering the serious responsibilities, liabilities potential, consequences associated with driver’s license reinstatement, many people do not think so.
The RRI has a Road Rage Scale, whereas the RRI-II has the Stress Coping Abilities (stress management) Scale. For comparison the RRI is briefly discussed. The RRI consists of 124 items and takes 25 minutes to complete. The RRI has six (6) scales (measures): 1. Truthfulness Scale, 2. Road Rage Scale, 3. Alcohol Scale, 4. Drugs Scale, 5. Comparative Change Scale and 6. the Intervention Checklist. Interested parties should decide between the RRI (has a Road Rage Scale) and the RRI-II (replaced the Road Rage Scale with the Stress Coping Abilities Scale).
Reinstatement Review Inventory-II
The RRI-II is different. The RRI-II explores the question “Has the applicant changed since their driver’s license was suspended or revoked?”
The RRI-II is an assessment or screening test that is used to screen applicants applying for reinstatement of their driver’s license after it is suspended or revoked.
The RRI-II consists of 128 items and takes 25 minutes to complete. The RRI-II has six (6) scales (measures): 1. Truthfulness Scale, 2. Stress Coping Abilities (stress management) Scale, 3. Alcohol Scale, 4. Drugs Scale, 5. Intervention Checklist and 6. Comparative Change Scale.
A Reinstatement Review Inventory-II (RRI-II) example report can be reviewed by clicking on this RRI-II Example Report link.
Six RRI-II Scales (Measures)
1.Truthfulness Scale: Measures how truthful the applicant was while completing the RRI-II. This scale identifies denial, problem minimization and attempts to fake good.
2.Alcohol Scale: Measures the applicant's use and/or abuse of alcohol. The term alcohol refers to beer, wine or other liquor.
3.Drugs Scale: Measures illicit drug use and abuse. Drugs refer to marijuana, cocaine, crack, amphetamines, barbiturates, heroin, etc.
4.Comparative Change Scale: Helps identify applicants that have experienced positive attitudinal and behavioral change since their drivers' licenses were suspended or revoked.
5.Intervention Checklist Scale: Clarifies the applicant's status in terms of meeting requirements for reinstatement of their driver's license. Have they only completed minimum requirements? Have they demonstrated a sincere commitment to change?
6.Stress Coping Abilities Scale: Measures how well the applicant handles or manages stress, anxiety or pressure. We now know that stress exacerbates emotional and mental health problems.
Test cost is another important factor in test selection. Behavior Data Systems, Ltd. (BDS) and its subsidiaries Risk & Needs Assessment, Inc. (Risk & Needs) and Professional Online Testing Solutions, Inc. (Online Testing) have the same price structure. The test unit fee is $9.95 per test.
By acting now you lock-in this low $9.95 rate for the entire term of your test usage - even if the price of BDS tests should go up. In other words, you will enjoy absolutely guaranteed ironclad rate protection. Volume discounts are available.
Some testing companies employ á la carte billing which can be misleading. In these instances a tests cost is kept deceptively low. Then, when testing materials, test updates, research, accountability and support services are added, the test is much more expensive than originally quoted. Another stratagem for keeping a test’s cost low (e.g., very inexpensive or free testing) is not to provide many (or any) test-related services (e.g., lack of accountability, nobody standing behind or supporting the test if challenged, no ongoing research or upgrades). In other words, no support services are provided. In contrast, BDS and its subsidiaries charge one low and all inclusive test fee of $9.95 per test, which includes everything listed below.
One Low All Inclusive Fee
BDS and its subsidiaries (Risk & Needs and Online Testing) charge $9.95 per test and this fee incorporates all of the following free test-related items and services. Volume discounts are also available.
Free With Every Test
- Test Booklets
- Training Manuals
- HIPAA Compliant
- Internet Testing
- English & Spanish
- Cumulative Databases
- Database Research
- Convenience 24/7
- Ongoing Research
- Truthfulness Scales
- Volume Discounts
- Live Online Chat
- Affordable Testing
- Standardized Tests
- Support Services
- Evidence Based Tests
- Reliable & Valid Tests
- Sound Basis for Decisions
- Free Test Upgrades
- Human Voice Audio
- Biennial Test Upgrades
- Optical Scanner Scoring
- No Expensive Inventories
- Annual Summary Reports
- Office Hours 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
- Strong Accountability of Results
- 30 Day Money Back Guarantee
Individuals, agencies, departments, groups, corporations and high volume providers that purchase a block of 300 or more tests a year are entitled to volume discounts. And, statewide testing programs qualify for an additional discount.
Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org or call us at 1 (800) 231-2401
The Reinstatement Review Inventory is available on two different testing systems, which are: Online (Over the Internet) and Windows Diskettes/USB Flash Drives, the choice is yours.
How To Order Windows Tests
1. Windows Diskettes or USB flash drives: Behavior Data Systems, Ltd. (BDS, www.bdsltd.com) and Risk & Needs Assessment, Inc. (Risk & Needs, www.riskandneeds.com).
Customers can complete the order form that is available online at www.bdsltd.com or www.riskandneeds.com. The following step-by-step instructions will assist you in completing the diskettes or USB flash drive order form.
Upon going to www.bdsltd.com or www.riskandneeds.com‘s Home Page, select “How To Order” from the navigational links at the left side of the page. Upon arriving at the “How To Order” web page, simply follow the instructions to fill out the online order form.
- Enter your customer ID. Your customer ID is on your invoice statement. By entering your customer ID, you do not need to fill in your name, agency, address or telephone number. If your Customer ID is not readily available, leave the Customer ID field blank, but then fill in your name, agency, address and telephone number.
- Select the test(s) you would like to order from the drop-down boxes.
- Enter the number of diskettes/USB flash drives you want to order.
- Check whether you want 25 or 50 tests per diskette or USB flash drive.
- Check whether you want Windows diskettes or USB flash drives. If you are unsure about this, please call BDS or Risk & Needs at 1 (800) 231-2401.
- Click the Submit button.
This completes the Windows diskettes or USB flash drive ordering procedure!
How To Order Online (Internet) Tests At www.Online-Testing.com
Online or Internet testing: Professional Online Testing Solutions, Inc. (Online-Testing, www.online-testing.com).
Upon arriving at www.online-testing.com‘s Home Page click on the “How To . . .” Navigational link on the left. Here you will find step by step instructions for each of these categories: How to Open a New Account, How to Login, How to Administer a Test, How to Score a Test and Print a Report, How to Verify Data Entry, How to Delete Client Names, How to Purchase Test Credits.
Purchasing Online (Internet) Test Credits
- The link to PayPal is located on a registered user’s Account Summary Page. Click on the "Click Here to Purchase Test Credits" button to process your order through PayPal. You can also call 1 (800) 231-2401 to discuss other payment options.
- To add more test credits to your account follow the PayPal instructions.
- If you do not have a credit card, call us at 1 (800) 231-2401 to discuss other payment arrangements.
Log In To Your Account
- Go to www.online-testing.com and click on the LOGIN button which is in the upper right hand corner of each webpage.
- Enter your username and password (both are case sensitive), then click on the LOGIN button, which takes you to your Account Page.
- Click on the "Continue" button or the "Account Summary" button to go to your Account Summary page.
- The link to PayPal is located on your Account Summary Page. Click on the “Click Here to Purchase Standard Test Credits” button
- To add more test credits to your account, follow the PayPal instructions.
All credit card purchases of test credits are handled through PayPal’s Internet program. PayPal was selected because of its outstanding reputation for accurately, efficiently and securely handling credit card purchases from different countries.
PayPal is recognized throughout the world as the premiere Internet credit card processing company. Credit card processing and currency conversion are important to our online testing program. Most Professional Online Testing Solutions, Inc. (Online-Testing) customers purchase test credits via the Internet with their credit card. Many of these test users (customers) live in countries other than the United States.
Summary: After establishing your account, test credits (one credit for one test administration) are purchased at a cost of $9.95 (U.S. currency) each. Test credits can be purchased in any quantity desired. Volume discounts (over 300 tests a year) are available. For additional pricing information email us at email@example.com or call 1 (800) 231-2401.
Online Testing accounts are limited to residents of countries that are members of the Berne Convention and The Universal Copyright Convention Treaty. For a more complete discussion of test user restrictions, click on "Terms & Conditions of Use" link at www.online-testing.com on the left of the Home Page.
Behavior Data Systems, Ltd. (www.bdsltd.com) and the tests offered by its subsidiaries Risk & Needs Assessment, Inc. (www.riskandneeds.com) and Professional Online Testing Solutions, Inc. (www.online-testing.com) can be purchased and administered in two ways:
1. On 3½" diskettes or USB flash drives. Diskettes or USB flash drives come preloaded with 25 or 50 tests, whichever the test purchaser prefers. Visit either www.bdsltd.com or www.riskandneeds.com for more information.
2. Over the internet. These tests are available over the internet on our Online Testing internet platform www.online-testing.com. Tests can be purchased one at a time or in any quantity desired. Tests are available online 24/7.
Whether tests are on diskettes, USB flash drives or provided online (over the internet) the test reports use the same format or layout, providing the information you need in an easy to understand printed report.
All tests are evidence based with impressive reliability, validity and accuracy.
The goal from the beginning has been to develop practical, helpful, psychometrically sound and affordable assessment instruments or tests. Helpful in terms of providing useful information, psychometrically sound with regard to reliability, validity and accuracy, and practical in the sense that tests can be completed in a reasonable amount of time and are affordable.
Visit www.bdsltd.com or www.riskandneeds.com and click on their How To Order link to learn about their Windows (diskettes or USB flash drives) testing system. Both Behavior Data Systems, Ltd. (BDS) www.bdsltd.com and Risk & Needs Assessment, Inc. (Risk & Needs) www.riskandneeds.com use the same test ordering procedure and price list.
Visit www.online-testing.com and click on the How To Become a Test User link to review its internet test ordering system. At Online-Testing you will receive one free test just for registering so you can try the test of your choice at no cost. All three testing systems (BDS, Risk & Needs and Online-Testing) use the same cost sheet (charge the same testing fees).
Regardless of which of the three testing programs you use, the first test is provided free as a professional courtesy.
New accounts are free and do not involve any start up costs. The procedure is straightforward and it takes approximately 3 minutes to set up your account. If desired call us at 1(800) 231-2401 and a staff person will assist you. Click on any of the "Open An Account" buttons, which are in the top right corner of each webpage. Follow the simple step-by-step directions. Review the "Terms & Conditions of Use" and click on the "Signature Confirmed" button. Within 2 minutes your username and password will be emailed to the email address you provide. This information is case-sensitive and should be saved for future reference, you will need this information when you login to test.
There are many terms that address the notion of truthfulness within the context of assessment, treatment and rehabilitation, including denial, problem minimization, misrepresentation, and equivocation. The prevalence of denial among patients, and offenders is, extensively, discussed in the psychological literature (Marshall, Thornton, Marshall, Fernandez, & Mann, 2001; Brake & Shannon, 1997; Barbaree, 1991; Schlank & Shaw, 1996). The impact the Truthfulness Scale score has on other scale or test scores is contingent upon the severity of denial, or untruthfulness. In assessment, socially-desirable responding impacts assessment results, when respondents attempt to portray themselves in an overly favorable light (Blanchett, Robinson, Alksnis & Sarin, 1997).
Awareness of truthfulness scales (measures) increased with the release of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), almost six decades ago. Soon thereafter, socially-desirable responding was demonstrated to impact assessment results (Stoeber, 2001; McBurney, 1994; Alexander, Somerfield & Ensminger, 1993; Paulhus, 1991). Truthfulness Scale conceptualization began, in earnest, with the idea of self-response accuracy. Test users wanted to be sure that respondents’ (patients/offenders) self-report answers were truthful. Evaluators and assessors need to know if they can rely upon the test data being accurate. In other words, can the respondent’s (patients/offenders) self-report answers be trusted? Research also shows that truthfulness is a factor in diagnosis, treatment effectiveness, and recidivism. Because denial is thought to be an important component of assessment and rehabilitative outcomes, various measures have been developed to augment identification (Schneider & Wright, 2001; Eccles, Stringer, & Marshall, 1997). While some assessments focus on general truthfulness (denial), and others are specific to an offense or problem (Tierney & McCabe, 2001), before denial can be addressed and worked through, it must first be identified. And, that’s where Behavior Data Systems (BDS) Truthfulness Scales fit in. They determine client (patient/offender) truthfulness while completing BDS tests.
Client (patient/offender) truthfulness has been associated with more, positive treatment outcomes (Barber, et. al., 2001; Simpson 2004). Problem minimization has also been linked to lack of treatment progress (Murphy & Baxter, 1997); treatment dropout (Daly & Peloski, 2000; Evans, Libo & Hser, 2009); and offender recidivism (Nunes, Hanson, Firestone, Moulden, Greenberg & Bradford, 2007; Kropp, Hart, Webster & Eaves, 1995; Grann & Wedin, 2002). Some researchers (Baldwin & Roys, 1998; Grossman & Cavanaugh, 1990 Haywood & Grossman, 1994; Haywood, Grossman & Hardy, 1993; Nugent & Kroner, 1996; Sefarbi, 1990) have suggested that client denial should be eliminated, prior to commencing treatment; whereas, others argue that offenders should not be excluded from starting treatment due to their denial (Maletzky, 1996). Despite different views on the role of denial at treatment intake, reductions in denial are associated with increased likelihood of treatment success (O’Donohue & Letourneau, 1993).
Invariably, assessors (evaluators, test users) must answer the questions, “Was the client (patient/offender) truthful while being tested? Can we rely on the test results?” Evidence-based truthfulness scales answer these questions.
The "interview" has been the mainstay in evaluations for many years, despite its paradoxical lack of reliability, validity, and accuracy. Most mental health professionals agree that the interview has not been a good predictive instrument, and that it is, notoriously, time consuming. Most practitioners believe the interview, by itself, does not present a defensible basis for making diagnostic and treatment decisions. Interviews are prone to error and the reasons are many, owing to diversity in interviewer personalities and in training and equivocal motivation. Interviewers must repeat, paraphrase, and probe for scoreable answers, thereby introducing subjectivity and error.
As multidimensional as denial is (Barrett, Sykes, & Byrnes, 1986; Brake & Shannon, 1997; Happel & Auffrey, 1995; Laflen & Sturm, 1994; Langevin, 1988; Orlando, 1998; Salter, 1988; Trepper & Barrett, 1989), truthfulness is equally multifaceted. Yet, client truthfulness (and denial) is integral to accurate assessment, testing, and evaluation, and to effective treatment and rehabilitation. Consequently, truthfulness will continue to be studied in the future.
Behavior Data System (BDS) and its subsidiaries, Risk & Needs Assessment, Inc. and Professional Online Testing Solutions, Inc., have their own, individualized Truthfulness Scales. These Truthfulness Scales consist of approximately, twenty test items. And, each Truthfulness Scale has impressive, evidence-based reliability, validity, and accuracy. Truthfulness Scale research is reported in www.BDS-Research.com.
Alexander, C., Somerfield, M., Ensminger, M., et al. (1993). Consistency of adolescents’ self-report of sexual behavior in a longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence; 25, 1379-95.
Baldwin, K., & Roys, D. T. (1998). Factors associated with denial in a sample of alleged adult sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10(3), 211-226.
Barbaree, H. E. (1991). Denial and minimization among sex offenders: Assessment and treatment outcome. Forum on Corrections Research, 3, 30-33.
Barber, J., Luborsky, L., Gallop, R., Crits-Christoph, P., Frank, A., Weiss, R., Thase, M., Connolly, M., Gladis, M., Foltz, C., Siqueland, L. (2001). Therapeutic alliance as a predictor of outcome and retention in the National Institute on Drug Abuse Collaborative Cocaine Treatment Study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2001; 69(1):119–124.
Barrett, M. J., Sykes, C., & Byrnes, W. (1986). A systemic model for the treatment of intra-family child sexual abuse. In T. Trepper & M. J. Barrett (Eds.), Treating incest: A multiple systems perspective (pp. 67-82). New York: Haworth.
Blanchette, K. Robinson, D., Alksnis, C., Serin, R. (1997). Assessing Treatment Outcome Among Family Violence Offenders: Reliability and Validity of a Domestic Violence Treatment Assessment Battery. Ottawa: Research Branch, Correctional Service Canada.
Brake, S. & Shannon, D. (1997). Using pretreatment to increase admission in sex offenders. In B. K. Schwartz & H. R. Cellini (Eds.), The sex offender: New insights, treatment innovations and legal developments, Volume 2 (pp.5-1–5-16). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Daly, J. & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of dropout among men who batter: A review of studies with implications for research and practice. Violence and Victims, 15, 137-160. [Abstract].
Eccles, A., Stringer, A., & Marshall, W. L. (1997, October). Denial and minimization in sexual offenders: A self-report measure. Poster presented at the 16th Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Crystal City, VA.
Evans, E. Libo, L. Hser, Y. (2009). Client and program factors associated with dropout from court-mandated drug treatment. Eval Program Plann. 2009 August; 32 (3) 204-212.
Gibbons, P., Volder, J. & Casey, P. (2003). Patterns of Denial in Sex Offenders: A Replication Study. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31: 331-44.
Grann, M. & Wedin, I. (2002). Risk factors for recidivism among spousal assault and spousal homicide offenders. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 8, 5-23.
Grossman, L., & Cavanaugh, J. (1990). Psychopathology and denial in alleged sex offenders. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 178(12), 739-744.
Happel, R. M., & Auffrey, J. J. (1995). Sex offender assessment: Interrupting the dance of denial. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 13(2), 5-22.
Haywood, T., & Grossman, L. (1994). Denial of deviant sexual arousal and psychopathology in child molesters. Behavior Therapy, 25(2), 327-340.
Haywood, T., Grossman, L., & Hardy, D. (1993).Denial and social desirability in clinical examinations of alleged sex offenders. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 181(3), 183-188.
Khandaker, R. (2010). Sexual Adjustment Inventory: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. Behavior Data Systems, Ltd.
Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Eaves, D. (1995). Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (2nd ed.). Vancouver, Canada: B.C. Institute on Family Violence.
Laflen, B., & Sturm, W. R., Jr. (1994). Understanding and working with denial in sexual offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 3(4), 19-36.
Langevin, R. (1988). Defensiveness in sex offenders. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 269-290). New York: Guilford.
Maletsky, B. M. (1996). Denial of treatment or treatment of denial? Sexual Abuse : A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8(1), 1-5.
Marshall, W. L., & Eccles, A. (1991). Issues in clinical practice with sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6(1), 68-93.
Marshall, W., Thornton, D., Marshall, L., Fernandez, Y., & Mann, R. (2001). Treatment of sexual offenders who are in categorical denial: A pilot project. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13(3), 205-215.
McBurney D., (1994) Research Methods. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, California.
Murphy, C. & Baxter, V. (1997). Motivating batterers to change in the treatment context. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 607-619.
Newsome, R. & Ditzler, T. (1993). Assessing alcoholic denial. Further examination of the Denial Rating Scale. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1993; 181(11): 689-94.
Nugent, P. & Kroner, D. (1996). Denial, response styles, and admittance of offenses among child molesters and rapists. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(4), 475-486.
Nunes, K., Hanson, R., Firestone, P., Moulden, H., Greenberg, D., Bradford, J. (2007). Denial predicts recidivism for some sexual offenders. Sex Abuse, 19 (2): 91-105.
O'Donohue, W., & Letourneau, E. (1993). A brief group treatment for the modification of denial in child sexual abusers: outcome and follow-up. Child Abuse & Neglect , 17 (2), 299-304.
Orlando, D. (1998, September). Sex offenders. Special Needs Offenders Bulletin, No. 3. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center.
Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response biases. In J. P. Robinson et al. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press
Salter, A. C. (1988). Treating child sex offenders and victims. London: Sage.
Schlank, A. & Shaw, T. (1996). Treating sexual offenders who deny their guilt: A pilot study. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8(1), 17-23.
Schneider, S. L., & Wright, R. C. (2001). The FoSOD: A measurement tool for reconceptualizing
the role of denial in child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 545-564.
Schneider, S. & Wright, R. (2004). Understanding Denial in Sexual Offenders: A review of cognitive and motivational processes to avoid responsibility. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, Vol. 5 (1); 3-20. Sage Publications.
Sciacca, K. (1997). Removing barriers: dual diagnosis and motivational interviewing. Professional Counselor, 12(1): 41-6. Retrieved from: http://tie.samhsa.gov/Topics/pdf/SciaccaRemovingBarriers.pdf
Sefarbi, R. (1990). Admitters and deniers among adolescent sex offenders and their families: A preliminary study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(3), 460-465.
Simpson D. (2004). A conceptual framework for drug abuse treatment process and outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2004; 27(2):99–121.
Stoeber, J. (2001). The social desirability scale-17 (SD-17). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222-232.
Tierney, D. & McCabe, M. (2001). The Assessment of Denial, Cognitive Distortions, and Victim Empathy among Pedophilic Sex Offenders, An Evaluation of the Utility of Self-Report Measures. Trauma Violence Abuse, 2 (3): 259-270.
Trepper, T., & Barrett, M. J. (1989). Systemic treatment of incest: A therapeutic handbook. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Winn, M. E. (1996). The strategic and systematic management of denial in the cognitive/behavioral treatment of sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8 (1), 25-36.