Tanglewood Research Evaluation

Abstract

The Tanglewood Research Evaluation: Commitment to Not Use Drugs Scale, originally developed and validated by Dr. William B. Hansen and Ralph B. McNeal Jr. (1997), is an influential psychometric instrument engineered to measure an adolescent’s explicit, internal, and public behavioral commitment to remain drug-free. Constructed as a critical mediating variable assessment within the evaluation of universal school-based substance use prevention curricula—most notably Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) and subsequent targeted interventions such as the All Stars program—the scale evaluates cognitive decision-making, interpersonal declarations, and formal pledge commitments regarding the avoidance of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. The measure comprises 8 self-report items administered via a 4-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Psychometrically, the instrument demonstrates robust internal consistency, with Cronbachu2019s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .76 to .85 across diverse middle and high school cohorts. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently substantiate an essentially unidimensional latent construct representing overarching anti-drug commitment, alongside an identified minor method effect attributable to negatively worded items. The instrument demonstrates strong predictive validity, longitudinally forecasting reduced rates of substance initiation, lower thirty-day prevalence of intoxication, and diminished cannabis uptake among youth over 12- to 24-month follow-up intervals. As an endorsed instrument within the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Core Measures Initiative, the scale serves as a standard measurement benchmark in behavioral science, community prevention trials, and youth development research.

Keywords

Commitment to Not Use Drugs Scale, Tanglewood Research, William B. Hansen, adolescent substance prevention, behavioral commitment, mediation analysis, D.A.R.E. evaluation, pledge behavior, intention-behavior gap, CSAP Core Measures Initiative

Authors

The Commitment to Not Use Drugs Scale was formulated and psychometrically established by:

• William B. Hansen, Ph.D.: Senior Research Scientist and President of Tanglewood Research, Inc., Greensboro, North Carolina, USA. Dr. Hansen is an internationally recognized prevention scientist who served on the faculty of the University of Southern California and Wake Forest University School of Medicine. He has served as a principal investigator on numerous National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded clinical trials and curriculum design initiatives, notably pioneering the Project SMART, Adolescent Alcohol Prevention Trial (AAPT), and the All Stars prevention curricula. Contact: Tanglewood Research, Inc., 701 Albert Pick Road, Greensboro, NC 27409; Email: [email protected].
• Ralph B. McNeal Jr., Ph.D.: Professor of Sociology and quantitative methodology specialist, affiliated with the Department of Sociology at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA. Dr. McNeal has published extensively on educational sociology, peer social networks, adolescent deviance, and advanced structural equation modeling in intervention research.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Commitment to Not Use Drugs Scale is to provide prevention researchers, program evaluators, educators, and developmental psychologists with an empirically validated, brief, and theoretically grounded measurement instrument to quantify an adolescentu2019s resolve and explicit intention to avoid illicit drugs, alcohol intoxication, and tobacco use. Developed during a critical epoch of prevention science when federal funding bodies demanded rigorous meditational evaluations of universal prevention programs, the scale was created to address a specific measurement gap: determining whether school-based drug programs actively alter the cognitive, personal, and social mechanisms that govern future behavioral enactment.

Historically, substance abuse prevention programs often operated as “black boxes,” where researchers simply evaluated whether an intervention reduced subsequent substance consumption without determining which theoretical components were responsible for observed changes. Hansen and McNeal (1997) introduced the scale to systematically dissect the programmatic architecture of large-scale initiatives such as Project D.A.R.E. The authors sought to establish whether the curricular components designed to foster personal commitment (e.g., public pledges, signing drug-free contracts, making personal resolutions) effectively changed youth mindset, and whether increases in measured commitment directly mediated long-term abstinence.

In research contexts, the scale is routinely deployed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental community trials, and longitudinal cohort studies evaluating social-emotional learning (SEL) curricula, primary prevention programming, and early family-based interventions. Because the instrument assesses explicit behavioral intentions and internalized decisions, it serves as a powerful proximal outcome measure. In prevention trials spanning multiple school years, behavioral onset of alcohol, cigarette, or cannabis use may exhibit a low base rate in sixth or seventh grade; measuring changes in commitment provides evaluators with a highly sensitive indicator of intervention efficacy long before adolescent substance use rates escalate into overt behavioral patterns.

In clinical, educational, and community settings, the instrument functions as an informative risk-stratification screener. Guidance counselors, school psychologists, and adolescent behavioral interventionists utilize the scale to gauge the degree to which a student has adopted an anti-drug self-concept versus entertaining permissive, opportunistic intentions toward substance experimentation. Identifying a weak commitment enables targeted interventions before experimentation transitions into escalating substance misuse or substance use disorders (DSM-5). Furthermore, federal and state agencies, such as the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), incorporated this instrument into their Core Measures Initiative to facilitate standardized cross-site meta-evaluations across diverse state incentive grant programs.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the scale is Commitment to Non-Use, conceptualized as a multi-layered, conscious, and goal-directed cognitive-behavioral resolution to abstain from psychoactive substances. Within contemporary social and cognitive psychology, commitment transcends mere passive disinterest or abstract anti-drug attitudes. Instead, it constitutes an operationalized behavioral precommitment—a self-regulatory volitional strategy wherein an individual establishes an explicit internal rule or public covenant that constrains future choices in the presence of peer pressure, temptation, or opportunistic risk environments.

The construct encompasses three interrelated dimensions that operate synchronously within an adolescentu2019s social ecology:

1. Internal Volitional Resolution (Private Decision-Making)

This dimension reflects the intrapsychic cognitive processes through which an adolescent synthesizes personal values, risk awareness, and self-standards into an unambiguous internal mandate. Items such as “I have made a final decision to stay away from marijuana” and “I have made a promise to myself that I will not drink alcohol” represent internalized, self-determined commitments. Grounded in autonomous self-regulation, private resolutions establish an internalized barrier against curiosity and experimentation. Unlike external compliance driven by fear of parental or school punishment, an internal resolution reflects personal agency, moral conviction, and deliberate behavioral choice.

2. Counter-Intentional / Permissive Opportunism (Reverse-Scored Intent)

A critical facet of the construct is the absence of latent, opportunistic inclinations to experiment with substances when contextual surveillance is removed. Manifested in items such as “If I had the chance and knew I would not be caught, I would get drunk,” “I plan to get drunk sometime in the next year,” and “I have decided that I will smoke cigarettes,” this dimension targets the adolescent’s hidden behavioral intentions. Many adolescents express generic anti-drug attitudes under adult observation but maintain conditional or opportunistic intentions—planning to indulge if risk of detection is negligible. By capturing both explicit planning and hypothetical opportunistic willingness, the scale differentiates superficial social desirability from authentic, steadfast commitment.

3. Public and Interpersonal Declaration (Social Precommitment)

The third dimension evaluates the externalization of personal resolutions into the adolescentu2019s social matrix. Items like “I have told at least one person that I do not intend to smoke,” “It is clear to my friends that I am committed to living a drug-free life,” and “I have signed my name to a pledge to be drug-free” assess interpersonal precommitments. When adolescents articulate their stance to peers or sign a formal pledge, they alter their social environment and activate interpersonal consistency pressures. A public declaration raises the perceived social and psychological costs of future drug use, aligning peer expectations with personal abstinence and mobilizing social support to reinforce the drug-free self-identity.

Theoretical Framework

The Commitment to Not Use Drugs Scale is anchored at the intersection of several foundational theories in cognitive, social, and developmental psychology. Specifically, it integrates tenets from the Theory of Planned Behavior, Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory, the Social Development Model, and Hansen’s Comprehensive Mediational Model of Prevention.

The Theory of Planned Behavior and Implementation Intentions

According to the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), behavioral intention is the most proximal and potent cognitive predictor of volitional human action. Intentions encapsulate the motivational factors that propel an individual toward enacting or avoiding a specific behavior. Peter Gollwitzer expanded this framework by formulating the concept of implementation intentions—strategic mental plans that link situational cues to specific goal-directed actions (e.g., “If someone offers me alcohol, then I will decline”). The Tanglewood scale operationalizes these concepts: adolescents who form clear, explicit anti-drug intentions demonstrate heightened cognitive shielding against situational temptations, counteracting impulsive or peer-driven substance uptake.

Cognitive Dissonance and Behavioral Precommitment

Leon Festingeru2019s (1957) Cognitive Dissonance Theory provides the psychological basis for the pledge and public-declaration elements of the scale. When an adolescent signs a public pledge or announces to their peer group that they do not intend to smoke, they establish a binding behavioral commitment. Psychologists studying social influence and behavioral precommitment (such as Robert Cialdini) note that human beings exhibit an intense drive for internal consistency. Engaging in substance use after publicly proclaiming a drug-free stance induces acute cognitive dissonance, identity conflict, and threat of social hypocrisy. Consequently, the act of making a public commitment serves as an active psychological anchor, locking in the adolescent’s behavioral trajectory and reinforcing resilience under peer pressure.

Hansen’s Mediational Model of Adolescent Prevention

William B. Hansen (1992) formulated a seminal framework for substance use prevention, identifying twelve distinct intermediate psychological targets: norm setting, commitment, values clarification, refusal assertiveness, alternative activities, risk perception, self-esteem, decision-making, stress management, resistance training, and peer bonding. Hansen and McNealu2019s empirical analyses demonstrated that among these diverse constructs, changing normative beliefs (erroneous perceptions of peer substance prevalence) and securing explicit personal commitment are among the most powerful mechanisms accounting for actual program-induced behavioral reductions. The Commitment to Not Use Drugs Scale was intentionally calibrated to assess this specific mediational node within the causal pathway from intervention delivery to long-term behavioral abstinence.

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have affirmed the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Commitment to Not Use Drugs Scale across diverse developmental and cultural populations.

Construct and Factorial Validity

During its initial validation across large-scale school cohorts participating in the D.A.R.E. evaluations (Hansen & McNeal, 1997; N > 4,000 middle school students), exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a coherent single-factor construct of “Commitment.” While structural analyses revealed that reverse-coded items clustered together as a secondary method factor, substantive model fit indices supported an overarching latent trait representing the continuum of anti-drug commitment. Standardized factor loadings across items consistently range between .52 and .84, confirming that both internal resolutions and interpersonal pledges contribute meaningfully to the central construct.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been established through strong, theoretically coherent correlations with adjacent cognitive and social constructs:

• Peer Normative Beliefs: Commitment scores correlate negatively with perceived peer substance use prevalence (r = -.38 to -.52), indicating that youth who accurately perceive drug use as a non-normative behavior hold significantly stronger personal commitments.
• Refusal Assertiveness: Positive correlations exist between the scale and self-efficacy to resist peer pressure (r = .44 to .60).
• Conventional Beliefs and School Bonding: Strong positive associations are observed with Hawkins and Catalano’s bonding-to-school indicators (r = .35 to .48).

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by evaluating the scale against non-targeted constructs. Correlations between commitment scores and generalized self-esteem, academic performance, or locus of control are modest (r = .12 to .22), confirming that the instrument captures a specific, goal-directed behavioral commitment rather than non-specific global adolescent adjustment or generalized positive affect.

Predictive and Longitudinal Validity

The scale possesses remarkable predictive utility. In structural equation models tracing adolescent cohorts across 12, 24, and 36 months, baseline commitment scores emerged as a significant negative predictor of future thirty-day alcohol consumption, episodes of drunkenness, cigarette smoking, and cannabis initiation. Students scoring one standard deviation above the mean on commitment at grade seven were found to be 2.5 to 3.2 times less likely to initiate marijuana use by grade nine, even after controlling for baseline risk factors, peer drug use, and demographic variables. Furthermore, in mediation analyses testing curricular impacts, changes in commitment scores accounted for a substantial portion of the indirect program effect on delayed substance initiation.

Reliability

The Commitment to Not Use Drugs Scale demonstrates robust and reproducible reliability across various educational strata, racial and ethnic cohorts, and geographic contexts.

Internal Consistency

In the foundational validation study by Hansen and McNeal (1997), the 8-item instrument exhibited an overall Cronbachu2019s alpha of .78 among sixth- and seventh-grade students. Subsequent evaluations of the All Stars curriculum and independent evaluations conducted under the CSAP Core Measures Initiative documented alpha coefficients consistently ranging from .76 to .86. Specifically:

• Middle School Samples (Grades 6–8): $\alpha = .79 – .84$
• High School Samples (Grades 9–11): $\alpha = .81 – .86$
• Multicultural Urban Cohorts: $\alpha = .77 – .82$
• Rural Cohorts: $\alpha = .80 – .85$

Item-total correlations for all eight items typically surpass .45, with items assessing personal promises and drunkenness intentions exhibiting the highest discrimination indices (item-total r > .58).

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability evaluated over non-intervention control intervals demonstrates acceptable reliability. In two- to four-week test-retest intervals among non-treated control youth, stability coefficients range from $r_{tt} = .72$ to $.81$, indicating that while commitment is susceptible to intervention-induced modification, it operates as a stable cognitive orientation in the absence of systematic social or curricular influences.

Factor Analysis

Structural evaluations of the scale utilizing both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have extensively clarified the underlying dimensional architecture of the instrument.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Initial principal axis factoring with promax and varimax rotations reveals an initial eigenvalue profile where the primary factor accounts for roughly 42% to 52% of the total variance, followed by a secondary factor accounting for approximately 14% of the variance. Items load as follows:

• Item 1 (Final decision – marijuana): Factor loading = .72
• Item 2 (Decided to smoke cigarettes – Reverse): Factor loading = .56
• Item 3 (Get drunk if not caught – Reverse): Factor loading = .68
• Item 4 (Plan to get drunk next year – Reverse): Factor loading = .74
• Item 5 (Promise to myself – no alcohol): Factor loading = .78
• Item 6 (Told someone no smoking): Factor loading = .61
• Item 7 (Clear to friends – drug-free): Factor loading = .69
• Item 8 (Signed pledge): Factor loading = .54

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations have tested three competing structural configurations:

1. A strict single-factor unidimensional model without correlated errors.
2. A two-factor oblique model bifurcated into “Active Commitment” (positively worded items: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8) and “Permissive Substance Intent” (negatively worded items: 2, 3, 4).
3. A bi-factor or single-factor model with correlated residuals among the negatively phrased items to account for cognitive method effects.

ol>

The single-factor model with correlated uniqueness between items 2, 3, and 4 provides exceptional model fit across multi-ethnic adolescent datasets, meeting contemporary psychometric thresholds (Hu & Bentler, 1999):

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .972 to .986
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .961 to .979
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .038 to .049 (90% CI [.028, .058])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .028 to .035
• Model Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom ratio ($\chi^2/df$) < 2.5

These findings substantiate that the instrument functions effectively as a unidimensional composite score representing the broader construct of commitment to non-use, while cautioning researchers to account for reverse-wording method variance when constructing advanced structural equation models.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Commitment to Not Use Drugs Scale (Tanglewood Research Evaluation)
• Authors: William B. Hansen, Ph.D., & Ralph B. McNeal Jr., Ph.D. (1997)
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychological scale / behavioral intention questionnaire
• Target Population: Youth and adolescents (approximate age range: 10 to 18 years; Grades 5 through 12)
• Number of Items: 8 items
• Response Format: 4-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree)
• Scoring Procedure:
  • Reverse Scored Items: Items 2, 3, and 4 must be reversed prior to computing sum or mean scores ($1 \rightarrow 4$, $2 \rightarrow 3$, $3 \rightarrow 2$, $4 \rightarrow 1$).
  • Composite Score Calculation: Total score can be obtained by summing all 8 items (yielding a theoretical range of 8 to 32) or by computing the mean score across items (range: 1.00 to 4.00).
  • Score Interpretation: Higher scores correspond directly to higher levels of behavioral commitment to abstain from drug, tobacco, and alcohol use. Average scores approaching 4.0 indicate definitive, vocal, and multidimensional commitment, whereas scores below 2.5 indicate permissive attitudes, opportunistic willingness, and elevated vulnerability for substance experimentation.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Language: English

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Commitment to Not Use Drugs Scale was formulated and published in 1997 by William B. Hansen and Ralph B. McNeal Jr. within their seminal study evaluating program mediators in Health Education & Behavior. The instrument was subsequently integrated into the public domain through the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Core Measures Initiative (Phase I Recommendations, pages 79–81), sponsored by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

The scale is generally accessible free of charge for non-commercial educational, scientific, clinical, and program evaluation purposes. Researchers utilizing the measure are expected to provide proper attribution to Dr. William B. Hansen, Ralph B. McNeal Jr., and Tanglewood Research Inc. For commercial use, electronic adaptation within proprietary platforms, or curriculum-specific deployment associated with commercial versions of the All Stars prevention program, formal permission should be requested directly from Tanglewood Research Inc.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. (1998). Core Measures Initiative: Phase I recommendations (pp. 79-81). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493-503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
• Hansen, W. B. (1992). School-based substance abuse prevention: A review of the state of the art and future directions. Health Education Research, 7(3), 403-430. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/7.3.403
• Hansen, W. B., & McNeal, R. B. (1997). How D.A.R.E. works: An examination of program effects on mediating variables. Health Education & Behavior, 24(2), 165-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400205
• Hansen, W. B., & McNeal, R. B. (1999). The potential role of practice in building commitment to avoid drug use. Journal of Primary Prevention, 20(2), 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021464324209
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Items of the Scale

Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:

Response Scale: 4-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree)

Scoring Note: Items 2, 3, and 4 are reverse scored before summing or averaging. Higher scores indicate a stronger commitment to not use drugs.

1. I have made a final decision to stay away from marijuana.
2. I have decided that I will smoke cigarettes.
3. If I had the chance and knew I would not be caught, I would get drunk.
4. I plan to get drunk sometime in the next year.
5. I have made a promise to myself that I will not drink alcohol.
6. I have told at least one person that I do not intend to smoke.
7. It is clear to my friends that I am committed to living a drug-free life.
8. I have signed my name to a pledge to be drug-free.
★
Rate This Scale
5.0 / 5 • 1 vote