This document summarizes a study that categorized DUI offenders into subgroups based on personality traits and assigned them to different treatment programs. The study aimed to determine if certain client types benefited more from specific programs. 804 offenders were randomly assigned to one of three programs: Minnesota 12-step, Dynamic Cognitive Behavioral Modification, or Steering-Wheel Trap. Cluster analysis identified two main client types. The results showed that while no single program was superior, criminal, neurotic and antisocial clients generally benefited more from the treatments than less problematic clients. A trend also indicated that antisocial and neurotic clients benefited particularly from the Dynamic Cognitive Behavioral Modification program.

1. Background
Legislative changes in Sweden during 1994 when the legal BAC
level for Gross Drunken Driving was reduced to 0.1% gave rise
to two new special prisons for DUI’s.
Since the 1980’s promises of improved alcohol treatment outcomes
had been reported, indicating that patient characteristics interacted
with treatment set-ups affecting outcome results.
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) in
USA then initiated the project “Matching Alcoholism Treatments to
Client Heterogeneity" (Project MATCH) in 1989

2. Special prisons for DUI’s
Rostorp in MalmöRostorp in Malmö
Östragård in VänersborgÖstragård in Vänersborg

3. The programs
The treatment programs chosen for implementation were
“The Minnesota 12-step model” (12-step)
based on the principles of the Minnesota model (Reality
Therapy) and Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET).
“Dynamic Cognitive Behaviour Modification” (DCB)
based on social learning theory.
 “The Steering-Wheel Trap” (SWT) or just “The Trap”,
based on education and motivational psychology.

4. Objectives
(1) Is it possible to categorize clients in meaningful subgroups
with respect to psycho-social and personality
characteristics?
(2) Will certain client types benefit from certain programs in
terms of an improved psycho-social situation, including less
alcohol use at follow-up?
(3) Is any program superior to the others, disregarding type of
client?
(4) If so, does the program effect varies with type of institution?

5. During the years 1996 to 1998 5 330 persons of both sexes
were convicted to prison in Sweden because of one or several
DUI crimes.
980 (1.2%) male clients were brought to the DUI-specialized
prisons of Rostorp and Östragård.
804 clients (82%) accepted participation in the study and
were randomly allocated to one of the programs. 216
(26.9%) at Rostorp and 588 (73.1%) at Östragård.
.
Subjects

6. Materials
All clients were investigated with respect to their social situation,
health, work and income, criminality, alcohol– and drug use and
personality at intake.
Mean treatment time was 6 weeks
Voluntary participation in research program
Random allocation of participants to treatment programs
Clients were followed up 2 years after treatment

7. Instruments
Addiction Severity Index
Physical health
Work and income
Alcohol use
Drug use
Criminality
Relations to family and friends
Psychic health
NEO-PI-R
 Neuroticism
 Extraversion
 Openness
 Agreeableness
 Conscientiousness

8. Statistical analysis
PSD-delta scores (Psycho-Social Development)
The difference between the ASI pre and post index scores
PDM-delta scores (“Problem Days last Month)
Pre- and post difference for number of days with problems last month.
•Cluster Analysis: Client typology.
•Main effects for programs, institutions and client typology: One-way ANOVA´s
•Interactions between program and client typology and between program and
institution: Two-way ANOVA´s
Statistical methods

9. Results: Cluster Analysis (I)
46.90 63.90
53.94 45.14
50.36 47.17
50.73 45.27
51.17 36.87
48.18 53.65
47.88 54.86
46.20 57.61
47.73 55.86
48.16 54.14
48.21 53.86
45.76 57.41
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreableness
Conscientiousness
Physical problems
Work related problems
Alcohol related problems
Drug related problems
Problems related to criminality
Problems with relations to family and friends
Psychic problem
1 2
Cluster

10. Results: Main effects for psycho-
social developement (PSD)
Main effects
Physical
health
Work &
income
Alcohol use Drug use Crimina-lity Relations Psychic health
Institution n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s
Program n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s
Client type F = 6.97,
Df: 1,
p<-05
F = 10.86,
Df: 1,
p<-05
F = 26.0,
Df: 1,
p<-05
n.s F = 7.65,
Df: 1,
p<-05
n.s
F = 7.65,
Df: 1,
p<-05

11. Results: Interaction between
program and client typology
Delta scores
Physical health Work &
income
Alcohol use Drug use Criminality Relations Psycic
health
PSD
n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s
PDM
n.s n.s
F = 5.85,
Df: 2,
P<-05
F = 3.54,
Df: 2,
p<-05
n.s n.s n.s

12. In conclusion
The results in this study support the conclusions of Project Match.All the treatments
were effective but none was shown to be superior to any other.
There was a client effect indicating that criminal, neurotic and antisocial DUI´s
generally have more to gain from the treatments than more “normal” DUI´s with less
psycho-social problems.
There were few interactions between treatments and clients and the “matching hypo-
thesis” got meagre support, but a trend was observed the “antisocial and neurotic”
DUI’s benefit particularly from the DCB program.