Risk Factors Diagnostic Evaluation Test
How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- Always
- Often
- Rarely
- Never
- Always
- Often
- Rarely
- Never
- Always
- Often
- Rarely
- Never
Risk Factors Diagnostic Evaluation Test - Description and methodology of the test
People reflecting on emotional life, education, family relationships, and peer surroundings can use the Risk Factors Diagnostic Evaluation Test to examine circumstances that may increase vulnerability to addictive behavior. This assessment of risk factors can highlight areas where preventive attention and further conversation may be useful. It offers a structured profile of connected influences rather than a single explanation for risk.
What This Assessment Explores
This adolescent risk assessment has five scales:
- Psychological (0-81) measures free time, impulsivity, loneliness, and life difficulties; higher scores may indicate sensation seeking, emotional instability. Low 0-20; Moderate 21-51; High 52-81.
- School (0-18) measures underachievement, conflict, and absences; higher scores may indicate educational difficulties. Low 0-8; Moderate 9-13; High 14-18.
- Immediate Social Environment (0-17) measures deviant or substance-using peers and approval. Low exposure 0-7; Moderate exposure 8-11; High exposure 12-17.
- Family (0-49) measures absent shared values, parental conflict, and insufficient expectations; higher scores may indicate adverse family circumstances. Low 0-16; Moderate 17-31; High 32-49.
- Overall Risk (0-165) measures cumulative factors contributing to addictive behavior; higher scores indicate need for preventive measures and specialist attention. Low 0-41; Moderate 42-106; High 107-165.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Items use self-report formats: Always-to-Never frequency choices, Yes/No questions, age or frequency options, and judgments about substance use as harmful or beneficial. This mix covers behavior, context, attitudes, and relationships without clinical terminology.
The result screen groups responses into domain totals and a combined score. Because each response’s point contribution is unspecified, individual answers should not be reverse-engineered into a scoring rule; read the displayed ranges and bands as presented.
Conceptually, the questionnaire is consistent with Khriptovich’s 2018 prevention work on personal and environmental conditions; it is not identified as an adaptation of a named questionnaire from that work. Its structure is also consistent with Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller’s 1992 framework on cumulative vulnerability across individual, relational, educational, and peer settings. These links indicate conceptual consistency, not provenance as an adaptation of either source.
For someone examining addictive behavior risk factors, the profile can show whether contexts point in the same direction. Results describe reported patterns, not a diagnosis; current mood, memory, social desirability, and willingness to disclose can affect self-report, while the displayed bands simply organize the questionnaire’s results.
- Khriptovich, V. A. (2018). Prevention of Addictive Behavior. Minsk: National Institute of Education.
- Hawkins, J. David, Catalano, Richard F., & Miller, Janet Y. (1992). Risk and Protective Factors for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: Implications for Substance Abuse Prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64-105. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.64
Updated: