Mark Shevlin1, Gillian W Smith. 1. Psychology Research Institute, University of Ulster, Northland Road, Londonderry, BT48 7JL. m.shevlin@ulster.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the psychometric structure and construct validity of the alcohol use disorder identification test (AUDIT) in a Great Britain population sample. METHODS: A stratified multi-stage random sample of 7849 participants completed the AUDIT as part of a computer assisted interview. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted testing one to three factor models. The factors in these models were correlated with demographic variables and scores relating to perceived wellbeing, verbal IQ, and neurotic and psychosis symptoms to assess construct validity of the factor solutions. RESULTS: A two factor solution was deemed to appropriately fit the data, measuring alcohol consumption and alcohol related problems. Correlations between the two factors on demographic, wellbeing, neurosis and psychosis symptomology were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The two factor solution suggests an advantage to investigating factor specific cut off scores for both consumption and alcohol related problems given their difference in predictive validity on both health and demographic variables.
AIMS: To assess the psychometric structure and construct validity of the alcohol use disorder identification test (AUDIT) in a Great Britain population sample. METHODS: A stratified multi-stage random sample of 7849 participants completed the AUDIT as part of a computer assisted interview. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted testing one to three factor models. The factors in these models were correlated with demographic variables and scores relating to perceived wellbeing, verbal IQ, and neurotic and psychosis symptoms to assess construct validity of the factor solutions. RESULTS: A two factor solution was deemed to appropriately fit the data, measuring alcohol consumption and alcohol related problems. Correlations between the two factors on demographic, wellbeing, neurosis and psychosis symptomology were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The two factor solution suggests an advantage to investigating factor specific cut off scores for both consumption and alcohol related problems given their difference in predictive validity on both health and demographic variables.
Authors: Chun-Zi Peng; Richard W Wilsnack; Arlinda F Kristjanson; Perry Benson; Sharon C Wilsnack Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Sandra Sanchez-Roige; Pierre Fontanillas; Sarah L Elson; Joshua C Gray; Harriet de Wit; Lea K Davis; James MacKillop; Abraham A Palmer Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Sarah Cook; Bianca De Stavola; Lyudmila Saburova; Nikolay Kiryanov; Maxim Vasiljev; Jim McCambridge; Martin McKee; Olga Polikina; Artyom Gil; David A Leon Journal: Alcohol Alcohol Date: 2011-07-03 Impact factor: 2.826
Authors: Michelle Taylor; Simon M Collin; Marcus R Munafò; John MacLeod; Matthew Hickman; Jon Heron Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Michael Grasdalsmoen; Bo Engdahl; Mats K Fjeld; Ólöf A Steingrímsdóttir; Christopher S Nielsen; Hege R Eriksen; Kari Jussie Lønning; Børge Sivertsen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matthew D Albaugh; Jonatan Ottino-Gonzalez; Amanda Sidwell; Claude Lepage; Anthony Juliano; Max M Owens; Bader Chaarani; Philip Spechler; Nicholas Fontaine; Pierre Rioux; Lindsay Lewis; Seun Jeon; Alan Evans; Deepak D'Souza; Rajiv Radhakrishnan; Tobias Banaschewski; Arun L W Bokde; Erin Burke Quinlan; Patricia Conrod; Sylvane Desrivières; Herta Flor; Antoine Grigis; Penny Gowland; Andreas Heinz; Bernd Ittermann; Jean-Luc Martinot; Marie-Laure Paillère Martinot; Frauke Nees; Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos; Tomáš Paus; Luise Poustka; Sabina Millenet; Juliane H Fröhner; Michael N Smolka; Henrik Walter; Robert Whelan; Gunter Schumann; Alexandra Potter; Hugh Garavan Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 25.911