BACKGROUND: The CRAFFT, previously validated against DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) diagnostic criteria, is the most widely used screening instrument for alcohol and other substance misuse in adolescents. The present secondary analysis study sought to compare the CRAFFT with the new DSM-5 diagnostic criteria in order to assess the CRAFFT's psychometric properties and determine the optimal cut-point for identifying adolescents in need of further assessment. METHODS: Participants were primary care patients aged 12-17 (N = 525) who were recruited while waiting for a medical appointment in an urban federally qualified health center in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Participants were administered the CRAFFT and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, second edition, modified to include the new DSM-5 craving item. The authors examined the performance of the CRAFFT in identifying any problem use (defined as 1 or more DSM-5 criteria) and any DSM-5 substance use disorder (2 or more DSM-5 criteria) for alcohol or drugs other than tobacco. The authors examined sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic areas under the curve (AUC) to determine the optimal CRAFFT cut-point(s) for predicting any problem use and any DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD). RESULTS: Examining the CRAFFT as a continuous measure, AUC values were 0.93 for problem use or higher and 0.97 for DSM-5 SUD. Consistent with previously recommended cut-points for the CRAFFT, the cut-point of 2 performed optimally for identifying adolescents both exhibiting problem use of alcohol or drugs and meeting DSM-5 SUD criteria for alcohol or other drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite changes in the DSM substance use diagnostic criteria, the CRAFFT continues to demonstrate excellent sensitivity and specificity at its established cut-point of 2. Additional studies examining the CRAFFT in light of the new DSM-5 diagnostic criteria with more diverse populations are warranted.
BACKGROUND: The CRAFFT, previously validated against DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) diagnostic criteria, is the most widely used screening instrument for alcohol and other substance misuse in adolescents. The present secondary analysis study sought to compare the CRAFFT with the new DSM-5 diagnostic criteria in order to assess the CRAFFT's psychometric properties and determine the optimal cut-point for identifying adolescents in need of further assessment. METHODS:Participants were primary care patients aged 12-17 (N = 525) who were recruited while waiting for a medical appointment in an urban federally qualified health center in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Participants were administered the CRAFFT and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, second edition, modified to include the new DSM-5 craving item. The authors examined the performance of the CRAFFT in identifying any problem use (defined as 1 or more DSM-5 criteria) and any DSM-5 substance use disorder (2 or more DSM-5 criteria) for alcohol or drugs other than tobacco. The authors examined sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic areas under the curve (AUC) to determine the optimal CRAFFT cut-point(s) for predicting any problem use and any DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD). RESULTS: Examining the CRAFFT as a continuous measure, AUC values were 0.93 for problem use or higher and 0.97 for DSM-5 SUD. Consistent with previously recommended cut-points for the CRAFFT, the cut-point of 2 performed optimally for identifying adolescents both exhibiting problem use of alcohol or drugs and meeting DSM-5 SUD criteria for alcohol or other drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite changes in the DSM substance use diagnostic criteria, the CRAFFT continues to demonstrate excellent sensitivity and specificity at its established cut-point of 2. Additional studies examining the CRAFFT in light of the new DSM-5 diagnostic criteria with more diverse populations are warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adolescent; CRAFFT; DSM-5; screening; substance use
Authors: Deborah S Hasin; Charles P O'Brien; Marc Auriacombe; Guilherme Borges; Kathleen Bucholz; Alan Budney; Wilson M Compton; Thomas Crowley; Walter Ling; Nancy M Petry; Marc Schuckit; Bridget F Grant Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Sharon Levy; Lon Sherritt; Sion Kim Harris; Elizabeth C Gates; David W Holder; John W Kulig; John R Knight Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Jan Gryczynski; Shannon G Mitchell; Robert P Schwartz; Sharon M Kelly; Kristi Dušek; Laura Monico; Kevin E O'Grady; Barry S Brown; Marla Oros; Colleen Hosler Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Elizabeth J D'Amico; Layla Parast; Karen C Osilla; Rachana Seelam; Lisa S Meredith; William G Shadel; Bradley D Stein Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Rohit P Shenoi; James G Linakis; Julie R Bromberg; T Charles Casper; Rachel Richards; Michael J Mello; Thomas H Chun; Anthony Spirito Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Sharon M Kelly; Kevin E O'Grady; Jan Gryczynski; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Arethusa Kirk; Robert P Schwartz Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Laura J Chavez; Katharine A Bradley; Gwen T Lapham; Thomas M Wickizer; Deena J Chisolm Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2019 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Elizabeth J D'Amico; Layla Parast; Lisa S Meredith; Brett A Ewing; William G Shadel; Bradley D Stein Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 7.124