Madhabika B Nayak1, Jason C Bond1, Thomas K Greenfield1,2. 1. a Alcohol Research Group , Public Health Institute , Emeryville , California , USA. 2. b Department of Psychiatry , University of California San Francisco , San Francisco , California , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efficient alcohol screening measures are important to prevent or treat alcohol use disorders (AUDs). OBJECTIVES: We studied different versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) comparing their performance to the full AUDIT and an AUD measure as screeners for alcohol use problems in Goa, India. METHODS: Data from a general population study on 743 male drinkers aged 18-49 years are reported. Drinkers completed the AUDIT and an AUD measure. We created shorter versions of the AUDIT by (a) collapsing AUDIT item responses into three and two categories and (b) deleting two items with the lowest factor loadings. Each version was evaluated using factor, reliability and validity, and differential item functioning (DIF) analysis by age, education, standard of living index (SLI), and area of residence. RESULTS: A single factor solution was found for each version with lower factor loadings for items on guilt and concern. There were no significant differences among the different AUDIT versions in predicting AUD. No significant DIF was found by education, SLI or area of residence. DIF was observed for the alcohol frequency item by age. CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE: The AUDIT may be used with dichotomized response options without loss of predictive validity. A shortened eight-item dichotomized scale can adequately screen for AUDs in Goa when brevity is of paramount importance, although with lower predictive validity. Although the frequency item was endorsed more by older men, there is no evidence that the AUDIT items perform differently in other groups of male drinkers in Goa.
BACKGROUND: Efficient alcohol screening measures are important to prevent or treat alcohol use disorders (AUDs). OBJECTIVES: We studied different versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) comparing their performance to the full AUDIT and an AUD measure as screeners for alcohol use problems in Goa, India. METHODS: Data from a general population study on 743 male drinkers aged 18-49 years are reported. Drinkers completed the AUDIT and an AUD measure. We created shorter versions of the AUDIT by (a) collapsing AUDIT item responses into three and two categories and (b) deleting two items with the lowest factor loadings. Each version was evaluated using factor, reliability and validity, and differential item functioning (DIF) analysis by age, education, standard of living index (SLI), and area of residence. RESULTS: A single factor solution was found for each version with lower factor loadings for items on guilt and concern. There were no significant differences among the different AUDIT versions in predicting AUD. No significant DIF was found by education, SLI or area of residence. DIF was observed for the alcohol frequency item by age. CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE: The AUDIT may be used with dichotomized response options without loss of predictive validity. A shortened eight-item dichotomized scale can adequately screen for AUDs in Goa when brevity is of paramount importance, although with lower predictive validity. Although the frequency item was endorsed more by older men, there is no evidence that the AUDIT items perform differently in other groups of male drinkers in Goa.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) versions; India; alcohol use disorder (AUD)s; item analyses; screener
Authors: Carolina Meneses-Gaya; Antonio W Zuardi; Sonia R Loureiro; Jaime E C Hallak; Clarissa Trzesniak; João M de Azevedo Marques; João P Machado-de-Sousa; Marcos H N Chagas; Roberto M Souza; José A S Crippa Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Bettina von der Pahlen; Pekka Santtila; Katarina Witting; Markus Varjonen; Patrick Jern; Ada Johansson; N Kenneth Sandnabba Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Hilde P A van der Aa; Ger H M B van Rens; Frank D Verbraak; Machteld Bosscha; Marc A Koopmanschap; Hannie C Comijs; Pim Cuijpers; Ruth M A van Nispen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 2.692