Is the Full Version of the AUDIT Really Necessary? Study of the Validity and Internal Construct of Its Abbreviated Versions

Background: This study was aimed at assessing the psychometric qualities of the abbreviated versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT‐3, AUDIT‐4, AUDIT‐C, AUDIT‐PC, AUDIT‐QF, FAST, and Five‐Shot) and at comparing them to the 10‐item AUDIT and the CAGE in 2 samples of Brazilian adults. Methods: The validity and internal consistency of the scales were assessed in a sample of 530 subjects attended at an emergency department and at a Psychosocial Care Center for Alcohol and Drugs. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV was used as the diagnostic comparative measure for the predictive validity assessment. The concurrent validity between the scales was analyzed by means of Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results: The assessment of the predictive validity of the abbreviated versions showed high sensitivity (of 0.78 to 0.96) and specificity (of 0.74 to 0.94) indices, with areas under the curve as elevated as those of the AUDIT (0.89 and 0.92 to screen for abuse and 0.93 and 0.95 in the screening of dependence). The CAGE presented lower indices: 0.81 for abuse and 0.87 for dependence. The analysis of the internal consistency of the AUDIT and its versions exhibited Cronbach’s alpha coefficients between 0.83 and 0.94, while the coefficient for the CAGE was 0.78. Significant correlations were found between the 10‐item AUDIT and its versions, ranging from 0.91 to 0.99. Again, the results for the CAGE were satisfactory (0.77), although inferior to the other instruments. Conclusions: The results obtained in this study confirm the validity of the abbreviated versions of the AUDIT for the screening of alcohol use disorders and show that their psychometric properties are as satisfactory as those of the 10‐item AUDIT and the CAGE.     

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): a review of recent research

BACKGROUND: Efficient, inexpensive screening for early stage alcohol problems is important in health care settings. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) has been studied extensively to establish its value in this regard. METHODS: A literature search that used EtOH as a database was conducted to identify studies published on the AUDIT through September 2001. Keywords used for the search were "Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test" and "AUDIT." All studies reporting psychometric properties of the measure were reviewed with particular attention being given to the period 1996 and later. A small number of additional references were located by noting their citation in other studies reviewed. RESULTS: Although more research is needed on non-English versions to establish their psychometric properties, at least in its English edition, the AUDIT demonstrates sensitivities and specificities comparable, and typically superior, to those of other self-report screening measures. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency are also quite favorable. For males, the AUDIT-C, a shortened version of the AUDIT, appears approximately equal in validity to the full scale. CONCLUSIONS: Recent research continues to support use of the AUDIT as a means of screening for alcohol use disorders in health care settings in the United States.     

Validity of the alcohol use disorders identification test in college students

BACKGROUND: High-risk alcohol use among college students is associated with accidents, partner violence, unwanted sexual encounters, tobacco use, and performance issues. The identification and treatment of high-risk drinking students is a priority for many college campuses and college health centers. The goal of this study was to test the psychometric properties of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in college students. METHODS: A convenience sample of students coming into a college health clinic was asked to complete the 10-question AUDIT and then participate in a research interview. The interview focused on assessing students for alcohol abuse and dependence by using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module and timeline follow-back procedures to assess a 28-day drinking history. RESULTS: A total of 302 students met the eligibility criteria and agreed to participate in the study. The sample consisted of 185 females (61%) and 117 males (39%), with a mean age of 20.3 years. Forty students were abstinent, 88 were high-risk drinkers, and 103 met criteria for a 12-month history of dependence. Receiver operator curves demonstrated that the AUDIT had the highest area under the cure for detecting high-risk alcohol use (0.872) and the lowest for identifying persons with a lifetime history of alcohol abuse or dependence (0.775). An AUDIT cutoff score of 6 or greater demonstrated a sensitivity of 91.0% and a specificity of 60.0% in the detection of high-risk drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT has reasonable psychometric properties in sample of college students using student health services. This study supports the use of the AUDIT in this population.     

Alcohol use disorders among emergency department-treated older adolescents: a new brief screen (RUFT-Cut) using the AUDIT, CAGE, CRAFFT, and RAPS-QF

BACKGROUND: Early identification of alcohol use disorders (AUD) among emergency department (ED)-treated patients is important for facilitating intervention and further evaluation outside EDs. A number of brief screening instruments have been developed for identifying patients with AUD, but it is not clear whether they are practical and perform well with older adolescents in an ED setting. This study contrasted four brief screening instruments for detecting DSM-IV-defined AUD and tested a newly developed brief screen for use among ED-treated older adolescents. METHODS: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), the CAGE, the CRAFFT, and a modified RAPS-QF were given to 93 alcohol-using older adolescents (55% men; aged 18-20 years) in an ED. Receiver operator characteristic analyses were used to evaluate the performance of brief screens against the criterion of a lifetime DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependence diagnosis. RESULTS: Of existing instruments, the AUDIT had the best overall performance in identifying AUD (sensitivity, 82%; specificity, 78%). A new, shorter screening instrument composed of two AUDIT items, two CRAFFT items, and one CAGE item (RUFT-Cut) performed as well as the AUDIT (sensitivity, 82%; specificity, 78%). CONCLUSIONS: Among existing alcohol screening instruments, the AUDIT performed best for identifying ED-treated older adolescents with alcohol use disorders. The RUFT-Cut is a brief screening instrument for AUD that shows promise for identifying ED-treated older adolescents who are in need of intervention or further evaluation. Future research should focus on use of the RUFT-Cut in other settings with larger, more diverse samples of adolescents.     

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): establishment of cut-off scores in a hospitalized Chinese population

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use has become a problem for Taiwanese society. Developing a brief, rapid, and flexible tool to screen an individual's alcohol consumption is important. Many countries use the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) to screen for harmful and dangerous alcohol consumption. The psychometric characteristics of the AUDIT have not been examined in a Chinese population. METHODS: Determination of the cutoff points for the AUDIT Chinese version included three stages: translating the questionnaire, expert review and formal testing on subjects. Participants (N = 112) were recruited from a medical research center of four gastroenterology wards in northern Taiwan. RESULTS: The cutoff point for participants diagnosed as "harmful users" was an AUDIT score of 8. The sensitivity was 0.96, specificity was 0.85, positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.85, negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.96, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.93. The cutoff point for participants diagnosed as "alcohol dependent" was an AUDIT score of 11. The sensitivity was 0.94, specificity was 0.63, PPV was 0.31, NPV was 0.98, and AUROC was 0.84. Furthermore, males had significantly higher AUDIT and AUDIT-C scores. Males were also significantly more likely than females to be diagnosed as harmful users or alcohol dependents. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of the AUDIT gave the same cutoff point for harmful alcohol use by Taiwanese individuals as that set by the World Health Organization. This finding shows that this cutoff point is generally appropriate in screening for problem alcohol consumption. Moreover, the cutoff AUDIT score of 11 for alcohol dependence provides a reference for screening in Taiwanese clinics.     

A Review of Research on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)

Research on the core version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is reviewed. Sensitivities and specificities of the AUDIT for criteria of current hazardous use and, to a slightly lesser extent, lifetime alcohol dependence are high. In general, AUDIT scores are at least moderately related to other self-report alcohol screening tests. Several studies also show them as correlated with biochemical measures of drinking. Results of the AUDIT have also been associated with more distal indicators of problematic drinking. Indices of internal consistency, including Cronbach's α and item-total correlations, are generally in the 0.80's. Future directions for research on the AUDIT are suggested.     

Alcohol use disorders identification test: factor structure in an adolescent emergency department sample

BACKGROUND: This study examined whether the factor structure of a modified version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) represented the three intended conceptual domains of consumption, dependence symptoms, and alcohol-related consequences in an adolescent sample. Additionally, the utility of factor-specific cut scores in identifying patients with DSM-IV alcohol diagnoses was investigated. METHODS: Adolescents treated for an injury in an emergency department and who reported alcohol use in the last year (n = 173; 57% male, 72% white) constituted the study sample. A modified version of the AUDIT and the alcohol section of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children were administered. The AUDIT's factor structure was determined by confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory principal components analysis. Factor-specific cut scores that identified adolescents with a DSM-IV alcohol diagnosis were determined by using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: A two-factor model representing consumption and dependence/consequences provided the best fit to the data. A cut score of 3 on the consumption factor and a cut score of 1 on the dependence/consequences factor demonstrated optimal performance in identifying patients with alcohol diagnoses. The consumption factor had better overall performance compared with the dependence/consequences factor, and it had similar overall performance compared with the AUDIT total score. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT comprised two correlated factors: consumption and dependence/consequences. The better performance of the consumption factor in detecting adolescents with DSM-IV alcohol diagnoses suggests the utility of including consumption items in brief alcohol screens used with adolescents. Results also indicate the need to identify developmentally appropriate alcohol-related problems to enhance screening performance among adolescents.     

Concurrent validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and AUDIT zones in defining levels of severity among out-patients with alcohol dependence in the COMBINE study

AIMS: To examine among alcohol-dependent out-patient clients the concurrent validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) total score and 'zones' suggested by the World Health Organization for defining levels of severity of alcohol use problems. DESIGN: Participants were classified into AUDIT zones (AUDIT total score = 8-15, 16-19, 20-40) and compared on measures of demographics, treatment goals, alcohol consumption, alcohol-related consequences, severity of dependence, physiological dependence, tolerance, withdrawal and biomarkers of alcohol use. SETTING: Eleven out-patient academic clinical research centers across the United States. Participants Alcohol dependent individuals (n = 1335) entering out-patient treatment in the Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions (COMBINE) study. MEASUREMENTS: The AUDIT was administered as part of an initial screening. Baseline measures used for concurrent validation included the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition (DSM-IV) Disorders, the Alcohol Dependence Scale, the Drinker Inventory of Consequences, the Obsessive-Compulsive Drinking Scale, the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment, the Thoughts about Abstinence Scale, the Form-90, %carbohydrate-deficient transferrin and gamma-glutamyl transferase. Findings Indicators of severity of dependence and alcohol-related problems increased linearly with total score and differed significantly across AUDIT zones. The highest zone, with scores of 20 and above, was markedly different with respect to severity from the other two zones and members of this group endorsed an abstinence goal more strongly. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT total score is a brief measure that appears to provide an index of severity of dependence in a sample of alcohol-dependent individuals seeking out-patient treatment, extending its potential utility beyond its more traditional role as a screening instrument in general populations.     

Gender differences in the performance of a computerized version of the alcohol use disorders identification test in subcritically injured patients who are admitted to the emergency department

OBJECTIVE: The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) has been recommended as a screening tool to detect patients who are appropriate candidates for brief, preventive alcohol interventions. Lower AUDIT cutoff scores have been proposed for women; however, the appropriate value remains unknown. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the optimal AUDIT cutpoint for detecting alcohol problems in subcritically injured male and female patients who are treated in the emergency department (ED). An additional purpose of the study was to determine whether computerized screening for alcohol problems is feasible in this setting. METHODS: The study was performed in the ED of a large, urban university teaching hospital. During an 8-month period, 1205 male and 722 female injured patients were screened using an interactive computerized lifestyle assessment that included the AUDIT as an embedded component. World Health Organization criteria were used to define alcohol dependence and harmful drinking. World Health Organization criteria for excessive consumption were used to define high-risk drinking. The ability of the AUDIT to classify appropriately male and female patients as having one of these three conditions was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: Criteria for any alcohol use disorder were present in 17.5% of men and 6.8% of women. The overall accuracy of the AUDIT was good to excellent. At a specificity >0.80, sensitivity was 0.75 for men using a cutoff of 8 points and 0.84 for women using a cutoff of 5 points. Eighty-five percent of patients completed computerized screening without the need for additional help. CONCLUSIONS: Different AUDIT scoring thresholds for men and women are required to achieve comparable sensitivity and specificity when using the AUDIT to screen injured patients in the ED. Computerized AUDIT administration is feasible and may help to overcome time limitations that may compromise screening in this busy clinical environment.     

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) as a screening tool for excessive drinking in primary care: reliability and validity of a French version

BACKGROUND: Excessive drinking is a major problem in Western countries. AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) is a 10-item questionnaire developed as a transcultural screening tool to detect excessive alcohol consumption and dependence in primary health care settings. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to validate a French version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). METHODS: We conducted a validation cross-sectional study in three French-speaking areas (Paris, Geneva and Lausanne). We examined psychometric properties of AUDIT as its internal consistency, and its capacity to correctly diagnose alcohol abuse or dependence as defined by DSM-IV and to detect hazardous drinking (defined as alcohol intake >30 g pure ethanol per day for men and >20 g of pure ethanol per day for women). We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and Receiver Operator Characteristic curves. Finally, we compared the ability of AUDIT to accurately detect "alcohol abuse/dependence" with that of CAGE and MAST. RESULTS: 1207 patients presenting to outpatient clinics (Switzerland, n = 580) or general practitioners' (France, n = 627) successively completed CAGE, MAST and AUDIT self-administered questionnaires, and were independently interviewed by a trained addiction specialist. AUDIT showed a good capacity to discriminate dependent patients (with AUDIT > or =13 for males, sensitivity 70.1%, specificity 95.2%, PPV 85.7%, NPV 94.7% and for females sensitivity 94.7%, specificity 98.2%, PPV 100%, NPV 99.8%); and hazardous drinkers (with AUDIT > or =7, for males sensitivity 83.5%, specificity 79.9%, PPV 55.0%, NPV 82.7% and with AUDIT > or =6 for females, sensitivity 81.2%, specificity 93.7%, PPV 64.0%, NPV 72.0%). AUDIT gives better results than MAST and CAGE for detecting "Alcohol abuse/dependence" as showed on the comparative ROC curves. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT questionnaire remains a good screening instrument for French-speaking primary care.     

Alcohol screening in general practices using the AUDIT: how many response categories are necessary?

AIMS: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is a common screening instrument. This study analyses if response categories of the AUDIT might be dichotomized without affecting the psychometric properties of the questionnaire. METHODS: Participants between 18 and 65 years were recruited from general practices in two northern German cities. In total, 10,803 screenings were conducted (refusal rate: 5.9%). For those who were screened positive, the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI) was used for identification of 12-month Alcohol Use Disorders and at-risk consumption (exceeding 20/30 g per day). Abstinent subjects and screening positives without diagnostic interview were excluded from the analysis, leaving a sample of 7,112 subjects. ROC-Curves were calculated separately for each item in order to identify an optimal cut-off value. Finally, a version of the AUDIT based on dichotomized items was compared to the original version and its short-form, the AUDIT version based on three questions dealing with consumption AUDIT-C. RESULTS: As an optimal cut-off value for items on consumption, drinking at least once a week, having more than 1-2 drinks per occasion, and drinking 6 or more drinks in one sitting at least once a month were identified. For all questions on alcohol-related problems or dependence symptoms, having 'ever occurred' differed best between subjects with and without Alcohol Use Disorders or at-risk consumption. Sensitivity and specificity of the dichotomized version of the AUDIT did not differ from the original version, and both full versions performed superior compared to the AUDIT-C. CONCLUSION: Data indicate that the AUDIT response categories may be dichotomized without affecting its validity.     

The TWEAK is weak for alcohol screening among female Veterans Affairs outpatients

BACKGROUND: The optimal brief questionnaire for alcohol screening among female patients has not yet been identified. This study compared the performance of the TWEAK (tolerance, worried, eye-opener, amnesia, cutdown), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and the AUDIT Consumption (AUDIT-C) as self-administered screening tests for hazardous drinking and/or active alcohol abuse or dependence among female Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients. METHODS: Women were included in the study if they received care at VA Puget Sound and completed both a self-administered survey containing the AUDIT and TWEAK screening questionnaires and subsequent in-person interviews with the Alcohol Use Disorders and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule. Sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were computed for each screening questionnaire compared with two interview-based comparison standards: (1) active DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependence and (2) hazardous drinking and/or active DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependence, the more appropriate target for primary care screening. RESULTS: Of 393 women who completed screening questionnaires and interviews, 39 (9.9%) met diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence, and 89 (22.7%) met criteria for hazardous drinking or alcohol abuse or dependence. The TWEAK had relatively low sensitivities (0.62 and 0.44) but adequate specificities (0.86 and 0.89) for both interview-based comparison standards, even at its lowest cut-point (>/=1). The AUDIT and AUDIT-C were superior, with the following areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for active alcohol abuse or dependence and hazardous drinking and/or active alcohol abuse or dependence, respectively: AUDIT, 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-0.95] and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.91); AUDIT-C, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.94); and TWEAK, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.86) and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The TWEAK has low sensitivity as an alcohol-screening questionnaire among female VA outpatients and should be evaluated further before being used in other female primary care populations. The three-item AUDIT-C was the optimal brief alcohol-screening questionnaire in this study.     

AUDIT-C as a brief screen for alcohol misuse in primary care

BACKGROUND: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions have been previously validated as a 3-item screen for alcohol misuse and implemented nationwide in Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient clinics. However, the AUDIT-C's validity and optimal screening threshold(s) in other clinical populations are unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional validation study compared screening questionnaires with standardized interviews in 392 male and 927 female adult outpatients at an academic family practice clinic from 1993 to 1994. The AUDIT-C, full AUDIT, self-reported risky drinking, AUDIT question #3, and an augmented CAGE questionnaire were compared with an interview primary reference standard of alcohol misuse, defined as a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th ed. alcohol use disorder and/or drinking above recommended limits in the past year. RESULTS: Based on interviews with 92% of eligible patients, 128 (33%) men and 177 (19%) women met the criteria for alcohol misuse. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for the AUDIT-C were 0.94 (0.91, 0.96) and 0.90 (0.87, 0.93) in men and women, respectively (p=0.04). Based on AUROC curves, the AUDIT-C performed as well as the full AUDIT and significantly better than self-reported risky drinking, AUDIT question #3, or the augmented CAGE questionnaire (p-values <0.001). The AUDIT-C screening thresholds that simultaneously maximized sensitivity and specificity were > or =4 in men (sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.89) and > or =3 in women (sensitivity 0.73, specificity 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT-C was an effective screening test for alcohol misuse in this primary care sample. Optimal screening thresholds for alcohol misuse among men (> or =4) and women (> or =3) were the same as in previously published VA studies.     

Screening for Problem Drinking Comparison of CAGE and AUDIT

OBJECTIVE: To compare self-administered versions of three questionnaires for detecting heavy and problem drinking: the CAGE, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and an augmented version of the CAGE. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: Three Department of Veterans Affairs general medical clinics. PATIENTS: Random sample of consenting male outpatients who consumed at least 5 drinks over the past year ("drinkers"). Heavy drinkers were oversampled. MEASUREMENTS: An augmented version of the CAGE was included in a questionnaire mailed to all patients. The AUDIT was subsequently mailed to "drinkers." Comparison standards, based on the tri-level World Health Organization alcohol consumption interview and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule, included heavy drinking (>14 drinks per week typically or >/=5 drinks per day at least monthly) and active DSM-IIIR alcohol abuse or dependence (positive diagnosis and at least one alcohol-related symptom in the past year). Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were used to compare screening questionnaires. MAIN RESULTS: Of 393 eligible patients, 261 (66%) returned the AUDIT and completed interviews. For detection of active alcohol abuse or dependence, the CAGE augmented with three more questions (AUROC 0.871) performed better than either the CAGE alone or AUDIT (AUROCs 0.820 and 0.777, respectively). For identification of heavy-drinking patients, however, the AUDIT performed best (AUROC 0.870). To identify both heavy drinking and active alcohol abuse or dependence, the augmented CAGE and AUDIT both performed well, but the AUDIT was superior (AUROC 0.861). CONCLUSIONS: For identification of patients with heavy drinking or active alcohol abuse or dependence, the self-administered AUDIT was superior to the CAGE in this population.     

Using alcohol screening results and treatment history to assess the severity of at-risk drinking in Veterans Affairs primary care patients

Abstract : Background: Primary care providers need practical methods for managing patients who screen positive for at‐risk drinking. We evaluated whether scores on brief alcohol screening questionnaires and patient reports of prior alcohol treatment reflect the severity of recent problems due to drinking. Methods: Veterans Affairs general medicine outpatients who screened positive for at‐risk drinking were mailed questionnaires that included the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and a question about prior alcohol treatment or participation in Alcoholics Anonymous (“previously treated”). AUDIT questions 4 through 10 were used to measure past‐year problems due to drinking (PYPD). Cross‐sectional analyses compared the prevalence of PYPD and mean Past‐Year AUDIT Symptom Scores (0–28 points) among at‐risk drinkers with varying scores on the CAGE (0–4) and AUDIT‐C (0–12) and varying treatment histories. Results: Of 7861 male at‐risk drinkers who completed questionnaires, 33.9% reported PYPD. AUDIT‐C scores were more strongly associated with Past‐Year AUDIT Symptom Scores than the CAGE (p < 0.0005). The prevalence of PYPD increased from 33% to 46% over the range of positive CAGE scores but from 29% to 77% over the range of positive AUDIT‐C scores. Among subgroups of at‐risk drinkers with the same screening scores, patients who reported prior treatment were more likely than never‐treated at‐risk drinkers to report PYPD and had higher mean Past‐Year AUDIT Symptom Scores (p < 0.0005). We propose a simple method of risk‐stratifying patients using AUDIT‐C scores and alcohol treatment histories. Conclusions: AUDIT‐C scores combined with one question about prior alcohol treatment can help estimate the severity of PYPD among male Veterans Affairs outpatients.     

A Critical Evaluation of Several Alcohol Screening Instruments Using the CIDI-SAM as a Criterion Measure

Four alcohol screening instruments (the AUDIT, CAGE, MAST, and Svanum's scale) were administered to a sample of 306 undergraduate students at a Midwestern university and were compared with regard to several test characteristics, using the alcohol section of the CIDI-SAM (DSM-IV version) as the criterion measure. The performance of these instruments was evaluated using two subsets of subjects: (1) students who currently met diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence ( n = 35); and (2) students who met diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence in the past and/or at present (i.e., lifetime diagnosis; n = 50). The AUDIT performed significantly better than the other three instruments in identifying students who were currently alcohol dependent, providing a moderate degree of clinical utility with this group. The four instruments did not differ significantly in their ability to identify students with a lifetime diagnosis; each measure provided only a modest degree of clinical utility with this group.     

Screening Trauma Patients With the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and Biomarkers of Alcohol Use

Background:  Alcohol screening and brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol-related morbidity in injured patients. Use of self-report questionnaires such as the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) is recommended as the optimum screening method. We hypothesized that the accuracy of screening is enhanced by combined use of the AUDIT and biomarkers of alcohol use in injured patients.
Methods:  The study was conducted in the emergency department of a large, urban, university hospital. Patients were evaluated with the AUDIT, and blood sampled to determine carbohydrate-deficient transferrin, gamma-glutamyl-transferase, and mean corpuscular volume. Alcohol problems were defined as presence of ICD-10 criteria for dependence or harmful use, or high-risk drinking according to World Health Organization criteria (weekly intake >420 g in males, >280 g in females). Screening accuracy was determined using Receiver Operating Characteristic curves.
Results:  There were 787 males and 446 females in the study. Median age was 33 years. The accuracy of the AUDIT was good to excellent, whereas all biomarkers performed only fairly to poorly in males, and even worse in females. At a specificity >0.80, sensitivity for all biomarkers was <0.43, whereas sensitivity for the AUDIT was 0.76 for males and 0.81 for females. The addition of biomarkers added little additional discriminatory information compared to use of the AUDIT alone.
Conclusions:  Screening properties of the AUDIT are superior to %CDT, MCV, and GGT for detection of alcohol problems in injured patients and are not clinically significantly enhanced by the use of biomarkers.     

Detecting Alcohol-Related Problems in Developing Countries: A Comparison of 2 Screening Measures in India

Background: There is inadequate recognition of alcohol misuse as a public health issue in India. Information on screening measures is critical for prevention and early intervention efforts. This study critically evaluated the full and shorter versions of the AUDIT and RAPS4‐QF as screening measures for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in a community sample of male drinkers in Goa, India. Methods: Data from male drinking respondents in a population study on alcohol use patterns and sexual risk behaviors in randomly selected rural and urban areas of North Goa are reported. Overall, 39% (n = 743) of the 1899 screened men, age 18 to 49, reported consuming alcohol in the last 12 months. These current drinkers were administered the screening measures as part of detailed interviews on drinking patterns and AUD symptoms. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted for each combination of screening measure and criterion (alcohol dependence or any AUD). Reliability and correlations among the 4 measures were also examined. Results: All 4 measures performed well with area under the curves of at least 0.79. The full screeners that included both drinking patterns and problem items (the AUDIT and the RAP4‐QF) performed better than their shorter versions (the AUDIT‐C and the RAPS4) in detecting AUDs. Performance of the AUDIT and RAPS4‐QF improved with lowered and raised thresholds, respectively, and alternate cut‐off scores are suggested. Scores on the full measures were significantly correlated (0.80). Reliability estimates for the AUDIT measures were higher than those for the RAPS4 measures. Conclusions: All measures were efficient at detecting AUDs. When screening for alcohol‐related problems among males in the general population in India, cut‐off scores for screeners may need to be adjusted. Selecting an appropriate screening measure and cut‐off score necessitates careful consideration of the screening context and resources available to confirm alcohol‐related diagnoses.     

Effectiveness of structured questionnaires for screening heavy drinking in middle-aged women

BACKGROUND: There is a need for an effective and feasible alcohol screening instrument. The aim of the study was to evaluate how the abbreviated versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questionnaire perform in comparison with the original AUDIT and what the optimal cutoffs are when screening for heavy drinking among women. METHODS: All the 40-year-old women in the city of Tampere, Finland, are invited yearly for a health screening. From 1 year, data from 894 women (response rate 68.2%) invited for a health screening were utilized in the study. The original 10-item AUDIT, AUDIT-C, Five Shot, AUDIT-PC, AUDIT-3, AUDIT-QF, and CAGE were evaluated against the Timeline Followback. Consumption of at least 140 g of absolute ethanol per week on average during the past month was considered heavy drinking. RESULTS: In the Timeline Followback, the mean+/-SD weekly reported alcohol consumption was 45+/-67 g (range 0-936 g) of absolute ethanol. Of the women, 6.2% (55/894) were heavy drinkers. The optimal combination of sensitivity and specificity was reached for the AUDIT with cutoff > or =6, for the AUDIT-C with cutoff > or =5, for the Five Shot with cutoff > or =2.0, for the AUDIT-PC with cutoff > or =4, and for the AUDIT-QF with cutoff > or =4. When choosing the optimal cutoffs, the AUDIT-C, the Five Shot, the AUDIT-PC, and the AUDIT-QF performed as well as the 10-item AUDIT. With these cutoffs, sensitivities were 0.84 to 0.93 and specificities were 0.83 to 0.90. The AUDIT-3 and the CAGE did not perform as well as the other questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The 10-item AUDIT, AUDIT-C, Five Shot, AUDIT-PC, and AUDIT-QF seem to be equally effective tools in screening for heavy drinking among middle-aged women. However, their applicability is achieved only if the cutoffs are tailored according to gender.     

Screening for problem drinking

OBJECTIVE: To compare self-administered versions of three questionnaires for detecting heavy and problem drinking: the CAGE, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and an augmented version of the CAGE. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: Three Department of Veterans Affairs general medical clinics. PATIENTS: Random sample of consenting male outpatients who consumed at least 5 drinks over the past year (“drinkers”). Heavy drinkers were oversampled. MEASUREMENTS: An augmented version of the CAGE was included in a questionnaire mailed to all patients. The AUDIT was subsequently mailed to “drinkers.” Comparison standards, based on the tri-level World Health Organization alcohol consumption interview and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule, included heavy drinking (>14 drinks per week typically or ≥5 drinks per day at least monthly) and active DSM-IIIR alcohol abuse or dependence (positive diagnosis and at least one alcohol-related symptom in the past year). Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were used to compare screening questionnaires. MAIN RESULTS: Of 393 eligible patients, 261 (66%) returned the AUDIT and completed interviews. For detection of active alcohol abuse or dependence, the CAGE augmented with three more questions (AUROC 0.871) performed better than either the CAGE alone or AUDIT (AUROCs 0.820 and 0.777, respectively). For identification of heavy-drinking patients, however, the AUDIT performed best (AUROC 0.870). To identify both heavy drinking and active alcohol abuse or dependence, the augmented CAGE and AUDIT both performed well, but the AUDIT was superior (AUROC 0.861). CONCLUSIONS: For identification of patients with heavy drinking or active alcohol abuse or dependence, the self-administered AUDIT was superior to the CAGE in this population. This research was supported by Department of Veteran Affairs, Hines Center for Cooperative Studies in Health Services Research, grant 91-007, and Health Services Research and Development, grant SDR 96-002, Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP); a grant from the University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute; and the Health Services Research and Development Field Program and Medical Service, Seattle Division, VA Pudget Sound Health Care System.