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.     

Validity of brief alcohol screening tests among adolescents: a comparison of the AUDIT,POSIT, CAGE,and CRAFFT

BACKGROUND: Adolescents should be screened for alcohol misuse as part of routine care. The objective of this study was to compare the criterion validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers substance use/abuse scale (POSIT), and the CAGE and CRAFFT questions among adolescents. METHODS: Fourteen- to 18-year-old patients arriving for routine healthcare at a large, hospital-based adolescent clinic completed the four screens and the criterion standard Adolescent Diagnostic Interview, which yields DSM-IV diagnoses of alcohol abuse and dependence. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to determine optimal cut-points. Areas under the ROC curves of the four screens were compared, and sensitivities and specificities were calculated. RESULTS: Participants' past 12-month alcohol diagnostic classifications were as follows: no use (58.6%), nonproblem use (13.0%), problem use (20.8%), abuse (5.4%), and dependence (2.2%). Optimal cut-points associated with problem use or higher were 2 for AUDIT, 1 for POSIT, 1 for CAGE, and 1 for CRAFFT. ROC curve area of the CAGE was significantly lower compared with areas of all other screens. Sensitivities (95% confidence intervals) were AUDIT 0.88 (0.83-0.93), POSIT 0.84 (0.79-0.90), CAGE 0.37 (0.29-0.44), and CRAFFT 0.92 (0.88-0.96); specificities were AUDIT 0.81 (0.77-0.85), POSIT 0.89 (0.86-0.92), CAGE 0.96 (0.94-0.98), and CRAFFT 0.64 (0.59-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT, POSIT, and CRAFFT have acceptable sensitivity for identifying alcohol problems or disorders in this age group. The CAGE is not recommended for use among adolescents.     

The value of CAGE, CUGE, and AUDIT in screening for alcohol abuse and dependence among college freshmen

BACKGROUND: This study attempted to (1) determine the prevalence of alcohol problems in college freshmen, (2) assess the performance of both the CAGE and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questionnaires in this population, and (3) assess the possibility of improving the CAGE and/or AUDIT. METHODS: A sample of 3564 consecutive college freshmen, with a mean age of 18 years, at the Catholic University of Leuven, (Belgium) completed, during a cross-sectional study, a questionnaire assessing drinking behavior and identifying students at risk as defined by DSM-IV criteria. The questionnaire also included the CAGE questionnaire and the AUDIT. Calculations of sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, likelihood ratios, and receiver operating characteristic curves for different scores of the CAGE and the AUDIT were performed, using DSM-IV criteria as the reference standard. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the CAGE and the AUDIT was 0.76 and 0.85, respectively. The cutoff score of 1 for the CAGE was associated with a sensitivity of 42%, a specificity of 87%, a positive predictive value of 36%, and a negative predictive value of 90%. A score of 6 or more for the AUDIT gave a sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 78%, a positive predictive value of 37%, and a negative predictive value of 77%. These results were related with a prevalence of 14.1% of alcohol problems. Replacing one question of the CAGE by "often driving under the influence" resulted in the CUGE (acronym for "cut down, under influence, guilty feelings, and eye opener"), with an area under the curve of 0.96, a positive likelihood ratio of 8.7, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of alcohol problems in college students is confirmed to be high. When screening for alcohol problems in a college freshmen population, one question seems extremely important. The newly constructed CUGE questionnaire may improve screening efforts in students, compared with existing questionnaires.     

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 use disorders: screening and diagnosis

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of empirically supported, primarily self-report methods of screening and diagnosis related to alcohol use disorders (AUDs). The discussion of screening instruments focuses on the primary care setting, and the diagnosis instruments discussion centers on the alcohol (and other drug) treatment setting. The literature shows that the AUDIT and the CAGE are the most widely validated methods of screening for AUDs in primary care and may be applied readily in that context. Similarly, a number of instruments designed to derive DSM-IV (and ICD-10) AUD diagnoses, as well as constructs related to how AUDs are defined, are available and can meet a variety of clinical needs. Future research priorities include further development of brief methods to identify hazardous drinkers or individuals who have an AUD, as well as refinement of diagnosis instruments to increase their application across treatment settings and subpopulations.     

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.     

The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) in a college sample.

This study was conducted to estimate the psychometric properties of the questionnaire section of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a college sample using DSM-III criteria for alcohol abuse as the criterion standard. This alcohol screening test was developed for the 10 country AMETHYST project. In this young adult sample the instrument exhibited a sensitivity of .84 and specificity of .71 when utilizing the recommended cut-off score of 11. The 10-item questionnaire section of the AUDIT appears to have important advantages over other alcohol screening instruments such as the CAGE and the MAST.     

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.     

Fast alcohol consumption evaluation: a screening instrument adapted for French general practitioners

BACKGROUND: To meet the needs of French general practitioners (GPs), we created a short (5 questions) interview/screening test for alcohol-related problems that is similar to AUDIT in terms of (1) test values and (2) identification of 3 groups: (a) abstainers and low-risk drinkers; (b) heavy drinkers; and (c) alcohol abusers or showing dependence. METHOD: Nine questions (from AUDIT, CAGE, TWEAK, Five-shot Questionnaire) were given systematically to their patients (aged 18 or more) by 41 volunteer GPs. Before the consultation, patients confidentially completed the AUDIT questionnaire in the waiting room. After the consultation, an addiction specialist evaluated each patient's alcohol consumption and DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse and dependence and these were used as gold standards. RESULTS: The analysis included 564 patient records and used stepwise logistic regression to select 7 questions, from which a second selection resulted in a 5-item questionnaire. These questions are: AUDIT questions 1 (Frequency) and 2 (Usual quantity), CAGE questions 2 (Annoyed) and 4 (Eye-opener), and TWEAK question 5 (Black-out), with each question scored 0 to 4. High levels of sensitivity and specificity were obtained for each diagnosis (sensitivity 75%-87.8%; specificity 74%-95.8%). CONCLUSION: FACE is an appropriate screening method for French general practitioners.     

Alcohol use disorders in the elderly: a brief overview from epidemiology to treatment options

Alcohol-use-disorders (AUDs) afflict 1-3% of elderly subjects. The CAGE, SMAST-G, and AUDIT are the most common and validated questionnaires used to identify AUDs in the elderly, and some laboratory markers of alcohol abuse (AST, GGT, MCV, and CDT) may also be helpful. In particular, the sensitivity of MCV or GGT in detecting alcohol misuse is higher in older than in younger populations. The incidence of medical and neurological complications during alcohol withdrawal syndrome in elderly alcoholics is higher than in younger alcoholics. Chronic alcohol abuse is associated with tissue damage to several organs. Namely, an increased level of blood pressure is more frequent in the elderly than in younger adults, and a greater vulnerability to the onset of alcoholic liver disease, and an increasing risk of breast cancer in menopausal women have been described. In addition, the prevalence of dementia in elderly alcoholics is almost 5 times higher than in non-alcoholic elderly individuals, approximately 25% of elderly patients with dementia also present AUDs, and almost 20% of individuals aged 65 and over with a diagnosis of depression have a co-occurring AUD. Moreover, prevention of drinking relapse in older alcoholics is, in some cases, better than in younger patients; indeed, more than 20% of treated elderly alcohol-dependent patients remain abstinent after 4 years. Considering that the incidence of AUDs in the elderly is fairly high, and AUDs in the elderly are still underestimated, more studies in the fields of epidemiology, prevention and pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatment of AUDs in the elderly are warranted.     

Effectiveness of the derived Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) in screening for alcohol use disorders and risk drinking in the US general population

BACKGROUND: The three consumption questions from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) are increasingly used as a screener for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) and risk drinking. METHODS: In a representative sample of US adults 18 years of age and older, AUDIT-C scores (derived from consumption questions embedded in a large national survey) were used to estimate sensitivity, specificity, and areas under receiver operator characteristic curves (AUROCs) for alcohol dependence, any AUD, and risk drinking. AUDs were defined according to DSM-IV criteria. For men, risk drinking was defined as consuming >14 drinks per week or >4 drinks in a single day at least once a month; for women, the weekly and daily limits were >7 drinks and >3 drinks, respectively. The derived AUDIT-C was evaluated among past-year drinkers (n = 26,946), within the total population (n = 43,093), in groups defined by age, sex, and race/ethnicity, and among pregnant women, persons attending an emergency room, and college students. RESULTS: For past-year drinkers, the AUROCs for the derived AUDIT-C were 0.887 for alcohol dependence, 0.860 for any AUD, and 0.966 for risk drinking. Scores were higher in the total population, 0.931, 0.917, and 0.981, respectively. The derived AUDIT-C performed slightly better in screening for dependence among women than men. Screening for risk drinking was better among men, probably because the third AUDIT-C question directly mirrors one of the definitions of risk drinking for men but not for women. Performance in pregnant women, past-year emergency room patients, and college students was on a par with performance in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: The derived AUDIT-C performs well in screening for AUDs and risk drinking. The use of variable cut points for men and women improves its sensitivity and specificity. Validation in a realistic screening situation, in which the AUDIT-C questions are asked as stand-alone and not embedded items, is a critical future step.     

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.     

The usefulness of direct ethanol metabolites in assessing alcohol intake in nonintoxicated male patients in an emergency room setting

Background: A major part of medical pathology in internal medicine is associated with chronic alcoholism. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether screening for Alcohol Use Disorders (AUD) can be improved through determination of direct ethanol metabolites compared to traditional biological state markers, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and additional self‐reports beyond the detection time period of a positive blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Methods: A total of 74 blood alcohol negative male patients who presented at the emergency room with either thoracic or gastrointestinal complaints were included. Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) was determined in whole blood, and ethyl glucuronide (EtG) in serum and urine samples. Traditional biological state markers [carbohydrate deficient transferrin (%CDT), gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), mean corpuscular volume (MCV)] were determined. The AUDIT was obtained and furthermore, all patients completed an additional self‐report of alcohol consumption. Patients were divided into two (2) groups: AUDIT scores < 8 and AUDIT scores ≥ 8. Results: After assessment of the AUDIT, patients were allocated to one of the following groups: patients with AUDIT scores < 8 (n = 52) and with AUDIT scores ≥ 8 (n = 22). Twenty‐five percent of the patients with AUDIT scores below the cut‐off (n = 13/52) were tested positive for both PEth and UEtG. Of the patients who declared to be sober during the past 12 months, 38.5% were tested positive for PEth and UEtG. PEth discriminated similarly as %CDT for AUDIT scores ≥ 8 (AUC: 0.672; 95%CI 0.524 to 0.821). Self‐reports of alcohol consumption were unreliable. Conclusion: Determination of direct ethanol metabolites such as PEth and UEtG provides additional evidence in screening for AUD in an ER setting. Determination of PEth might be considered complementary with or alternatively to %CDT.     

Brief screening questionnaires to identify problem drinking during pregnancy: a systematic review

Aims Although prenatal screening for problem drinking during pregnancy has been recommended, guidance on screening instruments is lacking. We investigated the sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of brief alcohol screening questionnaires to identify problem drinking in pregnant women. Methods Electronic databases from their inception to June 2008 were searched, as well as reference lists of eligible papers and related review papers. We sought cohort or cross‐sectional studies that compared one or more brief alcohol screening questionnaire(s) with reference criteria obtained using structured interviews to detect ‘at‐risk’ drinking, alcohol abuse or dependency in pregnant women receiving prenatal care. Results Five studies (6724 participants) were included. In total, seven instruments were evaluated: TWEAK (Tolerance, Worried, Eye‐opener, Amnesia, Kut down), T‐ACE [Take (number of drinks), Annoyed, Cut down, Eye‐opener], CAGE (Cut down, Annoyed, Guilt, Eye‐opener], NET (Normal drinker, Eye‐opener, Tolerance), AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test), AUDIT‐C (AUDIT‐consumption) and SMAST (Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test). Study quality was generally good, but lack of blinding was a common weakness. For risk drinking sensitivity was highest for T‐ACE (69‐88%), TWEAK (71–91%) and AUDIT‐C (95%), with high specificity (71–89%, 73–83% and 85%, respectively). CAGE and SMAST performed poorly. Sensitivity of AUDIT‐C at score ≥3 was high for past year alcohol dependence (100%) or alcohol use disorder (96%) with moderate specificity (71% each). For life‐time alcohol dependency the AUDIT at score ≥8 performed poorly. Conclusion T‐ACE, TWEAK and AUDIT‐C show promise for screening for risk drinking, and AUDIT‐C may also be useful for identifying alcohol dependency or abuse. However, their performance as stand‐alone tools is uncertain, and further evaluation of questionnaires for prenatal alcohol use is warranted.     

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.     

Screening for alcohol problems in the U.S. general population: comparison of the CAGE,RAPS4, and RAPS4-QF by gender,ethnicity, and service utilization. Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the performance (sensitivity and specificity) of two brief screening instruments, CAGE and the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen 4 (RAPS4), against ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence and abuse in a representative sample of the U.S. adult household population by gender, ethnicity, and service utilization (emergency room and primary care) in the last year. METHODS: Data are from the Alcohol Research Group's 2000 National Alcohol Survey (n = 7612), which is a computer-assisted telephone interview survey of the U.S. general population 18 and over in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. RESULTS: Sensitivity of the RAPS4 (0.86) was better than the CAGE (0.67) given similar specificity (0.95 vs. 0.98) and outperformed the CAGE for alcohol dependence across all gender, ethnic, and service utilization groups, except among blacks and Hispanics. The RAPS4 also performed equally well for females and males (0.88 vs. 0.85), whereas sensitivity of the CAGE was lower for females. Although sensitivity of the RAPS4 was better than the CAGE for alcohol abuse, sensitivity was low for both (0.56 and 0.36, respectively). When quantity-frequency (QF) questions (drinking five or more drinks on at least one occasion during the last year and drinking as often as once a month during the last year) were added to the RAPS4, the RAPS4-QF performed significantly better for alcohol abuse and outperformed the CAGE at a cut point of one across all gender, ethnic, and service utilization groups. The RAPS4-QF appeared to be most sensitive for alcohol abuse among both males and females reporting emergency room use (0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that the RAPS4 outperforms the CAGE in this general population sample. The addition of a QF question to the RAPS4 improves performance in relation to sensitivity for alcohol abuse, and the RAPS4 and RAPS4-QF may be the instruments of choice in brief screening for alcohol use disorders. Additional research is needed to further explore these issues.     

Effectiveness of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test in Occupational Health Screenings

This study evaluated the effectiveness of the 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) among occupational health screenings. AUDIT was available from 32 male and 93 female employees, mainly of academic organizations; 22 alcoholic men reporting to treatment at a detoxification clinic served as a reference group. Two other structured questionnaires, the Malmö modified Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (Mm-MAST) and the CAGE, were compared with the AUDIT, and comparisons were also made to the self-reported weekly alcohol consumption. The total score on the AUDIT correlated equally with the self-reported alcohol consumption, especially when the alcoholics were excluded ( r = 0.73, p < 0.001) as the Mm-MAST ( r = 0.58, p < 0.001) and CAGE ( r = 0.33, p = 0.005). All three questionnaires were good at detecting male alcoholics: using the cut-off point of at least 8 positive answers on the AUDIT, 3 on the Mm-MAST, and 3 on the CAGE. The sensitivities were 100%, 100%, and 91%, respectively. In the AUDIT, however, there was a clearer difference related to the cut-off level than with the Mm-MAST and CAGE. With the cut-off of 8 points, 31% of the male and 11 % of the female employees were classified as suspect heavy drinkers. The AUDIT was significantly more often accurate than the two other questionnaires, especially among female employees in detecting suspect early-phase heavy drinkers and thus seems to be suitable for health screenings.     

Comparing the alcohol-related problems survey (ARPS) to traditional alcohol screening measures in elderly outpatients

Older drinkers may incur alcohol-related risks at low consumption levels, but commonly used screening measures do not address alcohol's effects among persons with declining health and increased medication use. We compared the newly developed Alcohol-Related Problems Survey (ARPS) to three validated alcohol screens: the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (CAGE), Short-Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (SMAST), and Alcohol-Use Identification Test (AUDIT). The ARPS classifies drinking as non-hazardous, hazardous or harmful. Non-hazardous drinking is defined as consumption with no known risks for adverse physical or psychological health events. Hazardous drinking is consumption with such risks. Harmful drinking results in adverse events. The AUDIT screens for hazardous and harmful drinking; the CAGE and SMAST identify abusive (e.g. failure to fulfill social obligations) and dependent (e.g. having withdrawal symptoms) drinkers. In this study of 574 current drinkers 65 years and older who completed the ARPS and AUDIT in primary care clinics, half were randomly assigned to complete the CAGE and half, the SMAST. Drinkers who screened positive on the CAGE, SMAST or AUDIT were correctly classified by the ARPS as hazardous or harmful drinkers 91, 75, and 100% of the time, respectively. The majority of ARPS-identified hazardous or harmful drinkers did not screen positive on the CAGE, SMAST or AUDIT. These drinkers had medical conditions or used medications that placed them at risk for adverse health events, none of which was addressed in these three screens. In this study, the ARPS identified nearly all drinkers detected by the CAGE, SMAST, and AUDIT and detected hazardous and harmful drinkers not identified by these measures.     

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 Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale Is a Valid Measure of Alcohol Craving in Young Adults

Background: Alcohol craving is associated with greater alcohol‐related problems and less favorable treatment prognosis. The Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS) is the most widely used alcohol craving instrument. The OCDS has been validated in adults with alcohol use disorders (AUDs), which typically emerge in early adulthood. This study examines the validity of the OCDS in a nonclinical sample of young adults. Methods: Three hundred and nine college students (mean age of 21.8 years, SD = 4.6 years) completed the OCDS, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and measures of alcohol consumption. Subjects were randomly allocated to 2 samples. Construct validity was examined via exploratory factor analysis (n = 155) and confirmatory factor analysis (n = 154). Concurrent validity was assessed using the AUDIT and measures of alcohol consumption. A second, alcohol‐dependent sample (mean age 42 years, SD 12 years) from a previously published study (n = 370) was used to assess discriminant validity. Results: A unique young adult OCDS factor structure was validated, consisting of Interference/Control, Frequency of Obsessions, Alcohol Consumption and Resisting Obsessions/Compulsions. The young adult 4‐factor structure was significantly associated with the AUDIT and alcohol consumption. The 4 factor OCDS successfully classified nonclinical subjects in 96.9% of cases and the older alcohol‐dependent patients in 83.7% of cases. Although the OCDS was able to classify college nonproblem drinkers (AUDIT <13, n = 224) with 83.2% accuracy, it was no better than chance (49.4%) in classifying potential college problem drinkers (AUDIT score ≥13, n = 85). Conclusions: Using the 4‐factor structure, the OCDS is a valid measure of alcohol craving in young adult populations. In this nonclinical set of students, the OCDS classified nonproblem drinkers well but not problem drinkers. Studies need to further examine the utility of the OCDS in young people with alcohol misuse.