{"title":"Stability of the alcohol use disorders identification test in practical service settings.","authors":"Ethan Sahker, Donna A Lancianese, Stephan Arndt","doi":"10.2147/SAR.S126664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of the present study is to explore the stability of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a clinical setting by comparing prescreening heavy drinking questions and AUDIT scores over time. Because instrument stability is equal to test-retest reliability at worst, investigating the stability of the AUDIT would help better understand patient behavior change in context and the appropriateness of the AUDIT in a clinical setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective exploratory analysis of Visit 1 to Visit 2 AUDIT stability (n=1,099; male [75.4%], female [24.6%]) from all patients with first-time and second-time records in the Iowa Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment project, October 2012 to July 7, 2015 (N=17,699; male [40.6%], female [59.4%]).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AUDIT demonstrated moderate stability (intraclass correlation=0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.60). In a multiple regression predicting the (absolute) difference between the two AUDIT scores, the participants' age was highly significant, <i>t</i>(1,092)=6.23, <i>p</i><0.001. Younger participants clearly showed less stability than their older counterparts. Results are limited/biased by the observational nature of the study design and the use of clinical service data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present findings contribute to the literature by demonstrating that the AUDIT changes are moderately dependable from Visit 1 to Visit 2 while taking into account patient drinking behavior variability. It is important to know the stability of the AUDIT for continued use in Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment programming.</p>","PeriodicalId":22060,"journal":{"name":"Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation","volume":"8 ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/SAR.S126664","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/SAR.S126664","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of the present study is to explore the stability of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a clinical setting by comparing prescreening heavy drinking questions and AUDIT scores over time. Because instrument stability is equal to test-retest reliability at worst, investigating the stability of the AUDIT would help better understand patient behavior change in context and the appropriateness of the AUDIT in a clinical setting.
Methods: This was a retrospective exploratory analysis of Visit 1 to Visit 2 AUDIT stability (n=1,099; male [75.4%], female [24.6%]) from all patients with first-time and second-time records in the Iowa Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment project, October 2012 to July 7, 2015 (N=17,699; male [40.6%], female [59.4%]).
Results: The AUDIT demonstrated moderate stability (intraclass correlation=0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.60). In a multiple regression predicting the (absolute) difference between the two AUDIT scores, the participants' age was highly significant, t(1,092)=6.23, p<0.001. Younger participants clearly showed less stability than their older counterparts. Results are limited/biased by the observational nature of the study design and the use of clinical service data.
Conclusion: The present findings contribute to the literature by demonstrating that the AUDIT changes are moderately dependable from Visit 1 to Visit 2 while taking into account patient drinking behavior variability. It is important to know the stability of the AUDIT for continued use in Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment programming.