PMID- 16608159
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20060912
LR  - 20220331
IS  - 0096-882X (Print)
IS  - 0096-882X (Linking)
VI  - 67
IP  - 3
DP  - 2006 May
TI  - The reliability and validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test 
      (AUDIT) in a German general practice population sample.
PG  - 473-81
AB  - OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to analyze the retest reliability and validity of the 
      Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a primary-care setting and 
      recommend a cut-off value for the different alcohol-related diagnoses. METHOD: 
      Participants recruited from general practices (GPs) in two northern German cities 
      received the AUDIT, which was embedded in a health-risk questionnaire. In total, 
      10,803 screenings were conducted. The retest reliability was tested on a 
      subsample of 99 patients, with an intertest interval of 30 days. Sensitivity and 
      specificity at a number of different cut-off values were estimated for the sample 
      of alcohol consumers (n=8237). For this study, 1109 screen-positive patients 
      received a diagnostic interview. Individuals who scored less than five points in 
      the AUDIT and also tested negative in a second alcohol-related screen were 
      defined as "negative" (n=6003). This definition was supported by diagnostic 
      interviews of 99 screen-negative patients from which no false negatives could be 
      detected. As the gold standard for detection of an alcohol-use disorder (AUD), we 
      used the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (MCIDI), which is 
      based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, 
      criteria. RESULTS: On the item level, the reliability, measured by the intraclass 
      correlation coefficient (ICC), ranged between .39 (Item 9) and .98 (Item 10). For 
      the total score, the ICC was .95. For cut-off values of eight points and five 
      points, 87.5% and 88.9%, respectively, of the AUDIT-positives, and 98.9% and 
      95.1%, respectively, of the AUDIT-negatives were identically identified at 
      retest, with kappa = .86 and kappa = .81. At the cut-off value of five points, we 
      determined good combinations of sensitivity and specificity for the following 
      diagnoses: alcohol dependence (sensitivity and specificity of .97 and .88, 
      respectively), AUD (.97 and .92), and AUD and/or at-risk consumption (.97 and 
      .91). CONCLUSIONS: Embedded in a health-risk questionnaire in primary-care 
      settings, the AUDIT is a reliable and valid screening instrument to identify 
      at-risk drinkers and patients with an AUD. Our findings strongly suggest a 
      lowering of the recommended cut-off value of eight points.
FAU - Dybek, Inga
AU  - Dybek I
AD  - Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Research Group S:TEP, University of 
      Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Luebeck, Germany. ingadybek@yahoo.de
FAU - Bischof, Gallus
AU  - Bischof G
FAU - Grothues, Janina
AU  - Grothues J
FAU - Reinhardt, Susa
AU  - Reinhardt S
FAU - Meyer, Christian
AU  - Meyer C
FAU - Hapke, Ulfert
AU  - Hapke U
FAU - John, Ulrich
AU  - John U
FAU - Broocks, Andreas
AU  - Broocks A
FAU - Hohagen, Fritz
AU  - Hohagen F
FAU - Rumpf, Hans-Jurgen
AU  - Rumpf HJ
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PT  - Validation Study
PL  - United States
TA  - J Stud Alcohol
JT  - Journal of studies on alcohol
JID - 7503813
SB  - IM
MH  - Adolescent
MH  - Adult
MH  - Aged
MH  - Alcoholism/*diagnosis/*epidemiology
MH  - Family Practice/*methods
MH  - Germany/epidemiology
MH  - Humans
MH  - Mass Screening/methods
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Population Surveillance/*methods
MH  - ROC Curve
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Substance Abuse Detection/*methods
MH  - *Surveys and Questionnaires
EDAT- 2006/04/13 09:00
MHDA- 2006/09/13 09:00
CRDT- 2006/04/13 09:00
PHST- 2006/04/13 09:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2006/09/13 09:00 [medline]
PHST- 2006/04/13 09:00 [entrez]
AID - 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.473 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Stud Alcohol. 2006 May;67(3):473-81. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.473.