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

被引:317
作者
Knight, JR
Sherritt, L
Harris, SK
Gates, EC
Chang, G
机构
[1] Childrens Hosp, Ctr Adolescent Substance Abuse Res, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Childrens Hosp, Div Gen Pediat, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Childrens Hosp, Div Adolescent Young Adult Med, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[4] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Dept Pediat, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[5] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Div Addict, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[6] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Dept Psychiat, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[7] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Psychiat, Boston, MA 02115 USA
来源
ALCOHOL-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH | 2003年 / 27卷 / 01期
关键词
substance-related disorders; alcoholism; substance abuse detection; sensitivity and specificity; adolescence;
D O I
10.1097/01.ALC.0000046598.59317.3A
中图分类号
R194 [卫生标准、卫生检查、医药管理];
学科分类号
摘要
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, I 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.
引用
收藏
页码:67 / 73
页数:7
相关论文
共 51 条
[1]   The value of CAGE, CUGE, and AUDIT in screening for alcohol abuse and dependence among college freshmen [J].
Aertgeerts, B ;
Buntinx, F ;
Bande-Knops, J ;
Vandermeulen, C ;
Roelants, M ;
Ansoms, S ;
Fevery, J .
ALCOHOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH, 2000, 24 (01) :53-57
[2]   A review of research on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) [J].
Allen, JP ;
Litten, RZ ;
Fertig, JB ;
Babor, T .
ALCOHOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH, 1997, 21 (04) :613-619
[3]  
*AM AC PED, 1997, GUID HLTH SUP, V3
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1995, ASSESSING ALCOHOL PR
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1994, BRIGHT FUTURES GUIDE
[6]  
[Anonymous], PSYCHOL ADDICTIVE BE, DOI [10.1037/0893-164X.7.3.185, DOI 10.1037/0893-164X.7.3.185]
[7]  
[Anonymous], 1993, Adolescent Diagnostic Interview (ADI) Manual
[8]   EARLY DETECTION OF HARMFUL ALCOHOL-CONSUMPTION - COMPARISON OF CLINICAL, LABORATORY, AND SELF-REPORT SCREENING PROCEDURES [J].
BABOR, TF ;
KRANZLER, HR ;
LAUERMAN, RJ .
ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS, 1989, 14 (02) :139-157
[9]  
Babor TF., 1992, AUDIT: The alcohol use disorders identification test
[10]   SCREENING FOR ALCOHOL-ABUSE USING THE CAGE QUESTIONNAIRE [J].
BUSH, B ;
SHAW, S ;
CLEARY, P ;
DELBANCO, TL ;
ARONSON, MD .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1987, 82 (02) :231-235