These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: WHO Study on the reliability and validity of the alcohol and drug use disorder instruments: overview of methods and results.
    Author: Ustün B, Compton W, Mager D, Babor T, Baiyewu O, Chatterji S, Cottler L, Göğüş A, Mavreas V, Peters L, Pull C, Saunders J, Smeets R, Stipec MR, Vrasti R, Hasin D, Room R, Van den Brink W, Regier D, Blaine J, Grant BF, Sartorius N.
    Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend; 1997 Sep 25; 47(3):161-9. PubMed ID: 9306042.
    Abstract:
    The WHO Study on the reliability and validity of the alcohol and drug use disorder instruments in an international study which has taken place in centres in ten countries, aiming to test the reliability and validity of three diagnostic instruments for alcohol and drug use disorders: the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN) and a special version of the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview schedule-alcohol/drug-revised (AUDADIS-ADR). The purpose of the reliability and validity (R&V) study is to further develop the alcohol and drug sections of these instruments so that a range of substance-related diagnoses can be made in a systematic, consistent, and reliable way. The study focuses on new criteria proposed in the tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and the fourth revision of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV) for dependence, harmful use and abuse categories for alcohol and psychoactive substance use disorders. A systematic study including a scientifically rigorous measure of reliability (i.e. 1 week test-retest reliability) and validity (i.e. comparison between clinical and non-clinical measures) has been undertaken. Results have yielded useful information on reliability and validity of these instruments at diagnosis, criteria and question level. Overall the diagnostic concordance coefficients (kappa, kappa) were very good for dependence disorders (0.7-0.9), but were somewhat lower for the abuse and harmful use categories. The comparisons among instruments and independent clinical evaluations and debriefing interviews gave important information about possible sources of unreliability, and provided useful clues on the applicability and consistency of nosological concepts across cultures.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]