Procedural validity of the AUDADIS-5 depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder modules: Substance abusers and others in the general population.


BACKGROUND Little is known about the procedural validity of lay-administered, fully-structured assessments of depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic stress (PTSD) disorders in the general population as determined by comparison with clinical re-appraisal, and whether this differs between current regular substance abusers and others. We evaluated the procedural validity of the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule, DSM-5 Version (AUDADIS-5) assessment of these disorders through clinician re-interviews. METHODS Test-retest design among respondents from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III): (264 current regular substance abusers, 447 others). Clinicians blinded to AUDADIS-5 results administered the semi-structured Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders, DSM-5 version (PRISM-5). AUDADIS-5/PRISM-5 concordance was indicated by kappa (κ) for diagnoses and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for dimensional measures (DSM-5 symptom or criterion counts). Results were compared between current regular substance abusers and others. RESULTS AUDADIS-5 and PRISM-5 concordance for DSM-5 depressive disorders, anxiety disorders and PTSD was generally fair to moderate (κ=0.24-0.59), with concordance on dimensional scales much better (ICC=0.53-0.81). Concordance differed little between regular substance abusers and others. CONCLUSIONS AUDADIS-5/PRISM-5 concordance indicated procedural validity for the AUDADIS-5 among substance abusers and others, suggesting that AUDADIS-5 diagnoses of DSM-5 depressive, anxiety and PTSD diagnoses are informative measures in both groups in epidemiological studies. The stronger concordance on dimensional measures supports the current movement toward dimensional psychopathology measures, suggesting that such measures provide important information for research in the NESARC-III and other datasets, and possibly for clinical purposes as well.

DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.03.027


Citations per Year

126 Citations

Semantic Scholar estimates that this publication has received between 2 and 1,293 citations based on the available data.

See our FAQ for additional information.