The Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-5 (AUDADIS-5): procedural validity of substance use disorders modules through clinical re-appraisal in a general population sample.


BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to assess the procedural validity of the substance disorder modules of the lay-administered Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Version (AUDADIS-5) through clinician re-appraisal re-interviews. METHODS The study employed a test-retest design among 712 respondents from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III). A clinician-administered, semi-structured interview, the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders, DSM-5 version (PRISM-5) was used as the re-appraisal. Kappa coeffients indicated concordance of the AUDADIS-5 and PRISM-5 for DSM-5 substance use disorder diagnoses, while intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) indicated concordance on dimensional scales indicating the DSM-5 criteria count for each disorder. RESULTS With few exceptions, concordance of the AUDADIS-5 and the PRISM-5 for DSM-5 diagnoses of substance use disorders ranged from fair to good (κ=0.40-0.72). Concordance on dimensional scales was excellent (ICC≥0.75) for the majority of DSM-5 SUD diagnoses, and fair to good (ICC=0.43-0.72) for most of the rest. CONCLUSIONS As indicated by concordance with a semi-structured clinician-administered re-appraisal, the procedural validity of the AUDADIS-5 DSM-5 substance use disorder diagnoses found in this study indicates that these AUDADIS-5 diagnoses are useful tools in epidemiologic studies. The considerably stronger concordance of the AUDADIS-5 and PRISM-5 dimensional DSM-5 SUD measures supports a current movement to place more emphasis on dimensional measures of psychopathology, and suggests that such measures may be more informative than binary diagnoses for research, and possibly for clinical purposes as well.

DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.12.011
Citations per Year

368 Citations

Semantic Scholar estimates that this publication has received between 5 and 2,328 citations based on the available data.

See our FAQ for additional information.