Cited by 107Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Testing and Assessment

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

Open access
Hasin, Deborah S., Shmulewitz, Dvora, Stohl, Malka, Greenstein, Eliana, Aivadyan, Christina, Morita, Kara, Saha, Tulshi, Aharonovich, Efrat +4 more·2015·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.03.027

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Test-retest reliability of the AUDADIS-5 DSM-5 MDD diagnosis was fair (κ = 0.40).

    “Test-retest reliability of AUDADIS-5 DSM-5 MDD was fair 29 (κ = 0.40) 26”

    From Epidemiology of Adult <i>DSM-5</i> Major Depressive Disorder and Its Specifiers in the United States (2018) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Introduction says AUDADIS-5 mood and anxiety disorders had test–retest reliability comparable to AUDADIS-IV, but gives no κ = 0.40 for DSM-5 MDD. Its κ = 0.40–0.65 range refers to AUDADIS-IV diagnoses. The Results (§3.2) instead report AUDADIS-5/PRISM-5 concordance, a different comparison. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hasin, D.S., in press. The NESARC, Waves 1 and 2: a decade of research findings. Addiction.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hasin, D. S., Shmulewitz, D., Stohl, M., Greenstein, E., Aivadyan, C., Morita, K., Saha, T., Aharonovich, E., Jung, J., Zhang, H., Nunes, E. V., & Grant, B. F.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (US)
Corresponding author
Hasin, Deborah S.
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-07
Volume
152
Pages
246-256
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993427030
Cited by
107
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3
FWCI
9.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (HHSN275200900007C)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K05AA014223)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (K24DA022412)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HHSN275200900007C)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
procedural validity, depression, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abusers, dimensional models of psychopathology, NESARC-III, alcoholism
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Reproducibility of Results, Drug Users

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review