Cited by 31Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Test-retest reliability of DSM-5 substance disorder measures as assessed with the PRISM-5, a clinician-administered diagnostic interview

Open access
Hasin, Deborah, Shmulewitz, Dvora, Stohl, Malka, Greenstein, Eliana, Roncone, Stephanie, Aharonovich, Efrat, Wall, Melanie·2020·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

Aim In DSM-5, the definitions of substance use disorders (SUD) were changed considerably, yet little is known about the reliability of DSM-5 SUD and its new features.Methods The test-retest reliability of DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV substance dependence (SD) was evaluated in 565 adult substance users, each interviewed twice by different clinician interviewers using the semi-structured Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders, DSM-5 version (PRISM-5). DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV SD criteria were assessed for past year and lifetime, yielding diagnoses and severity levels for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, opioids, sedatives, hallucinogen, and stimulant use disorders. Cohen's and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) assessed reliability for categorical and graded outcomes, respectively. Factors potentially influencing reliability were explored, including inpatient vs. community participant, days between interviews gender, age, race/ethnicity, and SUD severity.Results DSM-5 SUD diagnoses had substantial to excellent reliability for most substances (κ = 0.63-0.94), and moderate for others (hallucinogens, stimulants, sedatives; κ = 0.50-0.59). For graded outcomes (DSM-5 SUD mild, moderate, severe; criteria count 0-11), reliability was substantial to excellent (ICC = 0.74-0.99). Comparisons of DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV SD reliability showed few significant differences. Reliability of the DSM-5 craving criterion was excellent for heroin (κ = 0.84-0.95) and moderate to substantial for other substances (κ = 0.49-0.76). The only factor influencing reliability of SUD was severity, with milder disorders significantly more likely to be discordant between the interviews.Conclusion Reproducibility is crucial to good measurement. In a large sample using rigorous methodology, diagnoses and dimensional measures from clinician-administered interviews for DSM-5 SUD were generally highly reliable.

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.2020.108294

Cites

59 of 59 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hasin, D., Shmulewitz, D., Stohl, M., Greenstein, E., Roncone, S., Aharonovich, E., & Wall, M.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Hasin, Deborah
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
216
Pages
108294
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3086216102
Cited by
31
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6
FWCI
3.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA018652)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
test-retest reliability, addiction severity, craving, interobserver agreement, alcoholism, opioid use disorder, cannabis use disorder, stimulant use disorder, sedative use disorder, tobacco use disorder
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Reproducibility of Results, Substance-Related Disorders, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 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