Cited by 177Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

The Psychometric Properties of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT): A Review of Recent Research

Open access
Hildebrand, Martin·2015·Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

Abstract

This article reviews the reliability (internal consistency, interrater reliability), factor structure, and validity (i.e., sensitivity and specificity) of the 11-item Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT). An extensive literature review was conducted using the Medline, Psychinfo and PubMed databases from January 2005 to October 2014. Search terms were "Drug Use Disorders Identification Test" and "DUDIT". All articles that addressed reliability, factor structure, sensitivity and specificity of the DUDIT were examined. Publications in which the DUDIT was used as a screening tool and/or studies that used the DUDIT to compare use and abuse/dependence of drugs in participants at baseline and at follow-up but had no data on its psychometric properties, were not included. In total, 18 usable publications were identified and included in the review. In general, the DUDIT yields satisfactory measures of reliability and validity for use as a clinical or research tool. Internal consistency reliability estimates (Cronbach's α) are generally >.90. Most studies also revealed favorable sensitivity (ranging from .85 to 1.00) and specificity (ranging from .75 to .92) in a variety of populations. Results on the factor structure, however, are somewhat equivocal. Future directions for research on the DUDIT are suggested.

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.jsat.2015.01.008

Cites

53 of 53 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

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1995). Structured Clinical Inter- view for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders-Patient Edition (SCID-I/P, Version 2.0). New York: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hildebrand, M.
Corresponding author
Hildebrand, Martin
Venue
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
53
Pages
52-59
ISSN
0740-5472 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967599613
Cited by
177
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
psychometric properties, substance use screening, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, factor structure, sensitivity and specificity, drug addiction
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Substance-Related Disorders

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