Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 247

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability of the alcohol and drug modules of the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule—alcohol/drug-revised (AUDADIS-ADR): an international comparison

Open access
Chatterji, Somnath, Saunders, John B., Vrasti, Radu, Grant, Bridget F., Hasin, Deborah, Mager, Doug·1997·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine the test-retest reliability of the alcohol and drug modules of the AUDADIS-ADR in three sites: Bangalore, India, Jebel, Romania and Sydney, Australia. The overall reliability of ICD-10, DSM-IV and DSM-III-R dependence diagnoses was found to be good to excellent for each substance, including alcohol, for each time frame, regardless of whether the total sample or user subsample figured into the calculations. Reliability associated with corresponding harmful use and abuse diagnoses were mixed, but generally lower. Reliability statistics for Bangalore were generally lower than those of the Jebel and Sydney sites, particularly for alcohol diagnostic criteria. Implications of these results are discussed, in conjunction with results from the discrepancy interview protocol analyses within sites, in terms of future revisions to the AUDADIS-ADR and its training procedures tailored to developing countries.

Overview

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/s0376-8716(97)00088-4

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Cottler, 1994, The discrepancy interview protocol: A method for evaluating and interpreting discordant survey responses, Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res., 4, 98.1
  2. Fleiss, J.L., 1981. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. Wiley, New York.
  3. Grant, 1995, The alcohol use disorder and associated disabilities interview schedule (AUDADIS): reliability of alcohol and drug modules in a general population sample, Drug Alcohol Dep., 39, 37, 10.1016/0376-8716(95)01134-K · DOI · Paper page
  4. Grant, B.F., Hasin D.S., 1992. The Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Rockville, Maryland. · DOI
  5. Room, 1996, WHO cross-cultural applicability research on diagnosis and assessment of substance use disorders: an overview of methods and selected results, Addiction, 11, 199
  6. Schouten, 1980, Measuring pairwise agreement among many observers, Biometry, 6, 497, 10.1002/bimj.4710220605 · DOI
  7. World Health Organization, 1992. Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry. American Psychiatric Press, Washington, DC.

Cited by

See all 247

Metadata

Authors
Chatterji, S., Saunders, J. B., Vrasti, R., Grant, B. F., Hasin, D., & Mager, D.
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-09
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
171-185
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2058571919
Cited by
247
References
1
FWCI
5.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability of the alcohol and drug modules of the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule—alcohol/drug-revised (AUDADIS-ADR): an international comparison. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0376-8716(97)00088-4
The paper
Chatterji, S., Saunders, J. B., Vrasti, R., Grant, B. F., Hasin, D., & Mager, D. (1997). Reliability of the alcohol and drug modules of the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule—alcohol/drug-revised (AUDADIS-ADR): an international comparison. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0376-8716(97)00088-4

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.