The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in Criminal Justice and Detoxification Settings and in a Swedish Population Sample
Abstract
Psychometric properties of the 11-item self-report Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) were evaluated in a sample of heavy drug users from prison, probation, and inpatient detoxification settings, and in a general Swedish population sample. In the drug user sample, the DUDIT predicted drug dependence with a sensitivity of 90% for both DSM-4 and ICD-10 and a respective specificity of 78 and 88%. Reliability according to Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.80. In the population sample, 3.1% scored positive on the DUDIT; T-score values are suggested. The DUDIT screens effectively for drug-related problems in clinically selected groups and may prove useful in the context of public health surveys.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Severe alcohol or drug problems were assessed using validated questionnaires (ie, scored ≥20 on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test [26] or ≥25 on the Drug Use Disorder Identification Test [27]).”
In the citing paper
“Cronbach α=0.93 (very high), convergent validity r=0.76 (high) [102,103]”
Citations
Cites
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,882
(2001) · Cited by 5,455
Skinner, H. A. (1982) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/0306-4603(82)90005-3 · Cited by 3,134 · cited 1×
“A simple self-report screening instrument focusing on current drug-related problems and facilitating comparison between different groups has been lacking in the literature. Practitioners and patients in criminal justice, addiction treatment and psychiatric settings need to gain a quick impression of the extent of prob…”
MethodGroup, W. A. W. (2002) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00185.x · Cited by 1,982
Brown, R. L., & Rounds, L. A. (1995) · PubMed · Cited by 546
Bergman, H. (2002) · Alcohol and Alcoholism · doi:10.1093/alcalc/37.3.245 · Cited by 345 · cited 1×
“Principal component extraction with Varimax rotation yielded two factors explaining 73.8p of the total variance. With this solution, however, items 1, 4 and 8 loaded on both factors. An oblique rotation eliminated multiple loading for item 4. According to this solution, the two factors showed a correlation of 0.44 (n…”
InfluentialSelf-citationHasin, D. S., Grant, B. F., Cottler, L. B., BLAINE, J. D., Towle, L. H., Üstün, B., & Sartorius, N. (1997) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/s0376-8716(97)00092-6 · Cited by 152
UNCOPE: A Brief Substance Dependence Screen for Use with Arrestees
Hoffmann, N., Hunt, D., Rhodes, W., & Riley, K. J. (2003) · Journal of Drug Issues · doi:10.1177/002204260303300102 · Cited by 80
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Single-Question Screening Test for Drug Use in Primary Care
Smith, P. C., Schmidt, S. M., Allensworth‐Davies, D., & Saitz, R. (2010) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.140 · Cited by 486
MacKillop, J., Weafer, J. J., Gray, J. C., Oshri, A., Palmer, A. A., & de Wit, H. (2016) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-016-4372-0 · Cited by 404
McCauley, J. L., Killeen, T. K., Grös, D. F., Brady, K. T., & Back, S. E. (2012) · Clinical Psychology Science and Practice · doi:10.1111/cpsp.12006 · Cited by 408
Viding, E., Sebastian, C. L., Dadds, M. R., Lockwood, P. L., Cecil, C. A. M., De Brito, S. A., & McCrory, E. J. (2012) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12020191 · Cited by 368
The Child and Adolescent Twin Study in Sweden (CATSS)
Anckarsäter, H., Lundström, S., Kollberg, L., Kerekes, N., Palm, C., Carlström, E., Långström, N., Magnusson, P. K. E., Halldner, L., Bölte, S., et al. (2011) · Twin Research and Human Genetics · doi:10.1375/twin.14.6.495 · Cited by 300
Metadata
- Authors
- Berman, A. H., Bergman, H., Palmstierna, T., & Schlyter, F.
- Affiliations
- Stockholm University (SE)
- Karolinska Institutet (SE)
- Venue
- European Addiction Research
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2004-12-10
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-31
- ISSN
- 1022-6877 (ISSN-L)
- 1421-9891
- OpenAlex
- W2017857669
- Cited by
- 977
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 107 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 32
- FWCI
- 3.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Addiction Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Keywords
- psychometric properties, sensitivity and specificity, prison population, probation, inpatient detoxification, self-report screening instruments, public health survey
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Criminal Law, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Personality Assessment, Psychometrics, Reference Values, Statistics as Topic, Illicit Drugs, Reproducibility of Results, Substance Abuse Treatment Centers, 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
