Cited by 48Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Psychometric Properties of the AUDIT, AUDIT-C, CRAFFT and ASSIST-Y among Swedish Adolescents

Källmén, Håkan, Berman, Anne H., Jayaram-Lindström, Nitya, Hammarberg, Anders, Elgán, Tobias H.·2019·European Addiction Research

Abstract

Background/Aims: Not enough is known about the psychometric properties of screening instruments for problematic alcohol consumption among adolescents. The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the performance of the screening instruments: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), AUDIT-C, CRAFFT, and the alcohol domain of Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test-Youth (ASSIST-Y) among adolescents and to suggest optimal cut-offs indicating problematic use. Methods: Data was collected from a general population sample (n = 1,421) and a treatment-seeking sample (n = 59) using electronic versions of the instruments. Results: The internal consistencies for the instruments were fair (alpha’s AUDIT 0.74, AUDIT-C 0.75, CRAFFT 0.67, ASSIST-Y 0.62), and test-retest reliabilities were good to excellent (intraclass correlation coefficients AUDIT 0.86, AUDIT-C 0.93, CRAFFT 0.77, ASSIST-Y 0.63). The CRAFFT and ASSIST-Y demonstrated reasonable construct validities while factor solutions for AUDIT and AUDIT-C could not be determined. The optimal cut-off score was 2 for both CRAFFT and ASSIST-Y (61 and 73% sensitivities and 79 and 65% specificities, respectively), while sensitivity scores were poor for AUDIT and AUDIT-C. Conclusion: Based on the current sample, ASSIST-Y and the CRAFFT performed better than AUDIT and AUDIT-C. Health-care clinics working with adolescents should carefully consider their choice of screening instruments.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000496741

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The AUDIT has shown good construct validity and excellent test-retest validity.

    “The AUDIT has shown good construct validity (Quintero et al., 2019), and excellent test-retest validity (Källmén et al., 2019).”

    From I've Seen Enough: Measuring the Toll of Content Moderation on Mental Health (2025) · cites this paper as Källmén et al., 2019

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Källmén, H., Berman, A. H., Jayaram-Lindström, N., Hammarberg, A., & Elgán, T. H.
Affiliations
Region Stockholm (SE)
Venue
European Addiction Research
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2019
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
68-77
ISSN
  • 1022-6877 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9891
OpenAlex
W2911573149
Cited by
48
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
FWCI
3.05
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
adolescent alcohol use, alcohol screening instruments, auditing, AUDIT-C, CRAFFT, problematic alcohol consumption, cut-off values, screening sensitivity and specificity, psychometric properties, Swedish adolescents
MeSH terms
Underage Drinking, Adolescent, Alcoholism, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Sweden, Reproducibility of Results

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