The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Psychometric Properties of the AUDIT, AUDIT-C, CRAFFT and ASSIST-Y among Swedish Adolescents
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
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?
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
Siljeholm, O., Edvardsson, K., Bergström, M., & Hammarberg, A. (2024) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.16429 · Cited by 11
Self-citationI've Seen Enough: Measuring the Toll of Content Moderation on Mental Health
Gauthier, G. M., Ali, E., Asim, A., Cornell-Maier, S., & Zoellner, L. A. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.09813
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