Exploration of the (interrater) reliability and latent factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in a sample of Dutch probationers

M.G.C. Noteborn, M. Hildebrand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Background:
The use of brief, reliable, valid, and practical measures of substance use is critical for conducting individual (risk and need) assessments in probation practice. In this exploratory study, the basic psychometric properties of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) are evaluated.
Methods:
The instruments were administered as an oral interview instead of a self-report questionnaire. The sample comprised 383 offenders (339 men, 44 women). A subset of 56 offenders (49 men, 7 women) participated in the interrater reliability study. Data collection took place between September 2011 and November 2012.
Results:
Overall, both instruments have acceptable levels of interrater reliability for total scores and acceptable to good interrater reliabilities for most of the individual items. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) indicated that the a priori one-, two- and three-factor solutions for the AUDIT did not fit the observed data very well. Principal axis factoring (PAF) supported a two-factor solution for the AUDIT that included a level of alcohol consumption/consequences factor (Factor 1) and a dependence factor (Factor 2), with both factors explaining substantial variance in AUDIT scores. For the DUDIT, CFA and PAF suggest that a one-factor solution is the preferred model (accounting for 62.61% of total variance).
Conclusions:
The Dutch language versions of the AUDIT and the DUDIT are reliable screening instruments for use with probationers and both instruments can be reliably administered by probation officers in probation practice. However, future research on concurrent and predictive validity is warranted.
Keywords: AUDIT, DUDIT, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, substance abuse, reliability and factor structure, probation, screening
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1294-1306
JournalSubstance Use & Misuse
Volume50
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

probationer
drug use
alcohol
Alcohols
probation
Statistical Factor Analysis
factoring
offender
Alcohol Drinking
Self Report
Alcoholism
probation officer
Language
Interviews
drug abuse
alcohol consumption
psychometrics
substance abuse
abuse

Cite this

@article{d441af5babfd441389eef6e279841f4c,
title = "Exploration of the (interrater) reliability and latent factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in a sample of Dutch probationers",
abstract = "Background: The use of brief, reliable, valid, and practical measures of substance use is critical for conducting individual (risk and need) assessments in probation practice. In this exploratory study, the basic psychometric properties of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) are evaluated. Methods: The instruments were administered as an oral interview instead of a self-report questionnaire. The sample comprised 383 offenders (339 men, 44 women). A subset of 56 offenders (49 men, 7 women) participated in the interrater reliability study. Data collection took place between September 2011 and November 2012. Results: Overall, both instruments have acceptable levels of interrater reliability for total scores and acceptable to good interrater reliabilities for most of the individual items. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) indicated that the a priori one-, two- and three-factor solutions for the AUDIT did not fit the observed data very well. Principal axis factoring (PAF) supported a two-factor solution for the AUDIT that included a level of alcohol consumption/consequences factor (Factor 1) and a dependence factor (Factor 2), with both factors explaining substantial variance in AUDIT scores. For the DUDIT, CFA and PAF suggest that a one-factor solution is the preferred model (accounting for 62.61{\%} of total variance). Conclusions: The Dutch language versions of the AUDIT and the DUDIT are reliable screening instruments for use with probationers and both instruments can be reliably administered by probation officers in probation practice. However, future research on concurrent and predictive validity is warranted.Keywords: AUDIT, DUDIT, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, substance abuse, reliability and factor structure, probation, screening",
author = "M.G.C. Noteborn and M. Hildebrand",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.3109/10826084.2014.998238",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "1294--1306",
journal = "Substance Use & Misuse",
issn = "1082-6084",
publisher = "Marcel Dekker Inc.",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploration of the (interrater) reliability and latent factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in a sample of Dutch probationers

AU - Noteborn, M.G.C.

AU - Hildebrand, M.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Background: The use of brief, reliable, valid, and practical measures of substance use is critical for conducting individual (risk and need) assessments in probation practice. In this exploratory study, the basic psychometric properties of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) are evaluated. Methods: The instruments were administered as an oral interview instead of a self-report questionnaire. The sample comprised 383 offenders (339 men, 44 women). A subset of 56 offenders (49 men, 7 women) participated in the interrater reliability study. Data collection took place between September 2011 and November 2012. Results: Overall, both instruments have acceptable levels of interrater reliability for total scores and acceptable to good interrater reliabilities for most of the individual items. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) indicated that the a priori one-, two- and three-factor solutions for the AUDIT did not fit the observed data very well. Principal axis factoring (PAF) supported a two-factor solution for the AUDIT that included a level of alcohol consumption/consequences factor (Factor 1) and a dependence factor (Factor 2), with both factors explaining substantial variance in AUDIT scores. For the DUDIT, CFA and PAF suggest that a one-factor solution is the preferred model (accounting for 62.61% of total variance). Conclusions: The Dutch language versions of the AUDIT and the DUDIT are reliable screening instruments for use with probationers and both instruments can be reliably administered by probation officers in probation practice. However, future research on concurrent and predictive validity is warranted.Keywords: AUDIT, DUDIT, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, substance abuse, reliability and factor structure, probation, screening

AB - Background: The use of brief, reliable, valid, and practical measures of substance use is critical for conducting individual (risk and need) assessments in probation practice. In this exploratory study, the basic psychometric properties of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) are evaluated. Methods: The instruments were administered as an oral interview instead of a self-report questionnaire. The sample comprised 383 offenders (339 men, 44 women). A subset of 56 offenders (49 men, 7 women) participated in the interrater reliability study. Data collection took place between September 2011 and November 2012. Results: Overall, both instruments have acceptable levels of interrater reliability for total scores and acceptable to good interrater reliabilities for most of the individual items. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) indicated that the a priori one-, two- and three-factor solutions for the AUDIT did not fit the observed data very well. Principal axis factoring (PAF) supported a two-factor solution for the AUDIT that included a level of alcohol consumption/consequences factor (Factor 1) and a dependence factor (Factor 2), with both factors explaining substantial variance in AUDIT scores. For the DUDIT, CFA and PAF suggest that a one-factor solution is the preferred model (accounting for 62.61% of total variance). Conclusions: The Dutch language versions of the AUDIT and the DUDIT are reliable screening instruments for use with probationers and both instruments can be reliably administered by probation officers in probation practice. However, future research on concurrent and predictive validity is warranted.Keywords: AUDIT, DUDIT, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, substance abuse, reliability and factor structure, probation, screening

U2 - 10.3109/10826084.2014.998238

DO - 10.3109/10826084.2014.998238

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 1294

EP - 1306

JO - Substance Use & Misuse

JF - Substance Use & Misuse

SN - 1082-6084

IS - 10

ER -