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. (24th August 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hildebrand, Martin; Noteborn, Mirthe G. C.
• Is Part Of: Substance use & misuse. Volume 50:Number 10(2015)
• Page Start: 1294
• Page End: 1306
• Publication Date: 2015-08-24
• Subjects: AUDIT -- DUDIT -- alcohol abuse -- drug abuse -- substance abuse -- reliability and factor structure -- probation -- screening; Narcotic habit -- Periodicals; Alcoholism -- Periodicals; Substance abuse -- Periodicals; Behavior, Addictive -- Periodicals; Sustance-Related Disorders -- Periodicals; 362.2905
• DOI: 10.3109/10826084.2014.998238
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1082-6084

Abstract

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.