Reliability Generalization of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test

Abstract

The present study evaluated the reliability of scores from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a reliability generalization study. This reliability generalization had two primary goals: (a) to characterize the typical reliability of scores for the AUDIT, and (b) to examine factors that may be related to the reliability of AUDIT scores. The median internal consistency reliability across 24 samples was .81, with a range of .59 to .91. Results suggest that the AUDIT is capable of generating generally reliable scores across some varied sample conditions. After controlling for score variability, no sample characteristic was a statistically significantly predictor of score reliability and effects were small. Only 17 of 104 empirical journal articles contained adequate psychometric information to be included in the present study.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carey, K. B., & Teitelbaum, L. M. (1996). Goals and methods of alcohol assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 460-466.

Caruso, J. C. (2000). Reliability generalization of the NEO personality scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 236-254.

Cherpitel, C. J., & Borges, G. (2000). Screening instruments of alcohol problems: A comparison of cut points between Mexican American and Mexican patients in the emergency room. Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 1419-1430.

Conigrave, K., Hall, W. D., & Saunders, J. B. (1995). The AUDIT questionnaire: Choosing a cutoff score. Addiction, 90, 1349-1356.

Fiellin, D. A., Reid, M. C., & O'Connor, P. G. (2000). Screening for alcohol problems in primary care: A systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine, 160, 1977-1989.

Fleming, M. F. (1997). Strategies to increase alcohol screening in health care settings. Alcohol, Health, & Research World, 21, 340-347.

Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.

Holder, H., Longabaugh, R., Miller, W. R., & Rubonis, A. V. (1991). The cost-effectiveness of treatment for alcoholism: A first approximation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 517-540.

Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

10.

Maisto, S. A., Carey, M. P., Carey, K. B., Gordon, C. M., & Gleason, J. R. (2000). Use of the AUDIT and the DAST-10 to identify alcohol and drug use disorders among adults with a severe and persistent mental illness. Psychological Assessment, 12, 186-192.

11.

Maisto, S. A., Conigliaro, J., McNeil, M., Kraemer, K., & Kelley, E. (2000). An empirical investigation of the factor structure of the AUDIT. Psychological Assessment, 12, 346-353.

12.

Ogborne, A. C., & DeWit, D. J. (1999). Lifetime use of professional and community services for help with drinking: Results from a Canadian population survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 867-872.

13.

Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., De la Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M. (1993). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction, 88, 791-803.

14.

Shields, A. L., Guttmannova, K., & Caruso, J. C. (in press). An examination of the factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test in two high-risk samples. Substance Use & Misuse.

15.

Skipsey, K., Burleson, J. A., & Kranzler, H. R. (1997). Utility of the AUDIT for identification of hazardous or harmful drinking in drug-dependent patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 45, 157-163.

16.

Thompson, B. (1994). Guidelines for authors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 837-847.

17.

Vacha-Haase, T. (1998). Reliability generalization: Exploring variance in measurement error affecting score reliability across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 6-20.

18.

Vacha-Haase, T., Kogan, L. R., & Thompson, B. (2000). Sample compositions and variabilities in published studies versus those in test manuals: Validity of score reliability inductions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 509-522.

19.

Wilkinson, L., & the American Psychological Association Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.