Is frequency of drinking an indicator of problem drinking? A psychometric analysis of a modified version of the alcohol use disorders identification test in Switzerland
Introduction
The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) has been developed by an expert group for the World Health Organization (WHO) as a screening instrument to detect the presence of early alcohol-related problems before dependence has occurred (Babor and Grant, 1989, Saunders et al., 1993b). Though designed primarily for use by health workers in primary care, it has also proved to be a useful screening instrument in non-clinical populations (Babor et al., 1989). Thus, in addition to its use in a variety of primary care and clinical settings, such as emergency rooms (Cherpitel, 1995), ambulatory care sections (Conigrave et al., 1995), or with people with substance-use disorders (Skipsey et al., 1997), the AUDIT has been used in other populations. Examples are often groups considered to be higher risk for alcohol problems, such as unemployed people (Claussen and Aasland, 1993), rugby players (Quarrie et al., 1996), college students (Fleming et al., 1991), and workers (Seppä et al., 1995).
AUDIT can also be integrated into general-population surveys (Saunders et al., 1993b); surveys in Australia (Fleming, 1996), Canada (Ivis et al., 2000), Finland (Holmila, 1995), and Mexico (see Medina-Mora et al., 1998) constitute examples of this use. Use of the AUDIT in regions with different drinking styles is consistent with one of the stated purposes of WHO in developing AUDIT (Saunders et al., 1993a, Babor et al., 1989): to achieve comparability between different cultures.
Prior to the survey reported here, we know of no use of AUDIT in any general-population study in Switzerland. Switzerland is of particular interest, however, in that it comprises different linguistic regions with different drinking cultures: largely Mediterranean, wine-drinking, in the French- and Italian-speaking parts; and mostly beer-drinking in the German-speaking part (Fahrenkrug and Gmel, 1998). This permits within-country tests of comparability between cultures. Drinking styles can be characterized as largely social-ceremonial and restorative in the Swiss–German areas and largely convivial in the French/Italian-speaking parts (Cahannes and Müller, 1981). To give an example from the most recent Swiss Health Survey, from which the data for this study were obtained, Swiss germanophone drinkers reported on an average 171 drinking occasions per year and French/Italian speaking 254 (F=348.5, P<0.001, η=0.181). Differences related mainly to frequency of wine consumption (German-speaking 111, and French/Italian-speaking 199; F=576.3; P<0.001, η=0.230); the difference in frequency of beer consumption was less (German 66 and French/Italian 73; F=7.0, P<0.01, η=0.026). However, French/Italian-speaking Swiss drank slightly less per occasion (24 g of pure ethanol) than the germanophones (26 g; F=29.6, P<0.001, η=0.053). These differences in drinking cultures may influence patterns of response to AUDIT items.
Various studies have tested the validity and reliability of the core instrument of AUDIT, a 10-item questionnaire (for an overview see Allen et al., 1997). Most evidence concerns concurrent validity, construct validity, discriminant validity, predictive validity and internal consistency. The concurrent validity of AUDIT showed generally high and significant correlations with other screening instruments, such as CAGE (Seppä et al., 1995), and with laboratory tests (Bohn et al., 1995, Conigrave et al., 1995, Allen and Litten, 1998). Construct-validity studies have established that AUDIT scores correlate highly and significantly with risk factors, drinking patterns and behaviour, and drinking consequences (Bohn et al., 1995, Lapham et al., 1998). Studies on discriminant validity, using different reference standards have found that AUDIT performs with high sensitivity and specificity, usually superior to other screening instruments (Bohn et al., 1995, Cherpitel, 1997, Piccinelli et al., 1997, Skipsey et al., 1997, Clements, 1998, Bradley et al., 1998, Steinbauer et al., 1998). It also scored higher on AUC (Area Under the Curve) at least for current alcohol-use disorders (Barry and Fleming, 1993). Moreover, the predictive validity of AUDIT is as good as, or even better than, that of laboratory markers (Conigrave et al., 1995). It has shown good results for internal consistency assessed by Cronbach's α, and a single-factor structure (Fleming et al., 1991, Barry and Fleming, 1993, Schmidt et al., 1995, Skipsey et al., 1997).
Despite the high α values of AUDIT, Allen et al. (1997) suggested investigating its dimensionality by factor analysis and analysis of heterogeneous samples. They suggested two main topics for further research: (1) verifying the dimensionality of AUDIT; and (2) relating differences in dimensionality to features of samples, including cultural characteristics. The present paper considers both topics. It is to be noted that the analysis takes place in Switzerland, which was not one of the original AUDIT sites. It thus permit a unique site for testing convergent validity (Saunders et al., 1993b).
A theoretical issue concerns the scoring of AUDIT. Its 10 items are grouped into three conceptually distinct domains: amount and frequency of drinking (three), alcohol dependence (three), and harm caused by alcohol (four), which may suggest a three-factor structure (Babor et al., 1989). In practice, the AUDIT has been employed mainly as a unidimensional screening instrument, using a summary measure of the 10 items (ranging from 0 to 40) with a cut-off point usually of 8+ or 11+ (Cherpitel, 1995, Skipsey et al., 1997). Thus, for a consistent decision rule it is necessary to assume a single underlying construct of AUDIT and no differential weighting of items — i.e. all items deserve equal emphasis (Wright and Feinstein, 1992).
Hence, as regards the dimensionality of AUDIT two different underlying factor structures have been suggested: either unidimensional or tri-dimensional. When a screening instrument is interpreted by adding up the scores of individual items with the same response scale, this implies: (1) unidimensionality; and (2) attachment of the same weight to each item. Without the assumption of unidimensionality, the instrument score would represent a summation of unlike entities. The second is intuitively clear, because a simple sum can be interpreted to mean that each item has the same weight of one (Lord and Novick, 1968, Wright and Feinstein, 1992). Both implicit assumptions can be tested formally with confirmatory factor analysis: items should load on a single underlying factor and should have equal loadings (Jöreskog, 1971, Jöreskog, 1979). Equality of loadings ensures that for a given cut-off point, such as 8+, it does not matter whether a problem drinker's score has been derived, for example, from high scores on the first three items, high scores on the last three items, or medium scores on all items.
A screening instrument need not always be unidimensional. If, for example, a combination of different symptoms or signs is indicative of a diagnosis, a screening instrument could be multidimensional, and one consideration in constructing AUDIT was to include items representing hypothetically distinct dimensions to extend coverage of relevant domains and its predictive validity (see also Allen et al., 1997). Multidimensionality would require: (1) homogeneity of loadings for each factor; (2) low intercorrelation of factors to assure distinct dimensions; and (3) attachment of weights to each dimension to make possible the combination of screening results from different dimensions (e.g. to determine whether a positive screening of the consumption dimension is sufficient to detect problem drinking).
Although the developers of AUDIT used exploratory factor-analysis of a 150-item interview schedule with samples of patients in six countries (Saunders et al., 1993b), its internal consistency has been the subject of only little subsequent research with factor analysis, especially confirmatory factor analysis. We know of no research with heterogeneous samples of general populations. Exploratory factor analysis has yielded inconsistent results. In a population of female drug-dependent prisoners, El-Bassel et al. (1998) found one factor accounting for 67.3% of the variance. Skipsey et al. (1997) reported a single-factor structure explaining 64% of variance in a sample of drug-dependent patients. Medina-Mora et al. (1998) found a two-factor structure in a sample of male workers. In summary, exploratory factor analysis has suggested no generally simple factor structure for AUDIT, even in homogeneous populations. On the basis of these considerations, the study reported here was designed to test the following hypotheses:
- 1.
AUDIT constitutes either a unidimensional or a tri-dimensional screening instrument in the general population of Switzerland.
- 2.
The internal factor structure of AUDIT is the same for both Swiss drinking cultures.
Section snippets
Sample
The data were obtained from the second Swiss Health Survey (SHS), which was conducted in four waves between Spring and Winter 1997 to account for seasonal variation in drinking patterns. Data from the four waves were pooled into one data-set. The Survey used a mixed mode: a telephone interview with a subsequent self-administered mailed questionnaire. The mixed mode is not pertinent to the research question, because all the variables used in the present study were addressed in questions asked in
Descriptive analyses
Table 1 provides an overview of the population distribution of the variables by linguistic region. In general, no large discrepancies can be found between the weighted and unweighted analysis. Male, married, young and middle-aged individuals are slightly underrepresented in the sample.
Table 2 and Table 3 show mean values and standard deviations for each item and the total score of the modified AUDIT for the Swiss population and both linguistic regions. They show also percentages of positively
Discussion
AUDIT is widely used in different settings and different countries to screen for early alcohol problems. The present study, however, has indicated that in Switzerland the underlying construct of a modified AUDIT is not unidimensional and that the theoretically well-established tri-dimensional construct of ‘consumption’, ‘dependence’ and ‘harm’ cannot be empirically established by confirmatory factor analysis. This casts some doubt on the theoretical and practical basis of using a modified
Acknowledgements
The study was supported by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, Grant 316.96.5881, and the Swiss Federal Statistical Office.
References (63)
- et al.
Incorporating the AUDIT into a general telephone survey: a methodological experiment
Drug Alcohol Depend.
(2000) - et al.
Utility of the AUDIT for identification of hazardous or harmful drinking in drug-dependent patients
Drug Alcohol Depend.
(1997) - Alanko, T., 1997. Statistical Models for Estimating the Distribution Function of Alcohol Consumption: A Parametric...
- et al.
Screening instruments and biochemical screening tests
- et al.
A review of research on the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT)
Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res.
(1997) - Babor, T.F., De la Fuente, J.R., Saunders, J.B., Grant, M., 1989. Audit — The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification...
- et al.
From clinical research to secondary prevention: international collaboration in the development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT)
Alcohol Health Res. World
(1989) - et al.
The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) and the SMAST-13: predictive validity in a rural primary care sample
Alcohol Alcohol
(1993) - Bloomfield, K., Ahlström, S., Allamani, A., Choquet, M., Cipriani, F., Gmel, G., Janin Jaquat, B., Knibbe, R.A.,...
- et al.
The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): validation of a screening instrument for use in medical settings
J. Stud. Alcohol
(1995)
Overview of studies on drinking patterns and their reported consequences
Addiction
Alcohol screening questionnaires in women: a critical review
J. Am. Med. Assoc.
Alternative ways of assessing model fit
The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test
Arch. Intern. Med.
Alcohol control policy in Switzerland: an overview of political compromise
Analysis of cut points for screening instruments for alcohol problems in the emergency room
J. Stud. Alcohol
Brief screening instruments for alcoholism
Alcohol Health Res. World
The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) in a routine health examination of long-term unemployed
Addiction
Critical evaluation of several alcohol screening instruments using the CIDI-SAM as a criterion measure
Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res.
Predictive capacity of the AUDIT questionnaire for alcohol-related harm
Addiction
Assessing the World Health Organization's alcohol use disorder identification test among incarcerated women
J. Off Rehab.
Drinking alcohol with your meals in Switzerland: is it beneficial to your health?
Alcologia
Screening for alcohol problems in primary care: a systematic review
Arch. Intern. Med.
The epidemiology of alcohol use in Australian women: findings from a national survey of women's drinking
Addiction
The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) in a college sample
Int. J. Addict
Drinking Patterns and Their Consequences
Survey Errors and Survey Costs
Validity of the bi-axial dependence concept: a test in the US general population
Addiction
Meta-analysis of alcohol and all-cause mortality: a validation of NHMRC recommendations
Med. J. Aust.
Intoxication and hazardous use of alcohol: result from the 1992 Finnish Drinking Habits Study
Addiction
Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests
Psychometrika
Cited by (43)
Impulsivity-related personality traits and adolescent alcohol use: A meta-analytic review
2013, Clinical Psychology ReviewCitation Excerpt :A number of studies reviewed used measures which combined negative consequences and dependence symptoms (e.g. Colder & Chassin, 1997; Littlefield, Sher, & Wood, 2009). Additionally, items assessing harmful alcohol use and dependence symptoms have been shown to correlate highly and to load on a single latent factor (Gmel et al., 2001; Hasin, Muthuen, Wisnicki, & Grant, 1994). We also considered a further aspect of problematic alcohol use, that of binge drinking or heavy episodic use, in a separate set of analyses.
Gender differences in the factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test in multinational general population surveys
2012, Drug and Alcohol DependenceCitation Excerpt :Other researchers who compared one-, two-, and three-factor structures have concluded that the two-factor solution was superior to the one- or three-factor solutions (Bergman and Kallmen, 2002; Chung et al., 2002; Karno et al., 2000; Kelly and Donovan, 2001; Lima et al., 2005; Shields et al., 2004). Gmel et al. (2001), however, proposed a four-factor solution in a study that used CFA with a modified version of the AUDIT. Gender differences in drinking behavior and drinking consequences (Holmila and Raitasalo, 2005; Wilsnack and Wilsnack, 1997), raise questions about whether the factor structure of the AUDIT may differ between men and women.
Psychometric Properties of an Arabic Version of the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) scale among Lebanese Adults
2023, Journal of Drug and Alcohol Research