Search

The psychometric properties of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT), an 11-item self-report questionnaire developed to screen individuals for drug problems, are evaluated. The measure, developed in Sweden and evaluated there with individuals with severe drug problems, has not been evaluated with less severe substance abusers or with clinical populations in the United States. Participants included 35 drug abusers in an outpatient substance abuse treatment program, 79 drug abusers in a residential substance abuse treatment program, and 39 alcohol abusers from both treatment settings who did not report a drug abuse problem. The DUDIT was found to be a psychometrically sound drug abuse screening measure with high convergent validity (r=.85) when compared with the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10), and to have a Cronbach's alpha of .94. In addition, a single component accounted for 64.91% of total variance, and the DUDIT had sensitivity and specificity scores of .90 and .85, respectively, when using the optimal cut-off score of 8. Additionally, the DUDIT showed good discriminant validity as it significantly differentiated drug from alcohol abusers. These findings support the DUDIT as a reliable and valid drug abuse screening instrument that measures a unidimensional construct. Further research is warranted with additional clinical populations.

Objective: This article addresses whether measures for assessing premorbid intellectual functioning are adequate for geriatric schizophrenia. Method: We included geriatric schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SSD; n = 37), frontotemporal dementia (FTD; n = 41), and geriatric controls (n = 107), and employed measures of verbal ability. Results: Pearson's correlations and ANOVAs for discrepancy comparisons showed unique patterns of spared function in SSD when compared to FTD and controls. Conclusions: Findings lend support to the specificity of cognitive processes in SSD, even when accounting for processes common to the theoretically similar FTD. SSD showed a distinct pattern of spared ability which supports clinical utilization of discrepant measures of premorbid intellectual estimation for SSD.

A recent study comparing the Quick Drinking Screen (QDS) with the Timeline Followback (TLFB) found that in a nonclinical population of problem drinkers both measures produced reliable summary measures of drinking. The current study was designed to replicate these findings with a clinical population of alcohol abusers. The data were collected over three years (2004-2006).Participants were 124 alcohol abusers who voluntarily enrolled for outpatient treatment. Over half (52.4%) were female with an average age of almost 40 years. About a third were married, had completed university, and a quarter were unemployed and nonwhite. Participants reported having a drinking problem for an average of 8.3 years, and reported drinking on about 5 days per week, averaging six drinks per drinking day. On two different occasions, they responded to two different sets of questions about their alcohol use. The instruments were: (a) the Quick Drinking Screen (QDS), a summary drinking measure, administered by telephone prior to the assessment; and (2) the TLFB self-administered by computer at the assessment.As in a previous study, this study found that the QDS and the TLFB, two very different drinking measures, collected similar aggregate drinking data for four drinking variables in a clinical sample of alcohol abusers.When it is not necessary or not possible to gather detailed drinking data, the QDS produces reliable brief summary measures of drinking for problem drinkers. Generalization to nonclinical samples awaits further research.

When assessing individuals with alcohol use disorders, measurement of drinking can be a resource intensive activity, particularly because many research studies report data for intervals ranging from 6 to 12 months prior to the interview. This study examined whether data from shorter assessment intervals is sufficiently representative of longer intervals to warrant the use of shorter intervals for clinical and research purposes. Participants were 825 problem drinkers (33.1% female) who were recruited through media advertisements to participate in a community-based mail intervention in Toronto, Canada. Participants' Timeline Followback (TLFB) reports of drinking were used to investigate the representativeness of different time windows for estimating annual drinking behavior. The findings suggest that for aggregated reports of drinking and with large sample (e.g., surveys), a 1-month window can be used to estimate annual consumption. For individual cases (e.g., clinical use) and smaller samples, a 3-month window is recommended. These results suggest that shorter time windows, which are more time and resource efficient, can be used with little to no loss in the accuracy of the data.

Forty mothers whose preterm infants were about to be discharged from the Neonatal Intermediate Care Nursery (NICU) were randomly assigned to two groups: the first group of mothers conducted preterm infant massage and the second group only observed their preterm infants receiving massage. Both groups of mothers had lower depressed mood scores following the session. However, only the group who massaged their infants had lower anxiety scores after the session.

Although Hispanics/Latinos constitute the largest ethnic minority group in the United States, there are few culturally and linguistically valid Spanish language clinical assessment instruments. This shortage is even more critical in the addictions field. This article presents the psychometric characteristics of two drug abuse screening instruments; the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10), and the Reduce Annoyed Guilty Start (RAGS) test that were translated into Spanish. Participants included 60 drug abusers, 35 alcohol abusers, and 127 individuals with no alcohol and/or drug problem. Results indicated that the Spanish versions of the two drug abuse screening instruments were reliable and unidimensional and differentiated drug abusers from non-substance abusers and from alcohol abusers.

This study examined the tripartite model of depression and anxiety in 131 psychiatric outpatients, ages 55-87. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that a 3-factor model provided an adequate fit to the observed data, that the 3-factor model was empirically superior to 1- or 2-factor models, and that the 3-factor structure obtained in the current sample of older adult outpatients converged with that obtained on a separate, younger 'sample. Negative affect was significantly related to depression and anxiety symptoms and syndromes, and positive affect was more highly related to depression than anxiety symptoms and syndromes. Ways for taking into account possible age-associated differences in emotion in older adults and thus improving the conceptual model of anxiety and depression are briefly noted.

Very little research has been conducted on what time window provides a representative picture of daily drinking. With respect to pretreatment drinking, one study that used the Timeline Followback (TLFB) with problem drinkers found that a 3-month window is generally representative of annual pretreatment drinking. The objective of the present study was to determine the shortest representative time window for reports of annual posttreatment drinking. A second objective was to determine which of two time windows, 90 days from the end of treatment or 90 days prior to the end of follow-up, was the most representative proxy for annual posttreatment drinking. TLFB reports from 467 problem drinkers who participated in a randomized controlled trial of a mail-based intervention were used in the present analysis. The results show that a 3-month posttreatment window (i.e., first 90 days after the intervention) is sufficiently representative (r = .94) of annual posttreatment drinking for problem drinkers (i.e., less severely dependent alcohol abusers). In addition, although there were no clinically significant differences in drinking behavior between the two 90-day posttreatment windows, the use of proximal windows (i.e., closer to the end of treatment) would minimize participant attrition. In addition, a 3-month versus 12-month TLFB follow-up time frame resulted in a much higher percentage of participants completing the full TLFB (89% vs. 71%). Further research is needed to determine if these findings will generalize to more severely dependent alcohol abusers.

In this study, the authors used cigarette smokers' narratives describing their quit attempts to understand factors related to the change process. Maintained quitters (MQs, n = 59) and temporary quitters (TQs, n = 47) wrote autobiographical narratives describing their most serious (TQs) or last (MQs) quit attempt. Two types of content analysis were used to analyze the reports: (a) dichotomous ratings of the presence or absence of an event and (b) computerized content analysis of event or word frequency. The valence (anti- or pro-smoking cessation) of change factors was also examined. MQs wrote significantly more affective statements than did TQs. When valence was examined, MQs made significantly more pro-smoking cessation social support, cognitive, and affective statements than TQs did, and TQs made significantly more anti-smoking cessation social support and affective statements than MQs did.

Two major strategies have typically been used to assess recent drinking: (1) Daily Estimation (DE) measures such as the Timeline Followback (TLFB) and (2) Quantity-Frequency (QF) summary measures. Although QF measures provide a quick and easy measure of consumption, they have been criticized as not being able to capture sporadic and unpatterned drinking (e.g., days that reflect important social and/or health risks). The TLFB, a psychometrically sound drinking assessment method, is able to capture all drinking, including sporadic heavy days and unpatterned drinking. In some situations, however, recall of daily drinking may not be possible or practical (e.g., limited time; no resources). This article compares results obtained by using a QF measure and a DE measure to assess problem drinkers' pretreatment drinking.The current study, part of a large community mail intervention with 825 alcohol abusers, compared results from two drinking measures covering the same time interval that were administered on two different occasions approximately 2.5 weeks apart. Both measures, the Quick Drinking Screen (QDS; a QF summary measure that collected data by telephone) and the TLFB (a self-administered daily estimation measure), collected drinking data for the year prior to the interview.Although the QDS and the TLFB are very different drinking measures, remarkably similar aggregate drinking data were obtained for five drinking variables.When it is not necessary or possible to gather detailed drinking data, the QDS produces reliable brief summary measures of drinking, at least for not severely alcohol dependent individuals. Also, respondents do not appear to use a repetitive response pattern when completing the TLFB.