Alcohol Research Group, Emeryville, California 94608, USA.
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012 Mar;73(2):328-36. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.328.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV), and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Edition (ICD-10), alcohol use disorders (AUDs) classifications offer competing and somewhat overlapping diagnostic tools for assessing alcohol dependence and harms/abuse. Both systems are in active stages of development in anticipation of their next respective iterations. Although much psychometric work has been done studying DSM-IV criteria, efforts toward the ICD-11 have been less prevalent.
Data from 3,191 drinkers in seven emergency department sites in four countries (United States, Mexico, Argentina, and Poland) were used to study the psychometric properties of the combined ICD-10 dependence and harms criteria. Comparisons with the proposed set of DSM-5 criteria and diagnostic thresholds are also included.
Item response theory analyses of the combined ICD-10 dependence and harms criteria suggested a single underlying factor, both overall and for each site separately, with only moderate differential item functioning across sites. Overall agreement between the summative combined ICD-10 dependence and harms criteria and the proposed 11-criteria DSM-5 scale was very high (r = .97), as was agreement between proposed diagnostic threshold levels of 0-1 (negative AUD), 2-3 (moderate AUD), and 4 or more (severe AUD) criteria endorsed (κ = .84). Although disagreement between the two three-level diagnoses was only 5.5% of the sample, a majority of these were because of differences between endorsement rates of abuse versus harms criteria.
Although there is support for efforts to align the two schemes, results are consistent with other studies finding the largest differences between the two systems emanating from differences between the abuse and harms domains. More research is needed before differences between the two systems can be reconciled.
《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》第 4 版(DSM-IV)和《国际疾病分类》第 10 版(ICD-10)对酒精使用障碍(AUD)的分类提供了相互竞争且有些重叠的诊断工具,用于评估酒精依赖和危害/滥用。这两个系统都在积极发展中,以适应各自的下一次迭代。尽管已经对 DSM-IV 标准进行了大量心理测量学研究,但针对 ICD-11 的研究则相对较少。
使用来自四个国家(美国、墨西哥、阿根廷和波兰)七个急诊站点的 3191 名饮酒者的数据,研究了 ICD-10 依赖和危害标准的组合的心理测量特性。还包括与 DSM-5 标准和诊断阈值的比较。
对 ICD-10 依赖和危害标准组合的项目反应理论分析表明,无论是整体还是每个站点,都存在一个单一的潜在因素,仅在站点之间存在中等程度的差异。ICD-10 依赖和危害标准的总和与提议的 11 项 DSM-5 量表之间的总体一致性非常高(r =.97),提议的诊断阈值水平 0-1(阴性 AUD)、2-3(中度 AUD)和 4 或更高(重度 AUD)标准之间的一致性也非常高(κ =.84)。尽管两个三电平诊断之间的差异仅占样本的 5.5%,但大多数差异是由于滥用与危害标准的认可率之间的差异造成的。
尽管有努力使这两个方案保持一致,但结果与其他研究一致,即两个系统之间的最大差异源于滥用和危害两个领域之间的差异。在能够协调两个系统之间的差异之前,还需要进行更多的研究。