Taylor Purcell, El-Sabawi Taleed, Cangin Causenge
a Declare Therapy Center, Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio , USA.
b College of Public Health, Division of Health Services and Management & Policy, The Ohio State University , Columbus , Ohio , USA.
J Am Coll Health. 2016 Jul;64(5):397-403. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2016.1168429. Epub 2016 Mar 23.
To improve the CAGE (Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye opener) questionnaire's predictive accuracy in screening college students.
The sample consisted of 219 midwestern university students who self-administered a confidential survey.
Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, receiver operating characteristics (ROC), and Cronbach's alpha were used to analyze factor structure, validity, and reliability.
The modified CAGE correctly classified students with alcohol abuse ("AA students"; area under the curve [AUC] = 0.7765) and students with alcohol dependency ("AD students"; AUC = 0.8392) more often than CAGE (AA students: AUC = 0.6977; AD students: AUC = 0.7437), and these differences are statistically significant (AA students: χ(2)(1) = 14.72, p < .001; AD students: χ(2)(1) = 7.71, p < .01). Using 2-point cut scores, CAGE correctly identified 59.38% of AD students as AD, whereas the modified CAGE correctly identified 87% of AD students as AD. Using 1-point cut scores, CAGE correctly identified 65% AA students, whereas the modified CAGE identified 85.29%.
The modified CAGE has better accuracy than CAGE in predicting AA and AD among college populations.
提高CAGE（减少饮酒量、烦恼、内疚、警醒）问卷在筛查大学生方面的预测准确性。
样本包括219名中西部大学生，他们自行填写了一份保密调查问卷。
采用探索性因素分析、验证性因素分析、受试者工作特征曲线（ROC）和克朗巴哈系数来分析因素结构、效度和信度。
改良后的CAGE比CAGE能更准确地对酗酒学生（“AA学生”；曲线下面积[AUC]=0.7765）和酒精依赖学生（“AD学生”；AUC=0.8392）进行分类，而CAGE对AA学生（AUC=0.6977；AD学生：AUC=0.7437）的分类准确性较低，且这些差异具有统计学意义（AA学生：χ(2)(1)=14.72，p<.001；AD学生：χ(2)(1)=7.71，p<.01）。采用2分的截断分数时，CAGE能正确识别出59.38%的AD学生为AD，而改良后的CAGE能正确识别出87%的AD学生为AD。采用1分的截断分数时，CAGE能正确识别出约65%的AA学生，而改良后的CAGE能识别出85.29%。
在预测大学生中的酗酒和酒精依赖方面，改良后的CAGE比CAGE具有更高的准确性。
Zotero 插件