Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri.
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University.
Psychol Addict Behav. 2019 Feb;33(1):35-49. doi: 10.1037/adb0000443. Epub 2019 Jan 24.
Alcohol use disorder (AUD) diagnosis in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) contains a severity gradient based on number of criteria endorsed, implicitly assuming criteria are interchangeable. However, criteria vary widely in endorsement rates, implying differences in the latent severity associated with a symptom (e.g., Lane, Steinley, & Sher, 2016) and demonstrating criteria are not interchangeable (Lane & Sher, 2015). We evaluated whether variation in the severity of criteria could be resolved by employing multiple indicators of each criterion varying in item-level severity. We assessed 909 undergraduate students aged 18 years or older with at least 12 drinking occasions in the past year. Participants self-administered questions on alcohol consumption and past year AUD symptoms via an online survey. For each of the 11 AUD criteria, we selected three indicators based on the difficulty values of the one-parameter logistic item response theory model ranging from low to high. We first tested a higher order AUD factor defined by 11 lower order criterion factors, χ2(551) = 2,959.35, p < .0001; root mean square error of approximation = 0.09. The 33 items were used to create severity scores: a criterion count (0-11), symptom count (0-33), and factor scores derived from a bifactor model. Though our new scores resulted in incremental validity over DSM-5 across a range of external validators, when the standardized regression estimates were compared, the new scores did not consistently outperform the DSM-5 suggesting this approach is viable for developing more sensitive diagnostic instruments but needs further refinement. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
酒精使用障碍(AUD)的诊断在《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM-5;美国精神病学协会,2013 年)中包含一个基于所认可的标准数量的严重程度梯度,这暗示标准是可互换的。然而,标准的认可率差异很大,这意味着与一个症状相关的潜在严重程度存在差异(例如,Lane、Steinley 和 Sher,2016),并表明标准不可互换(Lane 和 Sher,2015)。我们评估了通过使用在项目难度级别上变化的每个标准的多个指标,是否可以解决标准严重程度的变化问题。我们评估了 909 名年龄在 18 岁或以上、过去一年至少有 12 次饮酒经历的大学生。参与者通过在线调查自行回答关于饮酒量和过去一年 AUD 症状的问题。对于 AUD 的 11 个标准中的每一个,我们根据单参数逻辑项目反应理论模型的难度值选择了三个指标,范围从低到高。我们首先测试了一个由 11 个低阶标准因素定义的高阶 AUD 因素,χ2(551) = 2959.35,p <.0001;近似均方根误差 = 0.09。33 个项目用于创建严重程度评分:标准计数(0-11)、症状计数(0-33)和来自双因素模型的因子分数。尽管我们的新分数在一系列外部验证器上产生了比 DSM-5 更高的增量有效性,但当比较标准化回归估计值时,新分数并没有始终优于 DSM-5,这表明这种方法可用于开发更敏感的诊断工具,但需要进一步改进。(PsycINFO 数据库记录(c)2019 APA,保留所有权利)。