Hasin D S, Grant B F
Drug Alcohol Depend. 1987 Mar;19(2):165-76. doi: 10.1016/0376-8716(87)90054-8.
Both the DIS and the SADS-L interviews offer researchers a procedure for assessing the presence of drug disorders categorized by drug class, as defined by psychiatric nomenclatures. In this study, the performance of the drug section of each interview was compared in a sample of hospitalized substance abuse patients. The classes of drug disorders assessed by both instruments and reported here include narcotics, amphetamines, sedatives and tranquilizers, cannabis, cocaine, and hallucinogens. On a group level, the DIS and SADS-L agreed fairly well for all drug classes except hallucinogens. A within-DIS comparison of DSM-III and Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) diagnoses followed the same pattern, except with higher agreement. Distinctions between drug abuse and dependence within a drug class were not as reliable as overall assessments. On only a small proportion of patients did the instruments agree completely for all drug classes within an individual. Implications of the findings for research on drug problems are discussed.
药物滥用及精神疾病诊断访谈（DIS）和Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Lifetime Version（SADS-L）访谈都为研究人员提供了一种程序，用于评估由精神病学术语定义的按药物类别分类的药物障碍的存在情况。在本研究中，对住院药物滥用患者样本中每次访谈的药物部分的表现进行了比较。两种工具评估并在此报告的药物障碍类别包括麻醉药品、苯丙胺、镇静剂和 tranquilizers（此处原英文“tranquilizers”有误，可能想表达“安定药”，统一翻译为“镇静催眠药”）、大麻、可卡因和致幻剂。在组水平上，除了致幻剂外，DIS和SADS-L对所有药物类别都相当一致。DSM-III和研究诊断标准（RDC）诊断在DIS内的比较遵循相同模式，但一致性更高。药物类别内药物滥用和药物依赖之间的区分不如总体评估可靠。只有一小部分患者的工具在个体内的所有药物类别上完全一致。讨论了研究结果对药物问题研究的影响。
