Eland-Goossensen A, van de Goor I, Garretsen H, Schudel J
Institute for Addiction Research Rotterdam (IVO), Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J Subst Abuse Treat. 1997 Nov-Dec;14(6):585-91. doi: 10.1016/s0740-5472(97)00186-4.
Different instruments are used in clinical practice to assess comorbid psychopathology in addicted individuals. This study is aimed at comparing two of those instruments. In total, 327 heroin- and methadone-addicted individuals were interviewed in three treatment settings and outside treatment. Instruments used are the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). The former instrument results in a general measure of severity of psychopathology, while the latter results in categorical DSM-III-R diagnoses. A comparison of the results show, however, that the two types of data do not agree to a large extent. By using the DSM-III-R data as golden standard, it appeared that a part of the psychopathology cases was missed out by the ASI severity measures. The results, that are especially of interest for clinicians using the ASI, are presented for various disorders.
在临床实践中，会使用不同的工具来评估成瘾个体的共病精神病理学。本研究旨在比较其中两种工具。共有327名海洛因和美沙酮成瘾者在三种治疗环境及治疗之外接受了访谈。使用的工具是成瘾严重程度指数（ASI）和复合国际诊断访谈（CIDI）。前一种工具得出精神病理学严重程度的总体测量结果，而后一种工具得出DSM-III-R分类诊断结果。然而，结果比较显示，这两种类型的数据在很大程度上并不一致。以DSM-III-R数据作为金标准，结果表明ASI严重程度测量遗漏了一部分精神病理学病例。针对各种障碍呈现了这些结果，这对使用ASI的临床医生尤为重要。
