Artículo

Scaling properties of the combined ICD-10 dependence and harms criteria and comparisons with DSM-5 alcohol use disorder criteria among patients in the emergency department

Bond, Jason ; Ye, Yu ; Cherpitel, Cheryl J. ; Borges, Guilherme ; Cremonte, Mariana Icon; Moskalewicz, Jacek ; Swiatkiewicz, Grazyna

Otros responsables

Fecha

06/2012

Editorial

Alcohol Res Documentation Inc Cent Alcohol Stud Rutgers Univ

Revista

Journal Of Studies On Alcohol And Drugs

Título del libro

Nombre del evento

Fecha del evento

Institución organizadora

ISSN

1937-1888

eISSN

ISBN

Idioma

Inglés

Tipo del evento

Clasificación temática

Resumen

Objective: 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. Method: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Aprobación

Revisión

Complementado por

Referenciado por

Licencia Creative Commons

Excepto donde se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este ítem se describe como by-nc-sa