Bestimmung der konkurrenten Validität des CRAFFT-d
Ein Screeninginstrument für problematischen Alkoholkonsum bei Jugendlichen
Abstract
Fragestellung: Überprüft wurde, wie gut der CRAFFT-d problematischen Alkoholkonsum bei Jugendlichen identifizieren kann. Methodik: Die Kriteriumsvalidität des CRAFFT-d wurde anhand eines zweiten Tests erfasst. Parallel zum CRAFFT-d wurde der Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) verwendet. Es wurde überprüft, in wie weit die erzielten Urteile übereinstimmen. Die Instrumente wurden im Rahmen der Webseite www.drugcom.de («check your drinking») eingesetzt. Ergebnisse: Von den 12250 befragten Jugendlichen wiesen 54.2 % nach dem AUDIT und 63.6 % nach dem CRAFFT-d einen problematischen Alkoholkonsum auf. Die Testergebnisse zeigen eine hohe Übereinstimmung (Phi φ = .57; χ² 3978.671**, df = 1, p > .001). Bei einem Cut-off-Wert von 2 Punkten erzielte der CRAFFT-d eine Sensitivität von 88.8 % und eine Spezifität von 66.2 %. Schlussfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung legen nahe, dass der CRAFFT-d ein geeignetes Instrument zur Früherkennung von problematischem Alkoholkonsum bei Jugendlichen sein kann. Eine weitere Validierung anhand diagnostischer Kriterien ist jedoch nötig.
Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the concurrent validity of the CRAFFT-d alcohol abuse screening test for adolescents. Method: This criterion-related validity study compared the decisions of the CRAFFT-d with the decisions of the concurrently administered Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Data was obtained from an online questionnaire including CRAFFT-d and AUDIT. Results: Of the 12250 participants, 54.2 % were found to have an alcohol use disorder due to the AUDIT. CRAFFT-d identifies 63.6 % with problematic alcohol consumption. The Phi-coefficient showed high agreement between AUDIT and CRAFFT-d classifications (Phi Φ = .57; χ² 3978.671**; df = 1, p > .001). At a score of 2 or higher, CRAFFT showed sensitivity of 88.8 % and specificity of 66.2 %. Conclusion: The CRAFFT-d is a valid instrument for screening adolescents for problematic alcohol consumption. However, further comparison of CRAFFT items with diagnostic criteria for adolescents is needed.
Literatur
2000). The value of CAGE, CUGE, and AUDIT in screening for alcohol abuse and dependence among college freshmen. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24, 53–57.
(2002). The promise and challenge of e-health interventions. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26, 494–503.
(1992). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for use in primary health care. Geneva: World Health Organization.
(1999). Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler (5. Auflage). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
(2000). Neurocognitive functioning of adolescents: Effects of protracted alcohol use. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24, 164–171.
(2000). Behavioral health care dot-com and beyond: Computer-mediated communications in mental health and substance abuse treatment. American Psychologist, 55, 1290–1300.
(2004). Die Drogenaffinität Jugendlicher in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2004. Teilband Alkohol. Köln: Autor.
(2007). Alkoholkonsum der Jugendlichen in Deutschland 2004 bis 2007. Kurzbericht. Köln: Autor.
(2005). Alcohol screening in young persons attending a sexually transmitted disease. Clinic comparison of AUDIT, CRAFFT, and CAGE instruments. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20, 1–6.
(2002). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Factor structure in an adolescent emergency department sample. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 26, 223–231.
(2003). Validity of the CRAFFT in American-Indian and Alaska-Native adolescents: Screening for drug and alcohol risk. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 727–732.
(1999). Computer-tailored interventions motivating people to adopt health promoting behaviours: Introduction to a new approach. Patient Education and Counseling, 36, 99–105.
(2000). Weltgesundheitsorganisation. Internationale Klassifikation psychischer Störungen- ICD-10 Kapitel V (F) Diagnostische Kriterien für Forschung und Praxis. Bern: Hans Huber.
(1984). Detecting alcoholism. The CAGE questionnaire. Journal of the American Medical Association, 252, 1905–1907.
(2001). Risikokompetenz in der Suchtprävention. Prävention, 24, 102–104.
(1997). Age of onset of alcohol use and its association with DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: Results from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9, 103–110.
(2002). Youth risk behavior surveillance: United States, 2001. MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51(SS0 4), 1–62.
(2001). The dimensionality of alcohol abuse and dependence: A multivariate analysis of DSM-IV symptom items in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 150–157.
(1998). DSM-IV substance use disorder criteria for adolescents: A critical examination based on a statewide school survey. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 486–492.
(2004). Stratégies de repérage et d’évaluation de l’usage nocif de cannabis. In Cannabis et Santé (pp. 153–164). Paris: Flammarion.
(2002). A comparison of alcohol screening instruments among under-aged drinkers treated in emergency departments. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 37, 444–450.
(2004). Alcohol use disorders among emergency department-treated older adolescents: A new brief screen (RUFT-Cut) using the AUDIT, CAGE, CRAFFT, and RAPS-QF. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 28, 746–753.
(1987). Screening for risk factors for adolescent alcohol and drug use. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 141, 45–49.
(1999). A new brief screen for adolescent substance abuse. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153, 591–596.
(2002). Validity of the CRAFFT Substance Abuse Screening Test among adolescent clinic patients. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156, 607–614.
(2003). Validity of brief alcohol screening tests among adolescents: a comparison of the AUDIT, POSIT, CAGE, and CRAFFT. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 27, 67–73.
(2004). Die Europäische Schülerstudie zu Alkohol und anderen Drogen (ESPAD): Befragung von Schülerinnen und Schülern der 9. und 10. Klasse in Thüringen. München: Institut für Therapieforschung.
(2005): Repräsentativerhebung zum Gebrauch und Missbrauch psychoaktiver Substanzen bei Erwachsenen in Deutschland. Epidemiologischer Suchtsurvey 2003. Sucht: Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis, 51 (Sonderheft 1).
(1995). Onset and Staging of DSM-IV alcohol dependence using mean age and survival-hazard methods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 346–354.
(1996). Staging in the onset of DSM-IV alcohol symptoms in adolescents: survival/hazard analyses. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57, 549–558.
(1998). DSM-IV alcohol disorders in a general population sample of adolescents and young adults. Addiction, 93, 1065–1077.
(1991). Adolescent Assessment Referral system manual. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
(1989). Adolescent substance use instructor’s guide. In , Project ADEPT curriculum for primary care physician training (pp. 1–57). Providence, RI: Brown University.
(2001). Natural course of alcohol use disorders from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 83–90.
(2001). Lübecker Alkoholabhängigkeits und -missbrauchs-Screening Test (LAST). Manual. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
(1993). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption-II. Addiction, 88, 791–804.
(2002). Adolescent brain and the college drinker: Biological basis of propensity to use and misuse alcohol. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14 (Supplement), 71–81.
(2002). Gefährdung der Verkehrssicherheit durch Alkohol, Drogen und Benzodiazepine – Ein Überblick. Suchtmedizin in Forschung und Praxis, 4, 175–183.
P. (