Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Validity of the Swedish SCID and ADDIS diagnostic interviews for substance use disorders: Sensitivity and specificity compared with a LEAD golden standard
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. Research Platform of Social Work.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8158-0486
Clinic of Psychiatry, NU Hospital Group, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.
Clinic of Psychiatry, NU Hospital Group, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.
2015 (English)In: Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, ISSN 0803-9488, E-ISSN 1502-4725, Vol. 69, no 1, 48-56 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective: The study explores agreement on diagnoses and diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders between two structured assessment interviews, the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV (SCID) and the Alkohol/Drog Diagnos InStrument (ADDIS). Both interviews are compared with a golden standard (GS), based on a LEAD model (Longitudinal, Expert, All Data). Method: Patients were interviewed concerning substance use problems by trained interviewers using SCID and ADDIS separately and blind to each other's results. SCID and ADDIS interviews were compared with each other, and both were compared with a GS. Results: Satisfactory agreement exists between SCID and ADDIS on criteria as well as final diagnostic suggestions, although ADDIS tended to propose dependence diagnoses somewhat more often than SCID. Agreement between SCID and GS is moderate. Sensitivity of SCID is satisfactory, as is specificity for lifetime diagnoses, while specificity for current diagnoses is perfect. ADDIS demonstrates substantial to perfect agreement with GS on dependence diagnoses and moderate agreement on abuse diagnoses (both lifetime and current), as well as showing excellent to perfect overall sensitivity and specificity. Both instruments are in almost perfect agreement with the GS on severity ratings. Conclusion: Both ADDIS and SCID can be used to ensure good standards in the diagnostic assessment of substance use disorders (both alcohol and drugs), with and without psychiatric comorbidity. Significant outcomes. Both SCID and ADDIS are in good agreement with the GS based on a LEAD model concerning substance use disorders.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 69, no 1, 48-56 p.
Keyword [en]
ADDIS, SCID, Sensitivity, Specificity, Substance use disorders, Validity
National Category
Applied Psychology Social Work Substance Abuse
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-23808DOI: 10.3109/08039488.2014.926987ISI: 000346342500007PubMedID: 25298163Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84918536045OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-23808DiVA: diva2:717636
Available from: 2014-05-16 Created: 2014-05-16 Last updated: 2016-03-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Gerdner, Arne
By organisation
HHJ. Research Platform of Social Work
In the same journal
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry
Applied PsychologySocial WorkSubstance Abuse

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 465 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf