Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kypri, K.
Right arrow Articles by Dean, J. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kypri, K.
Right arrow Articles by Dean, J. I.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Alcohol and Alcoholism Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 465-467, 2002
© 2002 Medical Council on Alcohol

INTERPRETATION OF ITEMS IN THE AUDIT QUESTIONNAIRE

Kypros Kypri*, Rob McGee1, John B. Saunders2, John D. Langley and Johanna I. Dean3

Injury Prevention Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine and
1 Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, P. O. Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand,
2 Centre for Drug and Alcohol Studies, Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4029, Australia and
3 Early Intervention for Psychosis Service, Otago District Health Board, Dunedin, New Zealand

Received 6 December 2001; first review notified 12 February 2002; accepted 28 February 2002

— Aims: To test for the possibility that tertiary students misinterpret certain items on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Methods: Responses to alternative question wordings were compared with responses to standard items. Results: Alterations to items 5 and 9, so that consequences of drinking epitomized in these items were more specifically defined, resulted in markedly different response distributions to the item, but the total AUDIT score was not changed. Conclusions: Caution is necessary before using individual AUDIT items as measures of consequences in population surveys, and the possibility of false positives in total scores should be borne in mind.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Alcohol AlcoholHome page
K. Kypri and S. J. Gallagher
INCENTIVES TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION IN AN INTERNET SURVEY OF ALCOHOL USE: A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT
Alcohol Alcohol., September 1, 2003; 38(5): 437 - 441.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.