The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): Exploring the Factor Structure and Cutoff Thresholds in a Representative Post-Conflict Population in Northern Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Despite increased use of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in sub-Saharan Africa, few studies have assessed its underlying conceptual framework, and none have done so in post-conflict settings. Further, significant inconsistencies exist between definitions used for problematic consumption. Such is the case in Uganda, facing one of the highest per-capita alcohol consumption levels regionally, which is thought to be hindering rebuilding in the North after two decades of civil war. This study explores the impact of varying designation cutoff thresholds in the AUDIT as well as its conceptual factor structure in a representative sample of the population. METHODS: In all, 1720 Cango Lyec Project participants completed socio-economic and mental health questionnaires, provided blood samples and took the AUDIT. Participant characteristics and consumption designations were compared at AUDIT summary score thresholds of ≥3, ≥5 and ≥8. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) explored one-, two- and three-factor level models overall and by sex with relative and absolute fit indicators. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in participant demographic characteristics between thresholds. At higher cutoffs, the test increased in specificity to identify those with hazardous drinking, disordered drinking and suffering from alcohol-related harms. All conceptual models indicated good fit, with three-factor models superior overall and within both sexes. CONCLUSION: In Northern Uganda, a three-factor AUDIT model best explores alcohol use in the population and is appropriate for use in both sexes. Lower cutoff thresholds are recommended to identify those with potentially disordered drinking to best plan effective interventions and treatments. SHORT SUMMARY: A CFA of the AUDIT showed good fit for one-, two, and three-factor models overall and by sex in a representative sample in post-conflict Northern Uganda. A three-plus total AUDIT cutoff score is suggested to screen for hazardous drinking in this or similar populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".