Predictive utility of the brief Screener for Substance and Behavioral Addictions for identifying self-attributed problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Brief Screener for Substance and Behavioral Addictions (SSBAs) was developed to assess a common addiction construct across four substances (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and cocaine), and six behaviors (gambling, shopping, videogaming, eating, sexual activity, and working) using a lay epidemiology perspective. This paper extends our previous work by examining the predictive utility of the SSBA to identify self-attributed addiction problems. METHOD: Participants (N = 6,000) were recruited in Canada using quota sampling methods. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROCs) analyses were conducted, and thresholds established for each target behavior's subscale to predict self-attributed problems with these substances and behaviors. For each substance and behavior, regression models compared overall classification accuracy and model fit when lay epidemiologic indicators assessed using the SSBA were compared with validated screening measures to predict selfattributed problems. RESULTS: ROC analyses indicted moderate to high diagnostic accuracy (Area under the curves (AUCs) 0.73-0.94) across SSBA subscales. Thresholds for identifying self-attributed problems were 3 for six of the subscales (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, shopping, and gaming), and 2 for the remaining four behaviors (gambling, eating, sexual activity, and working). Compared to other instruments assessing addiction problems, models using the SSBA provided equivalent or better model fit, and overall had higher classification accuracy in the prediction of self-attributed problems. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The SSBA is a viable screening tool for problematic engagement across ten potentially addictive behaviors. Where longer screening tools are not appropriate, the SSBA may be used to identify individuals who would benefit from further assessment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".