Highly endorsed screening and assessment scales for alcohol problems: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Problems associated with alcohol use are multidimensional with psychiatric, psychological, physical, and social aspects, which makes it challenging to choose appropriate assessment scales. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of existing alcohol scales. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for articles that assessed the psychometric properties of scales for alcohol use disorder on March 19, 2023, using Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Only scales whose original development papers were cited more than 20 times were included. The methodological quality and psychometric properties of the scales were evaluated using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. The overall rating of the scales were assessed with a score ranging from 0 to 18. RESULTS: In total, 314 studies and 40 scales were identified. These scales differ widely in measurement methods, target populations, and psychometric properties. The overall mean score was 6.3, and only the following three scales received >9 points suggesting a moderate level of evidence: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS), and Short Alcohol Dependence Data Questionnaire (SADD). Measurement error and responsiveness were not evaluated or reported in the included scales. CONCLUSIONS: Although the AUDIT, ADS, and SADD were rated the highest among the 40 scales, they showed, at most, a moderate level of evidence. These findings underscore the need to accumulate further evidence to assure the quality of the scales. It may be advisable to select and combine scales to meet the purpose of the 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".