The Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST): First 40 Years and Future Developments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Since the original article was published over 40 years ago, the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST) developed at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health—CAMH, Toronto (www.camh.ca/) has become one of the most widely used addiction instruments in North America and internationally for population and clinical screening, assessment, and research in a broad range of settings. The developmental prototype contained 28 items (DAST-28) from which 2 versions were derived: the 10-item DAST-10 for screening and the more comprehensive 20-item DAST-20 for assessment and research. The first aim of this commentary review is to highlight recent trends in the wide-ranging use and research on the DAST. The international reach is exemplified by 18 (currently) translations and cultural adaptations. Research has shown that the DAST exhibits high levels of reliability and validity across a range of public health and clinical settings, and it is used as a benchmark in validation studies for other measures. The DAST is a recommended instrument by national agencies as an evidence-based screening tool, for example, https://cde.nida.nih.gov/. To address evolving contextual shifts, especially the imperative to reduce stigma, the second aim of this commentary is to introduce revised versions designated the DAST-10-R and DAST-20-R, which incorporate recommendations from NIDA’s (2021) Words Matter—Terms to Use and Avoid When Talking About Addiction. A feasibility study is described of the DAST-10-R in a community health center. Future research directions are outlined, including calibration of the DAST-R with the original DAST and evaluating utilization across the spectrum of public health, community, and clinical settings. Depuis la publication de l’article original il y a plus de 40 ans, le Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST) mis au point par le Centre for Addiction and Mental Health - CAMH, Toronto (www.camh.ca/) est devenu l’un des instruments les plus utilisés en Amérique du Nord et dans le monde pour le dépistage, l'évaluation et la recherche en population et en milieu clinique dans un large éventail de contextes. Le prototype de développement contenait 28 items (DAST-28) à partir desquels deux versions ont été dérivées : le DAST-10 à 10 items pour le dépistage et le DAST-20 à 20 items, plus complet, pour l'évaluation et la recherche. Le premier objectif de ce commentaire est de mettre en évidence les tendances récentes dans l’utilisation et la recherche à grande échelle du DAST. La portée internationale du DAST est illustrée par ses 18 traductions (actuelles) et ses adaptations culturelles. La recherche a montré que le DAST présente des niveaux élevés de fiabilité et de validité dans toute une série de contextes cliniques et de santé publique, et qu’il est utilisé comme référence dans les études de validation pour d’autres mesures. Le DAST est un instrument recommandé par les agences nationales en tant qu’outil de dépistage fondé sur des données probantes : par exemple, https://cde.nida.nih.gov/. Pour tenir compte de l'évolution du contexte, en particulier de l’impératif de réduction de la stigmatisation, le deuxième objectif de ce commentaire est de présenter les versions révisées désignées DAST-10-R et DAST-20-R, qui intègrent les recommandations du rapport du NIDA (2021) Words Matter - Terms to Use and Avoid When Talking About Addiction . Une étude de faisabilité du DAST-10-R dans un centre de santé communautaire est décrite. Les orientations futures de la recherche sont présentées, y compris l'étalonnage du DAST-R avec le DAST original et l'évaluation de l’utilisation à travers le spectre de la santé publique, de la communauté et des environnements cliniques.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it