Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 4:12:678819.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678819. eCollection 2021.

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Drug Use Disorder Identification Test and Its Short Form, the DUDIT-C, in German Adolescent Psychiatric Patients

Lukas A Basedow  1 , Sören Kuitunen-Paul  1 , Anna Eichler  2 , Veit Roessner  1 , Yulia Golub  1
Affiliations

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Drug Use Disorder Identification Test and Its Short Form, the DUDIT-C, in German Adolescent Psychiatric Patients

Lukas A Basedow et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Background: A common screening instrument for substance use disorders (SUDs) is the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) which includes a short form regarding only drug consumption (DUDIT-C). We aim to assess if a German version of the DUDIT, adapted for adolescents, is a suitable screening instrument in a sample of adolescent psychiatric patients.

Methods: N = 124 (54 female) German adolescent (M = 15.6 + 1.5 years) psychiatric patients completed the DUDIT and received a diagnostic interview (MINI-KID) assessing DSM-5 SUD criteria. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the area under the curve (AUC), and Youden's Index were calculated.

Results: A two-factor model of the DUDIT shows the best model fit (CFI = 0.995, SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.059, WRMR = 0.603). The DUDIT as well as the DUDIT-C show high diagnostic accuracy, with AUC = 0.95 and AUC = 0.88, respectively. For the DUDIT a cut-off value of 8.5 was optimal (sensitivity = 0.93, specificity = 0.91, J = 0.84), while for the DUDIT-C the optimal cut-off value was at 1.5 (sensitivity = 0.86, specificity = 0.84, J = 0.70).

Conclusion: This is the first psychometric evaluation of the DUDIT in German, adolescent psychiatric outpatients, using the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. The DUDIT as well as the DUDIT-C are well suited for use in this population. Since in our sample only few patients presented with a mild or moderate SUD, our results need to be replicated in a sample of adolescents with mild SUD.

Keywords: DUDIT; ROC curve; adolescence; cut-off; psychoactive drugs; screening; substance use disorder.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

During the past 36 months and unrelated to the presented analyses and data, SK-P received author fees (Mabuse Verlag). The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Distribution of raw values of the DUDIT and DUDIT C. Single dots represent the results from a single participant. A dotted line marks the optimal cut-off score based on Youden’s Index J. (A) Raw values and cut-off for DUDT in total sample. (B) Raw values and cut-off for DUDIT-C in total sample. (C) Raw values and cut-off for DUDIT in mild and moderate cases. (D) Raw values and cut-off for DUDIT-C in mild and moderate cases.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
ROC curves for the DUDIT and the DUDIT-C with sensitivity plotted against 100%-specificity. Dotted lines mark levels of sensitivity and 100%-specificity that are in line with optimal cut-off score based on Youden’s Index J. (A) ROC curve for the DUDIT in the complete sample. (B) ROC curve for the DUDIT in the sample of mild and moderate cases. (C) ROC curve for the DUDIT-C in the complete sample. (D) ROC curve for the DUDIT-C in the sample of mild and moderate cases.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Althubaiti A. (2016). Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 9 211–217. 10.2147/JMDH.S104807 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edn. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association.
    1. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5, 5th Edn. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association.
    1. Basedow L. A., Kuitunen-Paul S., Roessner V., Golub Y. (2020). Traumatic events and substance use disorders in adolescents. Front. Psychiatry 11:559. 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00559 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berman A. H., Bergman H., Palmstierna T., Schlyter F. (2005). Evaluation of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in criminal justice and detoxification settings and in a Swedish population sample. Eur. Addict. Res. 11 22–31. 10.1159/000081413 - DOI - PubMed