The Use of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Consumption as an Indicator of Hazardous Alcohol Use among University Students

Open Access
Authors
Publication date 01-2020
Journal European Addiction Research
Volume | Issue number 26 | 1
Pages (from-to) 1-9
Number of pages 9
Organisations
  • Other - Research of the Student Medical Service
  • Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences (FMG) - Psychology Research Institute (PsyRes)
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hazardous drinking among students in higher education is a growing concern. The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) is the gold standard screening instrument for hazardous drinking in the adult population, for which an abbreviated version has been developed: the -AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C). Currently, there's no gold standard for identifying hazardous drinking among students in higher education and little evidence regarding the concurrent validity of the AUDIT-C as a screening instrument for this group. This study investigated the concurrent validity of the AUDIT-C in a sample of university students and suggests the most appropriate cutoff points.

METHODS: Cross-sectional data of health surveys from 5,401 university and university of applied sciences in the Netherlands were used. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for different cutoff scores of AUDIT-C were calculated for the total sample and for subgroups stratified by age, gender, and educational level. AUDIT-score ≥11 was used as the criterion of hazardous and harmful drinking.

RESULTS: Twenty percent of students were hazardous and harmful drinkers. The area under the ROC curve was 0.922 (95% CI 0.914-0.930). At an AUDIT-C cutoff score of ≥7, sensitivity and specificity were both >80%, while other cutoffs showed less balanced results. A cutoff of ≥8 performed better among males, but for other subgroups ≥7 was most suitable.

CONCLUSION: AUDIT-C seems valid in identifying hazardous and harmful drinking students, with suggested optimal cutoffs 7 (females) or 8 (males). However, considerations regarding avoiding false-positives versus false-negatives, in relation to the type of intervention following screening, could lead to selecting different cutoffs.

Document type Article
Language English
Published at https://doi.org/10.1159/000503342
Downloads
503342 (Final published version)
Permalink to this page
Back