differences were found <strong>in</strong> us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> AUDIT among adolescent <strong>in</strong>patients(Kelly et al., 2002)<strong>Co</strong>ncerns•y The AUDIT does not exam<strong>in</strong>e substance abuse problems occurr<strong>in</strong>g prior to<strong>the</strong> last year, <strong>and</strong> is more effective <strong>in</strong> detect<strong>in</strong>g current ra<strong>the</strong>r than previousalcohol problems (McCann, Simpson, Ries, & Roy-Byrne, 2000)•y The <strong>in</strong>strument has only moderate specificity (74 percent for <strong>the</strong> “<strong>Co</strong>re”,<strong>and</strong> 40 percent for <strong>the</strong> “Cl<strong>in</strong>ical” component; Bohn et al., 1995)•y There has been little research exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> temporal stability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>AUDIT•y The AUDIT has been found to be more effective <strong>in</strong> identify<strong>in</strong>g needs forassessment <strong>and</strong> treatment for justice-<strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong>dividuals when conductedseveral weeks after entry to prison (Maggia et al., 2004)•y The AUDIT-CSI is <strong>in</strong>vasive <strong>and</strong> must be conducted by a tra<strong>in</strong>ed healthstaff•y The AUDIT is less sensitive <strong>and</strong> more specific with females (Re<strong>in</strong>ert &Allen, 2002), <strong>and</strong> is generally a better screen for alcohol use disordersamong women (Dawson, Grant, St<strong>in</strong>son, & Zhou, 2005). Some haverecommended that cut<strong>of</strong>f score thresholds should be lowered when <strong>the</strong>AUDIT is used with women (Chung, <strong>Co</strong>lby, Barnett, & Monti, 2002),although <strong>the</strong>re is little research to validate <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> specific cut<strong>of</strong>f scoresfor this purpose•y The AUDIT has not been found to be highly accurate with <strong>the</strong> elderly(Re<strong>in</strong>ert & Allen, 2002). The AUDIT has been found to have low sensitivitybut good specificity with <strong>the</strong> elderly (O'<strong>Co</strong>nnell et al., 2004)•y With<strong>in</strong> a DUI sample, <strong>the</strong> AUDIT was found to be less effective <strong>in</strong>detect<strong>in</strong>g substance dependence than <strong>the</strong> MAST (<strong>Co</strong>nley, 2001)Availability <strong>and</strong> <strong>Co</strong>stThe AUDIT: Guidel<strong>in</strong>es for Use <strong>in</strong> Primary Care Sett<strong>in</strong>gs – Second Edition isavailable free <strong>of</strong> charge from <strong>the</strong> World Health Organization at http://whqlibdoc.who.<strong>in</strong>t/hq/2001/WHO_MSD_MSB_01.6a.pdf. This manual <strong>in</strong>cludes both <strong>the</strong><strong>in</strong>terview <strong>and</strong> self-report forms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> AUDIT. An onl<strong>in</strong>e self-test version <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>AUDIT is also available at http://www.counsel<strong>in</strong>g.caltech.edu/drug/selftest/test1.html, <strong>and</strong> an easy to use form <strong>and</strong> scor<strong>in</strong>g rules are available at http://www.narmc.amedd.army.mil/DeWitt/Physical%20Exams/forms/alcohol_survey.pdf.CAGEThe CAGE is a brief four-item screen to identify alcohol use problems (Mayfield,McCleod, & Hall, 1974). The CAGE is among <strong>the</strong> most widely used brief alcoholscreen<strong>in</strong>g measures used with adults (Bastiaens, Riccardi, & Sakhrani, 2002).The four questions make up <strong>the</strong> acronym CAGE <strong>and</strong> consist <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g: 1)73
have you felt you ought to Cut down on your dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g?; 2) have people Annoyedyou by criticiz<strong>in</strong>g your dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g?; 3) have you ever felt bad or Guilty about yourdr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g?; 4) have you had a dr<strong>in</strong>k first th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> morn<strong>in</strong>g to steady your nervesor to get rid <strong>of</strong> a hangover (Eye-opener)? A total score is obta<strong>in</strong>ed to reflect <strong>the</strong>level <strong>of</strong> alcohol use severity.Although <strong>the</strong> CAGE reviews lifetime alcohol problems, <strong>the</strong> NIAAA has developeda version <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CAGE that exam<strong>in</strong>es problems dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> past year. This version<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CAGE was found to be more specific but less sensitive than <strong>the</strong> traditionalCAGE (Bradley, Kivlahan, Bush, McDonnell, & Fihn, 2001). The CAGE canbe adm<strong>in</strong>istered via self-report or as an <strong>in</strong>terview, <strong>and</strong> similar outcomes areobta<strong>in</strong>ed through both approaches (Aegeerts, Buntix, Fevery, & Ansoms, 2000). Acomputerized version <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CAGE is also available, <strong>and</strong> this method has yieldedhigher rates <strong>of</strong> illegal drug use <strong>and</strong> substance use problems than adm<strong>in</strong>istrationthrough <strong>in</strong>terview (Turner et al., 2005). The CAGEAID has been developed forscreen<strong>in</strong>g drug use disorders.Positive Features•y The CAGE has moderately good sensitivity (74 percent) <strong>and</strong> very goodspecificity (97 percent) <strong>in</strong> diagnos<strong>in</strong>g substance use disorders among<strong>in</strong>dividuals with schizophrenia (McHugo, Paskus, & Drake, 1993), <strong>and</strong>generally has been shown to have good sensitivity <strong>and</strong> specificity amongcl<strong>in</strong>ical populations (Bastiaens et al., 2002)•y Test-retest reliability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CAGE was found to be .80 among psychiatricoutpatients, <strong>and</strong> .95 for a community sample (Teitelbaum & Carey, 2000)•y The CAGE does not require specific tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g to adm<strong>in</strong>ister•y The CAGE is quite brief to adm<strong>in</strong>ister•y The CAGE more effectively classifies college students than <strong>the</strong> SASSI-3(Clements, 2002). The CAGE has also been found to effectively dist<strong>in</strong>guishbetween adolescents who have alcohol dependence disorders <strong>and</strong> those whodo not have <strong>the</strong>se disorders (Hays & Ellickson, 2001)<strong>Co</strong>ncerns•y The CAGE does not exam<strong>in</strong>e patterns (e.g., quantity, frequency) <strong>of</strong>recent or past substance use, <strong>and</strong> exam<strong>in</strong>es a narrow range <strong>of</strong> diagnosticsymptoms related to alcohol abuse <strong>and</strong> dependence•y The CAGE has not been validated for use <strong>in</strong> crim<strong>in</strong>al justice sett<strong>in</strong>gs•y The reliability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CAGE ranges greatly (.52–.90) across samples(Shields & <strong>Co</strong>ruso, 2004)•y The CAGE does not effectively discrim<strong>in</strong>ate between heavy <strong>and</strong> non-heavydr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> general population samples (Bisson, Nadeau, & Demers 1999).Due to <strong>the</strong> focus on lifetime problems, <strong>the</strong> CAGE does not differentiatebetween persons with chronic alcohol problems <strong>and</strong> those who have notexperienced problems <strong>in</strong> many years (Bradley et al., 2001)74
- Page 1:
Screening and Assessmentof Co-Occur
- Page 5 and 6:
Screening Instruments for Co-Occurr
- Page 12 and 13:
daunting task, and often requires t
- Page 14 and 15:
Importance of Screening and Assessm
- Page 16 and 17:
•y•y•y•y•y•y•y•y•
- Page 18 and 19:
Developing a Comprehensive Screenin
- Page 20 and 21:
•y•y•y•y•y•y•y•y•
- Page 22 and 23:
These areas of cognitive and behavi
- Page 24 and 25:
•y•y•y•y•y•y•y•yAlc
- Page 26 and 27:
frequency of drug testing may be ta
- Page 28 and 29:
offer expanded tests that also incl
- Page 30 and 31:
self-disclosure of mental health or
- Page 32 and 33: should be determined by the severit
- Page 34 and 35: Special Clinical Issues in Screenin
- Page 36: suicide screening is important for
- Page 39 and 40: Maintaininga staff ofdiverse ethnic
- Page 41 and 42: The MHSF-III and the GAIN-SS were f
- Page 43 and 44: Key Information to Include in Asses
- Page 45 and 46: •y•y`` Vocational and education
- Page 47 and 48: approximately two hours. Either the
- Page 49 and 50: Texas Christian University Drug Scr
- Page 51 and 52: & Cirimele, 2006). Hair testing can
- Page 53 and 54: Appendix B: Screening Instruments f
- Page 55 and 56: Suicide Probability Scale (SPS)The
- Page 57 and 58: Positive Features•y•y•yThe TS
- Page 59 and 60: Appendix D: Screening Instruments f
- Page 61 and 62: Positive Features•y•y•y•yTh
- Page 63 and 64: Positive Features•y•y•y•y
- Page 65 and 66: Appendix F: Screening Instruments T
- Page 67 and 68: Availability and CostThe CAMH-CDS i
- Page 69 and 70: and one Axis II disorder (antisocia
- Page 71 and 72: Appendix G: Screening Instruments f
- Page 73 and 74: prior hospitalization for mental he
- Page 75 and 76: •yThe instrument has been used wi
- Page 77 and 78: •yThe instrument has not been use
- Page 79 and 80: Appendix H: Screening Instruments f
- Page 81: Positive Features•y•y•y•y
- Page 85 and 86: Concerns•y•y•yThe DALI was de
- Page 87 and 88: •y•y•y•y•y•y•ywith sc
- Page 89 and 90: Concerns80•y•y•y•y•y•y
- Page 91 and 92: Concerns•y The validity of the SS
- Page 93 and 94: Appendix I: Recommended Instruments
- Page 95 and 96: Concerns•y•y•y•yReliabiliti
- Page 97 and 98: •y•y•y•yScales and profile
- Page 99 and 100: •y•yand non-interpretable resul
- Page 101 and 102: Appendix L: Assessment Instruments
- Page 103 and 104: Philadelphia, PA 19106, (215) 399-0
- Page 105 and 106: treatment setting. Treatment progra
- Page 107 and 108: Concerns•y•y•yThe CIDI is qui
- Page 109 and 110: •y•y•yThe PDSQ has been used
- Page 111 and 112: Both a Research Version and a Clini
- Page 113 and 114: 104
- Page 115 and 116: Bastiaens, L., Riccardi, K., & Sakh
- Page 117 and 118: Carey, K. B., Carey, M. P., & Chand
- Page 119 and 120: Demmel, R., Beck, B., Richter, D.,
- Page 121 and 122: Gray, B. T. (2001). A factor analyt
- Page 123 and 124: Kessler, R. C., Wittchen, H. U., Ab
- Page 125 and 126: McLellan, A. T., Cacciola, J. S., &
- Page 127 and 128: Nochajski, T. H., & Stasiewicz, P.
- Page 129 and 130: Rollnick, H., Heather, N., Gold, R.
- Page 131 and 132: Teitelbaum L. M., & Mullen, B. (200
- Page 133:
Zimmerman, M., & Sheeran, T. (2003)