Maximizing the use of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) as a two-step screening tool

Few studies have examined Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) measurement invariance and no study has done so across clinically relevant drinking subgroups (e.g., unhealthy drinkers [UHDs] and those drinking below unhealthy drinking thresholds [non-UHDs]). Study 1 evaluated the factor structure and mea-surement invariance of the AUDIT across UHDs/non-UHDs (n = 1,350, 79.3 % female, 31.2 % UHDs). Study 2 validated a statistically derived 8-item AUDIT (AUDIT-8) in an independent sample of UHDs (n = 238, 49.2 % female). Confirmatory factor analysis examined factor structure and measurement invariance between UHDs/ non-UHDs. Item response theory and differential item functioning evaluated sources of variance and removed problematic items, yielding the AUDIT-8. Predictive validity and test-retest reliability of the AUDIT-8 were examined. In study 2, convergent validity and factor structure of the AUDIT-8 were examined. A unidimensional AUDIT model fit best. Invariance models suggested differences across UHDs/non-UHDs. Items 1-3 (consumption) were most relevant for the non-UHDs. Items 4-8 (problems) were most relevant for UHDs; however, items 4-8 were not relevant and rarely endorsed among non-UHDs. Items 9-10 performed poorly in both groups. Test -retest reliability and predictive validity of AUDIT-8 was acceptable. In a second sample of UHDs, AUDIT-8 had a unidimensional structure and acceptable convergent validity with measures of consumption, affect and drinking motives. Results suggest that only items 1-3 of the AUDIT should be administered in screenings for UHD among university students, with items 4-8 administered among positive screens to confirm UHD. Items 9-10 should be removed. Implications for AUDIT-8 as a two-part screening tool are discussed.