IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i19p3714-d272935.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predictive Validity, Diagnostic Accuracy and Test-Retest Reliability of the Strength of Urges to Drink (SUTD) Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Emma Beard

    (Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK
    Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK)

  • Jamie Brown

    (Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK
    Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK)

  • Robert West

    (Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK)

  • Colin Drummond

    (National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London SE5 8BB, UK)

  • Eileen Kaner

    (Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK)

  • Susan Michie

    (Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK)

Abstract

This study compared the 1-item Strength of Urges to Drink (SUTD) scale with the 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) on (i) test-retest reliability, (ii) predictive validity, and (iii) diagnostic accuracy. Data come from 2960 participants taking part in the Alcohol Toolkit Study (ATS), a monthly population survey of adults in England. The long-term test-retest reliability of the SUTD was ‘fair’, but lower than that for the AUDIT (Kappa weighted 0.24 versus 0.49). Individuals with “slight/moderate” urges to drink had higher odds of reporting an attempt to cut down relative to those not experiencing urges (adjusted odds ratios (AdjORs) 1.78 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43–2.22 and 1.54 95% CI 1.20–1.96). Drinkers reporting “moderate/slight/strong” urges to drink had mean change in consumption scores which were 0.16 (95% CI −0.31 to −0.02), 0.40 (95% CI −0.56 to −0.24) and 0.37 (95% CI −0.69 to −0.05) units lower than those reporting no urges. For all outcomes, strong associations were found with AUDIT scores. The accuracy of the SUTD for discriminating between drinkers who did and did not reduce their consumption was ‘acceptable’, and similar to that for the AUDIT (ROC AUC 0.6). The AUDIT had better diagnostic accuracy in predicting change in alcohol consumption. The SUTD may be an efficient dynamic measure of urges to drink for population surveys and studies assessing the impact of alcohol-reduction interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma Beard & Jamie Brown & Robert West & Colin Drummond & Eileen Kaner & Susan Michie, 2019. "Predictive Validity, Diagnostic Accuracy and Test-Retest Reliability of the Strength of Urges to Drink (SUTD) Scale," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-15, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:19:p:3714-:d:272935
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/19/3714/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/19/3714/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:19:p:3714-:d:272935. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.