This research was supported by Grunts ROI AA08159 and KO2 AA00161 (to D.H.). and by the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene.
Alcohol Dependence and Abuse Diagnoses: Concurrent Validity in a Nationally Representative Sample
Article first published online: 30 MAY 2006
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
Volume 23, Issue 1, pages 144–150, January 1999
How to Cite
Hasin, D. and Paykin, A. (1999), Alcohol Dependence and Abuse Diagnoses: Concurrent Validity in a Nationally Representative Sample. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 23: 144–150. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1999.tb04036.x
- Issue published online: 30 MAY 2006
- Article first published online: 30 MAY 2006
- Received for publication March 2. 1998; accepted October 7, 1998
- Alcohol Dependence;
- Alcohol Abuse;
- Drinking Problems;
- Alcohol Epidemiology
The Alcohol Dependence Syndrome concept has had a widespread influence on the major nosological classification systems, most recently with its operationalization as DSM-IV alcohol dependence. Although many studies have provided evidence of the validity of the Alcohol Dependence Syndrome in clinical samples, little validation work has been conducted in general population samples on DSM-IV alcohol dependence or the distinction of DSM-IV alcohol dependence from DSM-IV alcohol abuse. We therefore examined the cross-sectional validity of DSM-IV alcohol dependence and abuse in 27,616 household residents who participated in a 1992 national survey on alcohol use disorders. Validity was investigated by testing the association of a set of five “criterion” variables, external to the alcohol diagnostic criteria, with dependence and abuse diagnoses. Results indicated that dependence diagnoses were significantly associated with all criterion variables when compared with those with no diagnosis and also when compared with alcohol abuse. This supported the separation of dependence from abuse. Abuse diagnoses were associated with some, but not all, criterion variables when compared with subjects with no diagnosis. This report replicates many aspects of a similar investigation in a community sample of household residents. Implications for the next steps in research are discussed.