Corrigendum to “Examining a brief measure and observed cutoff scores to identify reward and relief drinking profiles: Psychometric properties and pharmacotherapy response” [Drug Alcohol Depend. 232 (2022) 109257]

The authors regret they discovered an error made during the calculation and reporting of sensitivity and specificity estimates in the present manuscript. Of critical importance, these changes do not affect any of the substantive results, interpretations, or conclusions of this paper.

In Supplementary Table 1, sensitivity and specificity estimates were reported for four iterations of cutoff scores to identify observed reward and relief drinking subgroups; these sensitivity and specificity estimates represented correspondence with latent reward and relief drinking profiles. However, in the original Supplementary Table 1, sensitivity and specificity estimates were incidentally reported for the value of the cutoff score at 0.5 across the four iterations of reward/relief drinking cutoff scores. This error was made because 0.5 is the default value in SPSS for calculating sensitivity and specificity estimates from area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses when the test variable is binary. However, we intended to report sensitivity and specificity estimates for the value of 1 for the various cutoff scores, indicating a participant was above a cutoff score for a given reward/relief drinking subgroup. As such, we recalculated sensitivity and specificity estimates for the four iterations of cutoff scores, which are now reported in the updated Supplementary Table 1. Of note, for cutoff score iteration 4, which represented our selected cutoff scores for determining observed reward and relief subgroups, all sensitivity and specificity estimates were still considered “good” after this correction.

In addition, please see below for the single correction needed to the text of the original published article.

The change in text is needed for the second to last sentence in section “3.2. Developing cutoff scores for reward and relief drinking profiles.” The original sentence read:

“These cutoff scores (Figure 3) best represented the subgroups theoretically, had easily interpretable scoring guidelines, and demonstrated good sensitivity (0.798–1.000) and specificity (0.926–1.000).”.

The revised sentence should read:

“These cutoff scores (Figure 3) best represented the subgroups theoretically, had easily interpretable scoring guidelines, and demonstrated good sensitivity (0.784–1.000) and specificity (0.916–1.000)”.

The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.