Table 7.
Optimal scores and classification performance of the AUDIT versions for likely AUD.
| Scale | Optimal Score | Sensitivity | Specificity | J | Study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males | |||||
| AUDIT | 9 | .82 | .63 | .45 | Hagman (2016) |
| 7 | .76 | .75 | .51 | *This study | |
| AUDIT-C | 5 | .59 | .83 | .42 | Hagman (2015) |
| 4 | .80 | .61 | .41 | *This study | |
| USAUDIT | 13 | .69 | .81 | .50 | McCabe et al. (2019) |
| 12 | .62 | .87 | .49 | *This study | |
| USAUDIT-C | 10 | .61 | .71 | .32 | McCabe et al. (2019) |
| 6 | .86 | .57 | .43 | *This study | |
| Females | |||||
| AUDIT | 8 | .59 | .75 | .34 | Hagman (2016) |
| 6 | .62 | .88 | .51 | *This study | |
| AUDIT-C | 3 | .73 | .67 | .40 | Hagman (2015) |
| 3 | .78 | .59 | .37 | *This study | |
| USAUDIT | 8 | .83 | .80 | .63 | McCabe et al. (2019) |
| 8 | .65 | .88 | .53 | *This study | |
| USAUDIT-C | 5 | .88 | .71 | .59 | McCabe et al. (2019) |
| 7 | .54 | .85 | .39 | *This study |
N for each study was McCabe (162 males, 88 females); Hagman 2015 (472 males, 1225 females); Hagman 2016 (133 males, 118 females); This study (120 males, 263 females).