Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Aug 31.
Published in final edited form as: Addiction. 2019 Jun 19;114(9):1683–1693. doi: 10.1111/add.14651

Table 4.

Screening instrument performance in identifying illicit drug use by race, site, trimester and receipt of public assistance.

SURP-P WIDUS CRAPPT 5Ps NIDA Quick Screen Interaction significance (P)
Acc. Sens. Spec. Acc. Sens. Spec. Acc. Sens. Spec. Acc. Sens. Spec. Acc. Sens. Spec. Acc. Sens. Spec.
Race/ethnicity < 0.01 0.57 < 0.01
 Black (n = 480) 0.67 0.51 0.73 0.68 0.63 0.70 0.72 0.34 0.86 0.52 0.80 0.42 0.81 0.31 0.99
 White (n = 444) 0.55 0.61 0.55 0.86 0.76 0.87 0.62 0.45 0.64 0.31 0.91 0.26 0.94 0.22 0.99
 Hispanic, (n = 190) 0.67 0.29 0.74 0.63 0.39 0.68 0.78 0.21 0.88 0.46 0.64 0.43 0.87 0.19 0.98
Site < 0.01 0.38 < 0.01
 New Haven (n = 554) 0.67 0.47 0.71 0.70 0.63 0.71 0.75 0.30 0.84 0.49 0.75 0.44 0.87 0.20 0.99
 Detroit (n = 333) 0.65 0.51 0.72 0.67 0.61 0.70 0.69 0.35 0.84 0.50 0.82 0.37 0.79 0.34 0.99
 Boston (n = 333) 0.55 58 0.55 0.92 0.75 0.93 0.62 0.58 0.62 0.29 0.92 0.26 0.97 0.17 10.00
Trimester 0.13 0.03 NA
 First (n = 430) 0.65 0.44 0.70 0.78 0.59 0.83 0.68 0.27 0.78 0.45 0.70 0.39 0.86 0.29 10.00
 Second (n = 394) 0.63 0.51 0.66 0.74 0.66 0.76 0.69 0.41 0.76 0.44 0.87 0.34 0.87 0.34 0.99
 Third (n = 396) 0.62 0.58 0.62 0.73 0.64 0.74 0.73 0.37 0.77 0.42 0.87 0.38 0.89 0.11 0.98
Public assistance < 0.01 0.60 < 0.01
 Yes (n = 539) 0.69 0.52 0.75 0.63 0.65 0.62 0.73 0.34 0.87 0.53 0.79 0.44 0.80 0.27 0.98
 No (n = 668) 0.59 0.45 0.60 0.86 0.53 0.88 0.67 0.35 0.70 0.36 0.80 0.32 0.94 0.28 1.00

SURP-P = Substance Use Risk Profile–Pregnancy; WIDUS = Wayne Indirect Drug Use Screener; CRAFFT = acronym for five-item screener with items related to car, relax, alone, forget, friends and trouble; 5Ps = parents, peers, partner, pregnancy, past; Acc. = accuracy, defined as overall rate of agreement (true positives + true negatives/full sample); sens. = sensitivity; spec. = specificity; NA = not applicable. Accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were calculated using published cut scores.