Background: Substance use is a growing problem worldwide, and there is a great need to develop national policies addressing prevention and treatment of substance-use disorders (SUD). However, the lack of a commonly used, valuable diagnostic tool to assess the symptoms of SUDs precludes comparison of the prevalence of drug-use problems as well as the efficacy of policy strategies applied in different countries. This study was conducted to validate one of the commonly used scales the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (the DUDIT) for use in Polish condition. Objectives: The aims of this study were to test the reliability of the DUDIT in the Polish population, to confirm the comparative stability of the factor structure of the instrument, and to verify previously proposed DUDIT cutoff scoring. Methods: The group of drug users comprised 127 patients aged 19–40 years (mean age 30.37, SD 6.36) with a diagnosis of SUD, while the control group consisted of 533 students aged 19–25 years (mean age 20.72, SD 1.88). All participants completed the Polish version of the DUDIT. Internal consistency of the Polish version of the DUDIT was determined, and subsequently external validation was performed. Results: Analysis showed that the Polish version of the DUDIT was characterized by a good reliability based on Cronbach’s α, with a value of 0.92. The between-group comparison revealed a significant difference between the control group and substance-dependent patients corresponding to a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 3.27). The receiver-operating characteristic analysis, comparing the DUDIT score to the ICD-10 diagnosis of SUD, showed an optimal cutoff value of 7 points, with a sensitivity of 0.929 and a specificity of 0.974. Conclusion: These results constitute preliminary evidence that the Polish version of the DUDIT may be a valid and reliable screening tool for drug-use disorders in the Polish population.

1.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Report 2014.
4.
Poland Drug Report. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu.
5.
Henderson JL, Brownlie EB, McMain S, Chaim G, Wolfe DA, Rush B. Enhancing prevention and intervention for youth concurrent mental health and substance use disorders: The Research and Action for Teens study.
Early Interv Psychiatry
. 2019 Feb;13(1):110–19.
6.
Muench F, van Stolk-Cooke K, Kuerbis A, Stadler G, Baumel A, Shao S. A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial of Different Mobile Messaging Interventions for Problem Drinking Compared to Weekly Drink Tracking.
PLoS One
. 2017 Feb;12(2):e0167900.
7.
Das JK, Salam RA, Arshad A, Finkelstein Y, Bhutta ZA. Interventions for Adolescent Substance Abuse: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.
J Adolesc Health
. 2016 Oct;59(4 Suppl):S61–75.
8.
McGovern MP, Carroll KM. Evidence-based practices for substance use disorders.
Psychiatr Clin North Am
. 2003 Dec;26(4):991–1010.
9.
Berman AH, Bergman H, Palmstierna T, Schlyter F. Evaluation of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in criminal justice and detoxification settings and in a Swedish population sample.
Eur Addict Res
. 2005;11(1):22–31.
10.
Skinner HA. The drug abuse screening test.
Addict Behav
. 1982;7(4):363–71.
11.
Brown RL, Rounds LA. Conjoint screening questionnaires for alcohol and other drug abuse: criterion validity in a primary care practice.
Wis Med J
. 1995;94(3):135–40.
12.
Humeniuk R, Henry-Edwards S, Ali R, Poznyak V, Monteiro MG; World Health -Organization. The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance involvement Screening Test -(ASSIST): manual for use in primary care. -Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
13.
Hildebrand M. The Psychometric Properties of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT): A Review of Recent Research.
J Subst Abuse Treat
. 2015 Jun;53:52–9.
14.
World Health Organization. AUDIT: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: guidelines for use in primary health care/Thomas F. Babor et al. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
15.
Evren C, Ogel K, Evren B, Bozkurt M. Psychometric properties of the Turkish versions of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) and the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10) in the prison setting.
J Psychoactive Drugs
. 2014a Apr-Jun;46(2):140–6.
16.
Evren C, Ovali E, Karabulut V, Cetingok S. Psychometric properties of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in heroin dependent adults and adolescents with drug use disorder.
Klinik Psikofarmakol Bülteni
. 2014;24(1):39–48.
17.
Matuszka B, Bácskai E, Berman AH, Czobor P, Sinadinovic K, Gerevich J. Psychometric characteristics of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test-Extended (DUDIT-E) among young drug users in Hungary.
Int J Behav Med
. 2014 Jun;21(3):547–55.
18.
Sfendla A, Zouini B, Lemrani D, Berman AH, Senhaji M, Kerekes N. Psychometric Properties of the Arabic Version of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in Clinical, Prison Inmate, and Student Samples.
Int J Behav Med
. 2017 Apr;24(2):280–7.
19.
Webster LR. Risk Factors for Opioid-Use Disorder and Overdose.
Anesth Analg
. 2017 Nov;125(5):1741–8.
20.
Durbeej N, Berman AH, Gumpert CH, Palmstierna T, Kristiansson M, Alm C. Validation of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test in a Swedish sample of suspected offenders with signs of mental health problems: results from the mental disorder, substance abuse and crime study.
J Subst Abuse Treat
. 2010 Dec;39(4):364–77.
21.
Sinadinovic K, Wennberg P, Berman AH. Population screening of risky alcohol and drug use via Internet and Interactive Voice Response (IVR): a feasibility and psychometric study in a random sample.
Drug Alcohol Depend
. 2011 Mar;114(1):55–60.
22.
Nesvåg R, Lange EH, Faerden A, Barrett EA, Emilsson B, Ringen PA, et al. The use of screening instruments for detecting alcohol and other drug use disorders in first-episode psychosis.
Psychiatry Res
. 2010 May;177(1-2):228–34.
23.
Gundersen ØH, Mordal J, Berman AH, Bramness JG. Evaluation of the alcohol use disorders identification test and the drug use disorders identification test among patients at a Norwegian psychiatric emergency ward.
Eur Addict Res
. 2013;19(5):252–60.
24.
Landheim AS, Bakken K, Vaglum P. Impact of comorbid psychiatric disorders on the outcome of substance abusers: a six year prospective follow-up in two Norwegian counties.
BMC Psychiatry
. 2006 Oct;6(1):44.
25.
Lobmaier PP, Berman AH, Gossop M, Ravndal E. Substance use and problem awareness among drug-involved prisoners in Norway.
J Subst Use
. 2013;18(3):211–20.
26.
Hildebrand M, Noteborn MG. Exploration of the (Interrater) Reliability and Latent Factor Structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in a Sample of Dutch Probationers.
Subst Use Misuse
. 2015;50(10):1294–306.
27.
Hillege S, Das J, de Ruiter C. The Youth Psychopathic traits Inventory: psychometric properties and its relation to substance use and interpersonal style in a Dutch sample of non-referred adolescents.
J Adolesc
. 2010 Feb;33(1):83–91.
28.
Reddy S, Dick AM, Gerber MR, Mitchell K. The effect of a yoga intervention on alcohol and drug abuse risk in veteran and civilian women with posttraumatic stress disorder.
J Altern Complement Med
. 2014 Oct;20(10):750–6.
29.
Voluse AC, Gioia CJ, Sobell LC, Dum M, Sobell MB, Simco ER. Psychometric properties of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) with substance abusers in outpatient and residential treatment.
Addict Behav
. 2012 Jan;37(1):36–41.
30.
Martin L, Viljoen M, Kidd M, Seedat S. Are childhood trauma exposures predictive of anxiety sensitivity in school attending youth?
J Affect Disord
. 2014 Oct;168:5–12.
31.
Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline.
J Eval Clin Pract
. 2011 Apr;17(2):268–74.
32.
World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.
33.
Tiet QQ, Finney JW, Moos RH. Screening psychiatric patients for illicit drug use disorders and problems.
Clin Psychol Rev
. 2008 Apr;28(4):578–91.
34.
Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, Maccallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research.
Psychol Methods
. 1999;4(3):272–99.
35.
Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
Psychometrika
. 1965 Jun;30(2):179–85.
36.
Cattell RB. The scree test for the numbers of factors.
Multivariate Behav Res
. 1966 Apr;1(2):245–76.
37.
Matsunaga M. How to Factor-Analyze Your Data Right: Do’s, Don’ts, and How To’s.
Int J Psychol Res (Medellin)
. 2010;3(1):97–110.
38.
Munzel U, Hauschke D. A nonparametric test for proving noninferiority in clinical trials with ordered categorical data.
Pharm Stat
. 2003;2(1):31–7.
39.
Neuhäuser M. A nonparametric two-sample comparison for skewed data with unequal variances.
J Clin Epidemiol
. 2010 Jun;63(6):691–3.
40.
O’Connor BP. SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and velicer’s MAP test.
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput
. 2000 Aug;32(3):396–402.
41.
R Core Team. 2018. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
42.
Piedmont RL. Inter-item Correlations. In: Michalos AC, editor. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014. Available from: .
43.
Cohen RJ, Swerdlik ME. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005. p. 157.
44.
Krawczyk E. Uczelnie wolne od uzależnień.
Serwis Informacyjny Narkomania.
2006;35(4):7–12.
45.
Szczyrba B. Alkohol i narkotyki wśród studentów kierunków medycznych, Instytut Psychologii Zdrowia. Available from: http://www.psychologia.edu.pl/index.php?dz=czytelnia&op=opis&id=2586, 2004.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.