ArticleThe South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa2016
Reliability of the GAIN-SS, CRAFTT and PESQ screening instruments for substance use among South African adolescents.
Article in The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing Mental Wellness in Kenyan Adolescents and Young People: Protocol for a Platform Development and Usability Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- An exploratory test of the pathways between adverse childhood experiences and later perpetration of intimate partner violence in South African male youth using theoretical frameworks.Child abuse & neglect · 2026Article
- Development of the Positive Outcomes through Supported Transition (POST) opioid preventive intervention for youth in the legal system: Study protocol for a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Adolescent alcohol consumption: protocol for a scoping review of screening and assessment tools used in Africa.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionScreening for adolescent substance use can assist with the early identification of substance-related problems and guide the provision of appropriate services. As such, psychometrically sound screening tools are needed. The aim of this study was to compare the reliability of the CRAFFT, Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Short Screener (GAIN-SS) substance use subscale and Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire (PESQ) among adolescents from disadvantaged communities in Cape Town, South Africa.
methodsAdolescents aged 12-19 years (
resultsFindings show that all three of the screeners had adequate internal consistency (Cronbach α ≥ 0.8). Test-retest reliability was similar for all three screeners, with intraclass correlation coefficient values slightly higher for the PESQ (0.82, 95% CI: 0.77-0.86) than for the GAIN-SS substance use subscale (0.79, 95% CI: 0.73-0.84) and CRAFFT (0.76; 95% CI: 0.66-0.83). Kappa values indicated that the GAIN-SS substance use subscale and CRAFFT had moderate levels of agreement, while the PESQ had substantial levels of agreement for identifying those who had moderate or higher substance use risks at Time 1 and Time 2.
conclusionThe findings indicate that all of these short screeners seem to have acceptable reliability when used in this population. All of the three screeners are appropriately reliable when used with adolescents from disadvantaged communities in Cape Town, but the PESQ performed slightly better. Future studies should also include the assessment of validity of these screeners in this context.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.