ArticleAlcohol, clinical & experimental research2025
Rasch analysis of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder in a large inpatient sample.
Article in Alcohol, clinical & experimental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rasch analysis of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder in a large inpatient sample.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the present study, we extend previous psychometric evaluations of the DSM-5 alcohol use disorder (AUD) criteria using Rasch analysis in a large clinical sample.
methodsAdult patients with AUD (N = 1101) completed the DSM-5 AUD symptom checklist as part of routine clinical assessment upon admission to an inpatient substance use disorder treatment program. We conducted Rasch analysis of responses to the 11 criteria, examining model fit and item severities. We also examined whether there was evidence of differential item functioning based on sex and age.
resultsResults supported the unidimensionality and local independence of the criteria, although some items were a suboptimal fit to the Rasch model. In particular, across all indicators, hazardous use exhibited misfit with model expectations. Additionally, the range of item severities did not span the full range of problem severity within this clinical sample, with many patients at the high end of the severity continuum and no items to differentiate them. There was evidence of differential item functioning by both sex and age, but effect size indices suggested that differences were unlikely to be clinically meaningful.
conclusionsThe present study supports the unidimensionality of the DSM-5 AUD diagnosis, but the misfit of certain items to the Rasch model and the narrow range of item severities suggest that more granular distinctions in AUD may be limited in high-severity samples. The results also suggest that the assumptions of interval-level measurement may not hold in clinical populations.
Indexed as
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.