Item response theory (IRT) is supplanting classical test theory as the basis for measures development. This study demonstrated the utility of IRT for evaluating DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. Data on alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine symptoms from 372 adult clinical participants interviewed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview--Expanded Substance Abuse Module (CIDI-SAM) were analyzed with Mplus (B. Muthen & L. Muthen, 1998) and MULTILOG (D. Thissen, 1991) software. Tolerance and legal problems criteria were dropped because of poor fit with a unidimensional model. Item response curves, test information curves, and testing of variously constrained models suggested that DSM-IV criteria in the CIDI-SAM discriminate between only impaired and less impaired cases and may not be useful to scale case severity. IRT can be used to study the construct validity of DSM-IV diagnoses and to identify diagnostic criteria with poor performance.

Item response theory (IRT) has advantages over classical test theory in evaluating diagnostic criteria. In this study, the authors used IRT to characterize the psychometric properties of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) alcohol and cannabis use disorder symptoms among 472 clinical adolescents. For both substances, DSM-IV symptoms fit a model specifying a unidimensional latent trait of problem severity. Threshold (severity) parameters did not distinguish abuse and dependence symptoms. Abuse symptoms of legal problems and hazardous use, and dependence symptoms of tolerance, unsuccessful attempts to quit, and physical-psychological problems, showed relatively poor discrimination of problem severity. There were gender differences in thresholds for hazardous use, legal problems, and physical-psychological problems. The results illustrate limitations of DSM-IV criteria for alcohol and cannabis use disorders when applied to adolescents. The development process for the fifth edition (DSM-V) should be informed by statistical models such as those used in this study.

This article reviews literature on the validity and performance characteristics of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders (SUDs) and recommends changes in these criteria that should be considered for the next edition of the DSM (DSM-V). Substantial data indicate that DSM-IV substance abuse and substance dependence are not distinct categories and that SUD criteria are best modeled as reflecting a unidimensional continuum of substance-problem severity. The conceptually and empirically problematic substance abuse diagnosis should be abandoned in the DSM-V, with substance dependence defined by a single set of criteria. Data also indicate that various individual SUD criteria should be revised, dropped, or considered for inclusion in the DSM-V. The DSM-V should provide a framework that allows the integration of categorical and dimensional approaches to diagnosis. Important areas for further research are noted.

This study assessed prevalence rates and overlap among Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., revised; DSM-III-R; American Psychiatric Association, 1987) personality disorders in a multisite sample of 366 substance abusers in treatment. In addition, the relation of antisocial personality disorder (APD), borderline personality disorder (BPD), and paranoid personality disorder (PPD) to alcohol typology variables was examined. Structured diagnostic interviews and other measures were administered to participants at least 14 days after entry into treatment. Results indicated high prevalence rates for APD and non-APD disorders. There was extensive overlap between Axis I disorders and personality disorders, and among personality disorders themselves. APD, BPD, and PPD were linked to more severe symptomatology of alcoholism and other clinical problems. However, only APD and BPD satisfied subtyping criteria, after controlling for other comorbidity. Implications for classifying alcoholics by comorbid disorders are discussed.

No abstract