An Item Response Theory Analysis of DSM-5 Heroin Use Disorder in a Clinical Sample of Chinese Adolescents

Abstract

The study examined the dimensionality and psychometric properties of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) criteria for heroin use disorder in a clinical sample of Chinese adolescents using item response theory approach. We examined 168 adolescents aged 14.8–17.9 years, who were in treatment for heroin use disorder. A two-parameter logistic item response theory model was conducted to examine the severity and discrimination of DSM-5 criteria for heroin use disorder. Differential item functioning across age and ethnicity was assessed. Results supported the hypothesis that the DSM-5 criteria for heroin use disorder were arrayed an underlying unitary dimension of severity in clinical adolescents. All the items exhibited good discriminatory power in distinguishing between clinical adolescent heroin users. Although three criteria exhibited measurement non-invariance at the item level, the overall DSM-5 heroin use disorder diagnostic criteria set appears to achieve measurement invariance at the scale level.

Psychometric Performance of a Substance Use Symptom Checklist to Help Clinicians Assess Substance Use Disorder in Primary Care

“…To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate a Substance Use symptom checklist of DSM-5 criteria when used routinely in primary care; however, findings are consistent with psychometric studies of SUD criteria in epidemiology studies and clinical trials . Psychometric studies were instrumental in the decision to revise DSM criteria, from abuse and dependence ( DSM-IV ) to a single SUD represented by a continuum of severity from 2 to 11 symptoms ( DSM-5 ) .…”

“…To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate a Substance Use symptom checklist of DSM-5 criteria when used routinely in primary care; however, findings are consistent with psychometric studies of SUD criteria in epidemiology studies 31 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 and clinical trials. 31 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 Psychometric studies were instrumental in the decision to revise DSM criteria, from abuse and dependence ( DSM-IV ) to a single SUD represented by a continuum of severity from 2 to 11 symptoms ( DSM-5 ). 4 , 31 Our findings build on this work to support use of the symptom checklist as a tool for assessing the spectrum of DSM-5 SUD in primary care.…”

Validity of the DSM-5 craving criterion for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and non-prescription use of prescription painkillers (opioids)

“…Thus, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) added a craving criterion to the SUD diagnostic criteria (Hasin et al, 2013). Indirect support for the inclusion of the craving criterion came from neurobiological, pharmacological, genetic, and behavioral studies suggesting the centrality of craving to SUD (Hasin et al, 2013), while direct support came from item response theory (IRT) studies showing that across substances, craving fit well with the other DSM-5 SUD criteria (Casey, Adamson, Shevlin, & McKinney, 2012; Castaldelli-Maia et al, 2015; Cherpitel et al, 2010; Chung, Martin, Maisto, Cornelius, & Clark, 2012; Gilder, Gizer, Lau, & Ehlers, 2014; Hasin, Fenton, Beseler, Park, & Wall, 2012, 2013; Kervran et al, 2020; Keyes, Krueger, Grant, & Hasin, 2011; Mewton, Slade, McBride, Grove, & Teesson, 2011; Saha, Chou, & Grant, 2020; Serier, Venner, & Sarafin, 2019; Shmulewitz et al, 2011; Yang, Chen, Liu, & Xin, 2019). However, evidence on the reliability and validity of the DSM-5 craving criterion as an independent construct, and whether its addition improves the SUD diagnosis overall, is also important.…”

Examining the Utility of the Early Childhood Development Index (ECDI) among Children in the Nigeria Context

“…A more discriminating instrument is more reliable when it consistently provides the same estimate. The IRT therefore tests the degree of endorsement of each response or the pattern and strength of endorsement of each response compared to the underlying construct [ 34 , 35 ].…”