Can Accurate Drinking Histories be Obtained from Psychiatric Patients by a Nurse Conducting Screening Interviews?

Abstract

Three hundred and eighty-fwe psychiatric patients were screened by a nurse for alcohol-related problems, and a representative 112 were re-interviewed in a 'blind' fashion by a psychiatrist using either (a) the same screening interview, or (b) a much more detailed history schedule. Reliability measures between the two screening interviews were high for alcohol consumption as well as the Brief MAST, CAGE, and Reich tests. Similarly the more detailed 'validity' interview produced closely correlated estimates of alcohol consumption. Agreement was less good for women than men and for drinking in the month, as opposed to theyear, before admission. The Brief MAST, CA GE, or Reich screening tests could usefully be incorporated into the routine nursing interview at first contact with psychiatric patients.

Systematic Evaluation of Psychometric Characteristics of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test 13‐Item Short (SMAST) and 10‐Item Brief (BMAST) Versions

“…In the nonclinical samples ( j = 3; Lehavot & Simoni, 2011; Underwood, 2002; Willenbring et al, 1987), with a combined sample size of 1,526, internal consistency was .71. A single BMAST study (Bernadt, Mumford, & Murray, 1984; N = 371) of test–retest reliability was located and reported data for a 5‐day timeframe, yielding r tt = .71. One BMAST study (Pokorny et al, 1972; N = 122) reported unit scoring versus weighted scoring procedures, yielding a correlation of .99.…”

“…In the nonclinical samples (j = 3; Lehavot & Simoni, 2011;Underwood, 2002;Willenbring et al, 1987), with a combined sample size of 1,526, internal consistency was .71. A single BMAST study (Bernadt, Mumford, & Buchanan, 2008;Hequembourg et al, 2008;James & Taylor, 2007;Josephson, 1999Lee & DeFrank, 1988Nilssen et al, 1994;Saunders & Kershaw, 1980Lee & DeFrank, 1988Selzer et al, 1975;Willenbring et al, 1987;Zung, 1979Lee & DeFrank, 1988Willenbring et al, 1987Møller & Linaker, 2010Møller & Linaker, 2010Crews & Sher, 1992Crews & Sher, 1992Crews & Sher, 1992Crews & Sher, 1992Barry & Fleming, 1993Barry & Fleming, 1993Barry & Fleming, 1993Barry & Fleming, 1993 Murray, 1984; N = 371) of test-retest reliability was located and reported data for a 5-day timeframe, yielding r tt = .71. One BMAST study (Pokorny et al, 1972; N = 122) reported unit scoring versus weighted scoring procedures, yielding a correlation of .99.…”

“…Bernadt et al (1984) was the only study ( N = 122) that presented test–retest reliability for the BMAST. Using a 5‐day timeframe, the study yielded a reliability coefficient of .71.…”

“…As with the SMAST, most of these combined estimates fall below the suggested criterion for both screening-level (.80) and diagnostic-level (.90) purposes (Erford, 2013). Bernadt et al (1984) was the only study (N = 122) that presented test-retest reliability for the BMAST. Using a 5-day timeframe, the study yielded a reliability coefficient of .71.…”