Identifying Aboriginal-specific AUDIT-C and AUDIT-3 cutoff scores for at-risk, high-risk, and likely dependent drinkers using measures of agreement with the 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test

Table 2 Measures of agreement for AUDIT-C and AUDIT-3 cutoff scores (n = 136 ^a )

	Sensitivity	Specificity	Positive predictive value	Negative predictive value	Sensitivity	Specificity	Positive predictive value	Negative predictive value	Sensitivity	Specificity	Positive predictive value	Negative predictive value
*Score (n)*	*At-risk drinker (10-item AUDIT score ≥ 8)*				*High-risk drinker (10-item AUDIT score ≥ 13)*				*Likely dependent drinker (10-item AUDIT score ≥ 20)*
AUDIT-C
≥ 1 (108)	0.99	0.43	0.67	0.96	0.98	0.32	0.47	0.96	1.00	0.26	0.28	1.00
≥ 2 (99)	0.97	0.56	0.72	0.95	0.98	0.43	0.52	0.97	1.00	0.35	0.30	1.00
≥ 3 (94)	0.97	0.63	0.76	0.95	0.98	0.49	0.54	0.98	1.00	0.40	0.32	1.00
≥ 4 (86)	0.92	0.70	0.78	0.88	0.96	0.57	0.58	0.96	1.00	0.47	0.35	1.00
≥ 5 (74)	0.85	0.81	0.84	0.82	0.92	0.69	0.65	0.94	0.97	0.58	0.39	0.98
≥ 6 (67)	0.79	0.86	0.87	0.78	0.88	0.75	0.69	0.91	0.97	0.64	0.43	0.99
≥ 7 (50)	0.67	0.98	0.98	0.72	0.81	0.90	0.84	0.88	0.93	0.79	0.56	0.98
≥ 8 (37)	0.51	1.00	1.00	0.64	0.63	0.95	0.89	0.81	0.87	0.90	0.70	0.96
≥ 9 (32)	0.44	1.00	1.00	0.61	0.58	0.98	0.94	0.79	0.87	0.94	0.81	0.96
≥ 10 (23)	0.32	1.00	1.00	0.56	0.42	0.99	0.96	0.73	0.63	0.96	0.83	0.90
≥ 11 (14)	0.19	1.00	1.00	0.52	0.27	1.00	1.00	0.69	0.47	1.00	1.00	0.87
≥ 12 (7)	0.10	1.00	1.00	0.49	0.13	1.00	1.00	0.65	0.23	1.00	1.00	0.82
AUDIT-3
≥ 1 (91)	0.95	0.65	0.76	0.91	0.98	0.52	0.56	0.98	1.00	0.42	0.33	1.00
≥ 2 (65)	0.81	0.90	0.91	0.80	0.92	0.80	0.74	0.94	0.97	0.66	0.45	0.99
≥ 3 (36)	0.47	0.97	0.94	0.61	0.62	0.95	0.89	0.80	0.93	0.92	0.78	0.98
≥ 4 (12)	0.16	1.00	1.00	0.51	0.23	1.00	1.00	0.68	0.40	1.00	1.00	0.85

^a156 Aboriginal Australian participants took part in the surveys, of whom 20 were excluded from the analyses: 16 because they did not answer all 10 items of AUDIT, and four were excluded in error (when the data were transferred from one computer program to another, four participants from the Sydney sample who had completed all 10 items of AUDIT but did not answer the question about gender were mistakenly excluded).

ISSN: 1940-0640