AIMS: The present study aimed to examine the fit of different measurement models for the AUDIT and its measurement invariance across a wide range of subgroups by country, language, gender, and sexual orientation.
METHODS: Responses concerning past-year alcohol use from the participants of the cross-sectional International Sex Survey were considered (N = 62,943; Mage: 32.73; SD = 12.59). Confirmatory factor analysis, as well as measurement invariance tests were performed for 21 countries, 14 languages, three genders, and four sexual-orientation subgroups that met the minimum sample size requirement for inclusion in these analyses.
RESULTS: A two-factor model with factors describing 'alcohol use' (items 1-3) and 'alcohol problems' (items 4-10) showed the best model fit across countries, languages, genders, and sexual orientations. For the former two, scalar and latent mean levels of invariance were reached considering different criteria. For gender and sexual orientation, a latent mean level of invariance was reached.
CONCLUSIONS: In line with the two-factor model, the calculation of separate alcohol-use and alcohol-problem scores is recommended when using the AUDIT. The high levels of measurement invariance achieved for the AUDIT support its use in cross-cultural research, capable also of meaningful comparisons among genders and sexual orientations.
METHOD: Using data from the International Sex Survey (N = 82,243; Mage = 32.39 years, SD = 12.52), we evaluated the psychometric properties of the CSBD-19 and CSBD-7 and compared CSBD across 42 countries, three genders, eight sexual orientations, and individuals with low vs. high risk of experiencing CSBD.
RESULTS: A total of 4.8% of the participants were at high risk of experiencing CSBD. Country- and gender-based differences were observed, while no sexual-orientation-based differences were present in CSBD levels. Only 14% of individuals with CSBD have ever sought treatment for this disorder, with an additional 33% not having sought treatment because of various reasons. Both versions of the scale demonstrated excellent validity and reliability.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to a better understanding of CSBD in underrepresented and underserved populations and facilitates its identification in diverse populations by providing freely accessible ICD-11-based screening tools in 26 languages. The findings may also serve as a crucial building block to stimulate research into evidence-based, culturally sensitive prevention and intervention strategies for CSBD that are currently missing from the literature.
METHOD: Our analysis is based on a large-scale research project involving 42 countries (International Sex Survey, N=72,627, 57% women, Mage=32.84; SDage=12.57).
RESULTS: The ASRS Screener demonstrated good reliability and validity, along with partial invariance across different languages, countries, and genders. The occurrence of being at risk for adult ADHD was relatively high (21.4% for women, 18.1% for men). The highest scores were obtained in the US, Canada, and other English-speaking Western countries, with significantly lower scores among East Asian and non-English-speaking European countries. Moreover, ADHD symptom severity and occurrence were especially high among gender-diverse individuals. Significant associations between adult ADHD symptoms and age, mental and sexual health, and socioeconomic status were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Present results show significant cross-cultural variability in adult ADHD occurrence as well as highlight important factors related to adult ADHD. Moreover, the importance of further research on adult ADHD in previously understudied populations (non-Western countries) and minority groups (gender-diverse individuals) is stressed. Lastly, the present analysis is consistent with previous evidence showing low specificity of adult ADHD screening instruments and contributes to the current discussion on accurate adult ADHD screening and diagnosis.
METHODS: Using data from the International Sex Survey (N = 82,243; Mage = 32.39; SDage = 12.52; women: n = 46,874; 57 %), we examined the reliability of depression and anxiety symptom scores of the BSI-18, as well as evaluated evidence of construct, invariance, and criterion-related validity in predicting clinically relevant variables across countries, languages, genders, and sexual orientations.
RESULTS: Results corroborated an invariant, two-factor structure across all groups tested, exhibiting excellent reliability estimates for both subscales. The 'caseness' criterion effectively discriminated among those at low and high risk of depression and anxiety, yielding differential effects on the clinical criteria examined.
LIMITATIONS: The predictive validation was not made against a clinical diagnosis, and the full BSI-18 scale was not examined (excluding the somatization sub-dimension), limiting the validation scope of the BSI-18. Finally, the study was conducted online, mainly by advertisements through social media, ultimately skewing our sample towards women, younger, and highly educated populations.
CONCLUSIONS: The results support that the BSI-12 is a valid and reliable assessment tool for assessing depression and anxiety symptoms across countries, languages, genders, and sexual orientations. Further, its caseness criterion can discriminate well between participants at high and low risk of depression and anxiety.
METHODS: We used global survey data from 82,243 individuals (Mean age=32.39 years; 40.3 % men, 57.0 % women, 2.8 % non-binary, and 0.6 % other genders) participating in the International Sexual Survey (ISS; https://internationalsexsurvey.org/) across 42 countries and 26 languages. Participants completed the SDS-3, as well as questions regarding sociodemographic characteristics, including gender identity and sexual orientation.
RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a unidimensional factor structure for the SDS-3, and multi-group CFA (MGCFA) suggested that this factor structure was invariant across countries, languages, gender identities, and sexual orientations. Cronbach's α for the unidimensional score was 0.83 (range between 0.76 and 0.89), and McDonald's ω was 0.84 (range between 0.76 and 0.90). Participants who did not experience sexual problems had significantly lower SDS-3 total scores (M = 2.99; SD=2.54) compared to those who reported sexual problems (M = 5.60; SD=3.00), with a large effect size (Cohen's d = 1.01 [95 % CI=-1.03, -0.98]; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The SDS-3 has a unidimensional factor structure and appears to be valid and reliable for measuring sexual distress among individuals from different countries, gender identities, and sexual orientations.