Cover: Comparison of the ROST and the CAGE Alcohol Screening Instruments in Young Adults

Comparison of the ROST and the CAGE Alcohol Screening Instruments in Young Adults

by Ron D. Hays, Phyllis L. Ellickson

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price
Add to Cart Paperback13 pages Free

The Rost and CAGE alcohol screening instruments were compared in a random sample of 103 of 3609 young adults participating in a longitudinal panel. Rost (t = 6.01, df = 101, p<.001) and CAGE (t = 7.27, df = 97, p<.001) scores were significantly higher for those classified as having alcohol dependence than for those without dependence according to the short-form of the Composite International Diagnostic Inventory (SF-CIDI). The areas under the curve for the CAGE (0.840) and the Rost (0.783) were not statistically different (z = 1.30, p>.05).

Originally published in: Substance Use amd Misuse, v. 36, no. 5, 2001, pp. 639-651.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.