Psychometric analysis supports the DSM-5 cannabis use disorder diagnosis but one symptom may not fit
Rasch analysis of DSM-5 cannabis use disorder criteria in 249 inpatients broadly supports the diagnosis as a valid unidimensional measure, though the hazardous use criterion showed poor fit.
Quick Facts
What This Study Found
The DSM-5 CUD criteria fit the Rasch model well overall, supporting unidimensionality. Symptom #3 was least endorsed and highest severity, symptom #9 was most endorsed and lowest severity. Symptom #8 (hazardous use) showed misfit.
Key Numbers
249 inpatients with active cannabis use. Unidimensionality confirmed by two statistical tests. Symptom #8 showed misfit.
How They Did This
Rasch analysis applied to DSM-5 CUD criteria in 249 adults receiving inpatient substance use treatment who reported active cannabis use at admission.
Why This Research Matters
Validating the psychometric properties of CUD diagnostic criteria ensures clinicians are measuring a coherent construct. The hazardous use misfit suggests this criterion may capture something different from core addiction.
The Bigger Picture
This study complements taxometric work showing CUD is dimensional. Together, they suggest the DSM-5 approach is sound overall but could be refined regarding the hazardous use criterion.
What This Study Doesn't Tell Us
Inpatient-only sample represents the severe end of CUD. Relatively small sample for psychometric analysis. Single-site study.
Questions This Raises
- ?Should the hazardous use criterion be revised or removed in future DSM editions?
- ?Would results differ in an outpatient or community sample?
Trust & Context
- Key Stat:
- hazardous use criterion showed poor fit with the overall CUD model
- Evidence Grade:
- Appropriate psychometric methodology applied to a clinical sample, but small sample and inpatient-only recruitment limit generalizability.
- Study Age:
- 2025 publication.
- Original Title:
- Rasch Analysis of Cannabis Use Disorder in an Adult Inpatient Sample.
- Published In:
- Cannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.), 8(2), 141-152 (2025)
- Authors:
- Gendy, Marie N S, Taisir, Radia(3), Britton, Emily, Costello, Jean, MacKillop, James
- Database ID:
- RTHC-06520
Evidence Hierarchy
A snapshot of a population at one point in time.
What do these levels mean? →Frequently Asked Questions
What is Rasch analysis?
A psychometric technique that tests whether a set of items measure a single underlying construct in a consistent, orderly way. It can identify symptoms that do not fit.
What does it mean that hazardous use showed misfit?
Using cannabis in physically dangerous situations may be driven by different factors than core addiction symptoms like craving, tolerance, and withdrawal.
Read More on RethinkTHC
- cannabis-dependence-physical-psychological-addiction-science
- cannabis-perception-vs-evidence-gap
- cannabis-use-disorder-test
- cross-addiction-quit-weed-start-drinking
- is-weed-addictive
- is-weed-addictive-science
- quitting-weed-and-alcohol
- rehab-for-weed-addiction-necessary
- signs-of-cannabis-use-disorder
- weed-vape-pen-addiction
Cite This Study
https://rethinkthc.com/research/RTHC-06520APA
Gendy, Marie N S; Taisir, Radia; Britton, Emily; Costello, Jean; MacKillop, James. (2025). Rasch Analysis of Cannabis Use Disorder in an Adult Inpatient Sample.. Cannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.), 8(2), 141-152. https://doi.org/10.26828/cannabis/2025/000229
MLA
Gendy, Marie N S, et al. "Rasch Analysis of Cannabis Use Disorder in an Adult Inpatient Sample.." Cannabis (Albuquerque, 2025. https://doi.org/10.26828/cannabis/2025/000229
RethinkTHC
RethinkTHC Research Database. "Rasch Analysis of Cannabis Use Disorder in an Adult Inpatien..." RTHC-06520. Retrieved from https://rethinkthc.com/research/gendy-2025-rasch-analysis-of-cannabis
Access the Original Study
Study data sourced from PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
This study breakdown was produced by the RethinkTHC research team. We analyze and report published research findings without making health recommendations. All interpretations are based solely on the published abstract and study data.