Screening Decision Game

Read the case, choose the screening instrument, then decide the best next step based on the screening result.

Score: 0 / 10
Article idea: brief screening tools support specific uses, such as early case identification, operational referral, or limited prognostic planning. The next step should depend on both the instrument and the result. The results shown in the game are teaching examples, not fixed scores from the article: sometimes referral is needed, sometimes monitoring or reassessment is more appropriate.

Which instrument is most appropriate?

Example screening result

Based on the instrument and screening result, what should be done next?

Answer the instrument question first to see the screening result and unlock this section.

Quick Guide

AUDIT → Produces an alcohol-risk score. A higher score suggests possible risky, harmful, or dependent alcohol use and should guide further assessment or intervention.

DUDIT → Produces a drug-use problem score. A higher score suggests possible problematic illicit or non-medical drug use and should guide drug-focused follow-up.

ASSIST → Produces scores across several substances. It helps identify which substances may require brief intervention, referral, or additional assessment.

RODS → Produces an opioid-dependence screening result. A positive result suggests possible opioid dependence and should trigger opioid-focused evaluation.

UNCOPE → Produces a very brief substance-use screening score. It is useful for intake triage, but not for a full clinical conclusion.

IRIS → Produces culturally informed risk indicators. Interpretation should consider population fit, cultural context, and follow-up need.

TCU Drug Screen → Produces a correctional drug-problem score that can guide referral, treatment planning, or additional assessment.

SFS → Produces a recidivism or re-incarceration risk classification. It is a predictive-validity tool, not a substance-use diagnosis.

Evidence tiers from the article

Tier 1 → diagnostic accuracy: early identification against an explicit reference standard.

Tier 2 → extended forensic validation: operational use, severity appraisal, and referral prioritisation.

Tier 3 → predictive validity: limited prognostic planning for post-release outcomes.