FH measures also vary in the use of coding criteria. For example, some FH measures have used the diagnostic criteria from clinical instruments (e.g., DSM) to create a binary coding of affectedness (i.e., 0=unaffected, 1=affected) while others have categorized affectedness into multiple categories that have then been collapsed to a binary code (e.g., Powers et al., 2017). Moreover, because studies have been carried out in the context of the evolution of diagnostic criteria over time, results of clinical instruments often correspond to different revisions of the DSM, with earlier studies defining AUD by DSM-III-R and DSM-IV. Very few studies to our knowledge have used DSM-5 to define affectedness in FH measures. Therefore, given the different versions of clinical instruments, criteria, and definitions that have been employed for coding affectedness, a systematic comparison of FH measures is difficult, especially because they do not map perfectly onto each other.
