Several other limitations of our study are worth noting. We did not conduct an assessment of the test-retest (i.e., within-rater) reliability of instruments. Ordinarily, reliability would be greater, not less, in such a design (and we chose to conduct the more conservative comparison for this reason). Similarly, we cannot comment directly on the generalizability of the instrument in other populations, including non-isolated Thai-speaking populations, and/or the suitability of other sections of the instrument in the current (or other) population(s). However, reliable use of the English SSADDA in outbred U.S. samples suggests that this would not be a major concern (Pierucci-Lagha et al., 2007; Pierucci-Lagha et al., 2005). Moreover, we have recently used the complete Thai version of the SSADDA in a primary Thai drug-treatment cohort as part of a genetic study of methamphetamine dependence and replicated vulnerability factors (e.g., dependence severity) for stimulant-induced psychosis found previously by our group in the U.S. with the English version (Kalayasiri et al., 2005; Kalayasiri, Mutirangura, Verachai, Gelernter, & Malison, 2009). While the diagnostic concordance between the SSADDA and the MINI in our study
