Shakeshaft A P, Bowman J A, Sanson-Fisher R W
Hunter Centre for Health Advancement and University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Alcohol Alcohol. 1999 Jul-Aug;34(4):636-45. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/34.4.636.
There is currently uncertainty regarding the relative performance of a retrospective diary (RD) and a quantity-frequency index (QFI) measure of weekly alcohol consumption. While some previous studies have found more consumption reported on an RD than a QFI, others have found the reverse. As yet, however, no study has compared computerized versions of these two measures. This cross-sectional study involved administration of a computerized survey in a community-based drug and alcohol treatment setting. Five hundred and eighty-six clients (420 males) attending counselling for a range of drug- and alcohol-related issues agreed to participate in the study. The major finding was that more alcohol consumption was reported on the RD, than on the QFI. Similarly, the RD detected a greater proportion of both heavy and high-risk drinkers than the QFI. It is argued that the RD may be preferable to the QFI as a measure of weekly alcohol consumption, for use in community-based treatment settings.
目前，关于回顾性日记（RD）和每周酒精消费量的数量频率指数（QFI）测量方法的相对性能存在不确定性。虽然之前的一些研究发现，回顾性日记记录的饮酒量比数量频率指数多，但也有其他研究得出了相反的结果。然而，到目前为止，还没有研究比较过这两种测量方法的计算机化版本。这项横断面研究涉及在一个社区药物和酒精治疗机构进行计算机化调查。586名（420名男性）因一系列与药物和酒精相关问题而接受咨询的客户同意参与该研究。主要发现是，回顾性日记记录的酒精消费量比数量频率指数多。同样，回顾性日记检测出的重度饮酒者和高风险饮酒者的比例都比数量频率指数高。有人认为，在社区治疗环境中，作为每周酒精消费量的一种测量方法，回顾性日记可能比数量频率指数更可取。
