Lemmens P, Tan E S, Knibbe R A
Department of Medical Sociology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J Stud Alcohol. 1992 Sep;53(5):476-86. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1992.53.476.
This article compares five indices of alcohol consumption in a general population survey conducted in 1985 in the Netherlands. Self-reports of consumption were obtained with a prospective diary, a retrospective 7-day recall method, and three summary measures, such as a quantity-frequency index. The coverage of sales data appeared highest for the diary (67%), which suggests a higher validity. Special attention was given to comparisons of quantity and frequency of drinking between the diary, on the one hand, and the weekly recall and summary measures, on the other. It was found that underreporting, relative to the diary reports, was generally higher in the frequency than in the quantity domain. This result, together with the finding from longitudinal studies that intraindividual variation is also higher for drinking frequency, leads to the conclusion that forgetting is a potent source of undercoverage in surveys and to the hypothesis that large differences in overall drinking pattern between populations (e.g., in regularity of drinking) may account for the large differences in coverage rates of sales data. Furthermore, the subjectively assessed probability of drinking by means of a "usual" frequency question appeared a poor predictor of (diary) drinking frequency for respondents reporting a low or moderate frequency. For subjects claiming a high "usual" drinking frequency, a reasonable correspondence between diary and summary measures was found. This mitigates the fear often expressed that heavy drinkers particularly underreport their consumption.
本文比较了1985年在荷兰进行的一项普通人群调查中五种酒精消费指数。通过前瞻性日记、回顾性7天回忆法以及三种汇总指标（如数量-频率指数）获取消费自我报告。日记法的销售数据覆盖范围最高（67%），这表明其有效性更高。特别关注了日记法与每周回忆法及汇总指标在饮酒量和饮酒频率方面的比较。结果发现，相对于日记报告，频率方面的漏报普遍高于饮酒量方面。这一结果，连同纵向研究的发现，即个体内饮酒频率的变化也更大，得出结论：遗忘是调查中覆盖率不足的一个重要原因，并提出假设：不同人群总体饮酒模式的巨大差异（如饮酒规律）可能是销售数据覆盖率存在巨大差异的原因。此外，对于报告低频率或中等频率饮酒的受访者，通过“通常”频率问题主观评估的饮酒概率似乎并不能很好地预测（日记法记录的）饮酒频率。对于声称“通常”饮酒频率高的受试者，日记法与汇总指标之间存在合理的对应关系。这减轻了人们常有的担忧，即酗酒者尤其会少报他们的饮酒量。
