Health Education & Rehabilitative Services, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606, USA.
J Am Coll Health. 2010 Jan-Feb;58(4):397-9. doi: 10.1080/07448480903380292.
Members in the prevention and treatment fields continue to examine how to most effectively assess and label high volume alcohol consumption. Terms such as "binge" drinking have resulted in considerable controversy and debate. Conventionally the criteria for assessing high-risk drinking includes: five or drinks for men and four or more drinks for women during a sitting/event/occasion within the previous two weeks. Several standardized instruments simply use the cut off for high-risk drinking as five or more drinks and do not include the gender variable when defining this behavior. Both of these measures have undergone criticism for not including a more specific time element. Yet asking respondents to recall specific time frames from a night of heavy drinking may also compromise validity. Further the 5+/4+ or 5+ drinking criterion does not adequately assess intoxication levels or more extreme levels of alcohol consumption. A variety of special measures and terms have been created to capture heavy drinking behaviors and ritualistic behavior. Researchers and practitioners may benefit by using different measures and terms based on context and their specific prevention goals.
预防和治疗领域的成员继续研究如何最有效地评估和标记大量饮酒。“狂饮”等术语引起了相当大的争议和辩论。传统上，评估高危饮酒的标准包括：男性在两周内的一次坐、活动或场合中饮用五杯或以上的饮料，女性饮用四杯或以上的饮料。一些标准化的工具仅使用高危饮酒的截断值为五杯或更多，并在定义这种行为时不包括性别变量。这两种措施都因不包括更具体的时间因素而受到批评。然而，要求受访者回忆从一个醉酒之夜的特定时间框架也可能影响有效性。此外，5+/4+或 5+饮酒标准并不能充分评估醉酒程度或更极端的饮酒水平。已经创建了各种特殊措施和术语来捕捉狂饮行为和仪式性行为。研究人员和从业者可以根据上下文和他们特定的预防目标，使用不同的措施和术语从中受益。
