Stevens Jordan E, Shireman Emilie, Steinley Douglas, Piasecki Thomas M, Vinson Daniel, Sher Kenneth J
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
Assessment. 2020 Jul;27(5):1029-1044. doi: 10.1177/1073191119858398. Epub 2019 Jun 25.
Alcohol consumption is an important predictor of a variety of negative outcomes. There is an extensive literature that examines the differences in the estimated level of alcohol consumption between types of assessments (e.g., quantity-frequency [QF] questionnaires, daily diaries). However, it is typically assumed that all QF-based measures are nearly identical in their assessment of the volume of alcohol consumption in a population. Using timeline follow-back data and constructing common QF consumption measures, we examined differences among survey instruments to assess alcohol consumption and heavy drinking. Using three data sets, including clinical to community samples, we demonstrate how scale-specific item characteristics (i.e., number of response options and ranges of consumption assessed by each option) can substantially affect the estimated mean level of consumption and estimated prevalence of binge drinking. Our analyses suggest that problems can be mitigated by employing more resolved measures of quantity and frequency in consumption questionnaires.
饮酒是多种负面结果的重要预测指标。有大量文献研究了不同评估类型(如数量频率[QF]问卷、每日日记)之间估计饮酒量的差异。然而,通常认为所有基于QF的测量方法在评估人群饮酒量时几乎相同。利用时间线追溯数据并构建常见的QF消费测量方法,我们研究了调查工具之间在评估饮酒和重度饮酒方面的差异。使用包括临床样本和社区样本在内的三个数据集,我们展示了特定量表的项目特征(即每个选项的响应选项数量和评估的消费范围)如何能显著影响估计的平均消费水平和估计的暴饮流行率。我们的分析表明,通过在消费问卷中采用更细化的数量和频率测量方法,可以缓解这些问题。