Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri.
Department of Health Service Psychology and Clinical Psychology, University of Houston Clear Lake.
Psychol Addict Behav. 2023 Jun;37(4):606-615. doi: 10.1037/adb0000897. Epub 2022 Nov 28.
This study compares three methods of cannabis and of alcohol use assessment in a sample of regular cannabis users: (a) ecological momentary assessment (EMA) repeated momentary surveys aggregated to the daily level, (b) EMA morning reports (MR) where participants reported on their total use from the previous day, and (c) retrospective timeline followback (TLFB) interviews covering the same period of time as the EMA portion of the study. We assessed the overall correspondence between these methods in terms of cannabis and alcohol use occasions and also investigated predictors of agreement between methods.
Forty-nine individuals aged 18-50 ( = 24.49, 49% female, 84% White) who reported regular cannabis use completed a 14-day EMA study. At the end of the EMA period, participants returned to the laboratory to complete a TLFB (administered via computer) corresponding to the same dates of the EMA period.
Daily aggregated EMA and TLFB reports showed a low to modest agreement for both alcohol and cannabis use. Overall, agreement between EMA and MR was better than agreement between EMA and TLFB, likely because less retrospection is required when only reporting on behavior from the previous day. Quantity and frequency of use differentially predicted agreement across reporting methods when assessing alcohol compared to cannabis. When reporting cannabis use, but not alcohol use, individuals who used more demonstrated higher agreement between EMA and TLFB.
Results suggest that retrospective reporting methods assessing alcohol and cannabis should not be considered a direct "substitute" for momentary or daily assessments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
本研究在一组经常使用大麻的样本中比较了三种大麻和酒精使用评估方法:(a)生态瞬时评估(EMA),重复瞬时调查汇总到每日水平,(b)EMA 早晨报告(MR),参与者报告前一天的总使用情况,(c)回溯时间线访谈(TLFB),涵盖与 EMA 部分研究相同的时间段。我们评估了这些方法在大麻和酒精使用场合方面的总体一致性,并调查了方法之间一致性的预测因素。
49 名年龄在 18-50 岁之间的个体(=24.49,49%为女性,84%为白人)报告经常使用大麻,完成了为期 14 天的 EMA 研究。在 EMA 期间结束时,参与者返回实验室完成与 EMA 期间相同日期相对应的 TLFB(通过计算机进行管理)。
每日汇总的 EMA 和 TLFB 报告显示,酒精和大麻使用的一致性从低到中等。总体而言,EMA 和 MR 之间的一致性优于 EMA 和 TLFB 之间的一致性,这可能是因为仅报告前一天的行为时需要的回溯较少。在评估酒精时,与大麻相比,使用量和使用频率的差异预测了报告方法之间的一致性;当报告大麻使用情况时,但不是酒精使用情况时,使用量较大的个体在 EMA 和 TLFB 之间表现出更高的一致性。
结果表明,评估酒精和大麻的回溯报告方法不应被视为即时或每日评估的直接“替代品”。