3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Ways of measuring drinking patterns and the difference they make: experience with graduated frequencies

期刊

JOURNAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE
卷 12, 期 1-2, 页码 33-49

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0899-3289(00)00039-0

关键词

alcohol consumption; measurement; alcohol-related problems; drinking patterns; self-report

资金

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [P50 AA005595, AA 05595, AA 08557] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM [P30AA005595, P50AA005595, R01AA008557] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reviews methodological issues in assessing volume and pattern of alcohol consumption. It focuses on three measures developed at the Alcohol Research Group (ARG) to assess frequencies of drinking in a graduated series of quantity intervals, called the graduated quantity-frequency (QF) approach. The three measures include two reference periods, 30 days and 12 months, and use three distinct ways of assembling the graduated QF data. The Cahalan-Treiman 30-day measure, developed for self-administered mail surveys, targets daily amounts of beverage alcohol, with thresholds asked in ascending order. The other two measures use descending quantity ranges. The Knupfer Series (KS) asks for three beverage-specific quantity levels. The Graduated Frequencies (GF) measure assesses intake of combined alcohol with five levels. Both are available in face-to-face and telephone formats. All three measures inquire about consumption in the metric of drinks, defined within the form or interview; each is useful for estimating volume and pattern of consumption. Methodological studies with the GF include comparisons with other measures, between- and within-subject interview comparisons, and qualitative protocol analyses designed to examine cognitive response processes. Uses for each measure are considered, and recommendations are made for improvement and more thorough specification of drinking patterns. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据