Search

Objective: To develop a shortened form of the Young Adult Alcohol Problems Screening Test1 (YAAPST; original length = 27 items) using a novel combinatorial approach. Participants: 489 college freshmen, half of whom were above average risk for alcohol use disorder based upon family history, attending a large, Midwestern University followed prospectively for 16–17 years across 7 measurement occasions (waves). Methods: Using an exhaustive combinatorial approach, we evaluated all possible combinations of questions and questionnaire length. Each candidate short-form was evaluated using part-whole correlations, alpha coefficients, and polyserial correlations with DSM-III criteria. Results: The 12-item scale, the Brief-YAAPST, was chosen as the best candidate short-form as this scale had the fewest items while maintaining strong reliability and validity. Conclusions: Complete enumeration optimization effectively produced a 12-item short form with minimal loss of reliability and validity making the Brief-YAAPST a desirable assessment alternative when there are concerns about participant or client burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims This study used a person-centered approach to test whether drinking motive typologies could be identified. Design Longitudinal study of college students within the Intensive Multivariate Prospective Alcohol College- Transitions ( IMPACTS) data set. Setting University campus in the United States. Participants University students (baseline n reporting alcohol motives = 2158; baseline age = 18.60 years old). Measurements The Drinking Motives Questionnaire- Revised ( DMQ-R). Findings Using Steinley & Brusco's cluster analysis approach [based on the theoretical ratio expected between the within sum of squares and the total sum of squares when the data are divided into two clusters when no cluster structure is present; the cut-off for the ratio is 0.25 for uniform (multivariate uniform) distributions and 0.36 for normal (multivariate normal) distributions], we examined whether there was evidence for distinct clusters of individuals that differed on their overall level of motives to drink. We tested the fit of a one-group (cluster) solution compared to multi-cluster solutions. Both cross-sectionally and prospectively, the data could not be partitioned into two or more clusters [regardless of whether the cut-off assuming a multivariate uniform distribution (i.e. 0.25) or the more liberal multivariate normal distribution (i.e. 0.36) was used]. These findings showed that enhancement and coping drinkers do not form two distinct groups but, rather, these motives exist on a continuum such that individuals who are high in one internal motive tend to be high in the other motive. Conclusions Coping and enhancement drinkers do not form two distinct groups. Variable-centered approaches to drinking motives may be a better alternative to classifying all drinkers as either enhancement or coping drinkers for both clinical and research endeavors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research indicates 10% of college student drinkers report deliberately training to increase alcohol tolerance (a diagnostic criterion for alcohol use disorder) to avoid passing out early or to keep up with peers. Given that tolerance training may be considered a harm reduction technique designed to reduce acute aversive consequences, we examined the associations between tolerance training and the use of protective behavioral strategies (PBS) more generally. A cross-sectional survey of 1080 lifetime drinkers was conducted at a large Midwestern university. Of this sample, 5.6% (n=60) reported training to increase their tolerance. Drinkers who endorsed having trained to increase tolerance reported notably more alcohol-related problems than those who reported never training (Madj=51.80 versus Madj=39.30; p<0.0001). Further, participants who endorsed tolerance training reported utilizing significantly fewer PBS (e.g., avoid drinking games) on the Protective Behavioral Strategies Scale (PBSS, Martens et al., 2005) than participants who had never trained (Madj=16.89 versus Madj=18.90; p<0.01). An exception was that drinkers who trained to avoid passing out early used significantly more PBS (e.g., using a designated driver, knowing where your drink is at all times). Despite this, these trainers consumed more alcohol and experienced more alcohol-related harms. The present findings support previous research demonstrating that trainers consume more alcohol than non-trainers, and provide further evidence that deliberately training to increase tolerance is indicative of problematic drinking behavior. Prevention efforts might aim to inform drinkers of the problems associated with deliberately inducing alcohol tolerance, and focus on developing alternative strategies for minimizing acute harm from drinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]