Thomas K Greenfield1, William C Kerr. 1. Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, 6475 Christie Avenue, Suite 400, Emeryville, CA 94608, USA. tgreenfield@arg.org
Abstract
AIM: To review and discuss measurement issues in survey assessment of alcohol consumption for epidemiological studies. METHODS: The following areas are considered: implications of cognitive studies of question answering such as self-referenced schemata of drinking, reference period and retrospective recall, as well as the assets and liabilities of types of current (e.g. food frequency, quantity-frequency, graduated frequencies and heavy drinking indicators) and life-time drinking measures. Finally we consider units of measurement and improving measurement by detailing the ethanol content of drinks in natural settings. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive studies suggest inherent limitations in the measurement enterprise, yet diary studies show promise of broadly validating methods that assess a range of drinking amounts per occasion; improvements in survey measures of drinking in the life course are indicated; attending in detail to on- and off-premise drink pour sizes and ethanol concentrations of various beverages shows promise of narrowing the coverage gap plaguing survey alcohol measurement.
AIM: To review and discuss measurement issues in survey assessment of alcohol consumption for epidemiological studies. METHODS: The following areas are considered: implications of cognitive studies of question answering such as self-referenced schemata of drinking, reference period and retrospective recall, as well as the assets and liabilities of types of current (e.g. food frequency, quantity-frequency, graduated frequencies and heavy drinking indicators) and life-time drinking measures. Finally we consider units of measurement and improving measurement by detailing the ethanol content of drinks in natural settings. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive studies suggest inherent limitations in the measurement enterprise, yet diary studies show promise of broadly validating methods that assess a range of drinking amounts per occasion; improvements in survey measures of drinking in the life course are indicated; attending in detail to on- and off-premise drink pour sizes and ethanol concentrations of various beverages shows promise of narrowing the coverage gap plaguing survey alcohol measurement.
Authors: M Russell; J R Marshall; M Trevisan; J L Freudenheim; A W Chan; N Markovic; J E Vána; R L Priore Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1997-12-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jürgen Rehm; Dolly Baliunas; Guilherme L G Borges; Kathryn Graham; Hyacinth Irving; Tara Kehoe; Charles D Parry; Jayadeep Patra; Svetlana Popova; Vladimir Poznyak; Michael Roerecke; Robin Room; Andriy V Samokhvalov; Benjamin Taylor Journal: Addiction Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Marilyn Fortin; Gina Muckle; Elhadji Anassour-Laouan-Sidi; Sandra W Jacobson; Joseph L Jacobson; Richard E Bélanger Journal: Alcohol Alcohol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 2.826
Authors: Thomas K Greenfield; Yu Ye; Jason Bond; William C Kerr; Madhabika B Nayak; Lee Ann Kaskutas; Raymond F Anton; Raye Z Litten; Henry R Kranzler Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.582