| Literature DB >> 25702705 |
Sara Sjölund1, Tomas Hemmingsson, Peter Allebeck.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of the association between IQ and alcohol consumption have shown conflicting results. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between IQ test results and alcohol consumption, measured as both total alcohol intake and pattern of alcohol use.Entities:
Keywords: Alcohol Consumption; IQ
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25702705 PMCID: PMC4368388 DOI: 10.1111/acer.12656
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res ISSN: 0145-6008 Impact factor: 3.455
Prevalences of Outcomes and Covariates by IQ Test Results in Stanine. Mean IQ Test Stanine and Standard Deviations Are Also Provided
| IQ test results in stanines (%) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Highest scoring | Lowest scoring | |||||||||
| 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Mean (SD) | |
| Total alcohol intake/wk | ||||||||||
| Light consumers | 73 | 73 | 71 | 69 | 67 | 65 | 65 | 63 | 60 | 5.49 (±2.05) |
| Moderate consumers | 14 | 16 | 18 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 21 | 20 | 18 | 5.20 (±1.97) |
| High consumer | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 4.70 (±2.01) |
| Abstainer | 8 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 5.40 (±2.31) |
| Pattern of drinking | ||||||||||
| Binge | 7 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 5.06 (±1.97) |
| Nonbinge | 93 | 91 | 89 | 88 | 87 | 85 | 86 | 86 | 87 | 5.44 (±2.06) |
| SEP, head of household | ||||||||||
| Not classified | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4.92 (±2.04) |
| Unskilled worker | 18 | 21 | 26 | 31 | 36 | 39 | 44 | 46 | 48 | 4.85 (±2.01) |
| Skilled worker | 14 | 17 | 19 | 22 | 23 | 25 | 24 | 23 | 21 | 5.17 (±1.97) |
| Farmer | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 17 | 5.08 (±2.11) |
| Nonmanual, high | 14 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6.66 (±1.81) |
| Assistant nonmanual | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 5.91 (±1.91 |
| Nonmanual, intermediate | 30 | 28 | 23 | 18 | 14 | 12 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 6.26 (±1.88) |
| Father's drinking habits | ||||||||||
| Never | 25 | 22 | 20 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 25 | 5.46 (±2.17) |
| Exceptionally | 44 | 46 | 44 | 46 | 46 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 41 | 5.41 (±2.04) |
| Sometimes | 26 | 27 | 30 | 29 | 29 | 31 | 29 | 28 | 26 | 5.36 (±2.02) |
| Often | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5.11 (±2.01) |
| Psychiatric symptoms at conscription | ||||||||||
| Present | 7 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 17 | 21 | 39 | 4.47 (±2.21) |
| Not present | 93 | 93 | 92 | 90 | 88 | 87 | 83 | 79 | 61 | 5.52 (±2.00) |
| Low emotional control at conscription | ||||||||||
| Present | 21 | 23 | 24 | 26 | 29 | 34 | 38 | 47 | 61 | 4.84 (±2.17) |
| Not present | 79 | 77 | 76 | 74 | 71 | 66 | 62 | 53 | 38 | 5.63 (±1.96) |
SEP, socioeconomic position.
Odds Ratios (ORs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) Versus Being a Light Consumer, for Each Step Decrease on the Stanine Scale for Total Alcohol Intake Per Week in Groups Using Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis. Results Are Presented Both for the Full Cohort at Time of Conscription (A) and for the Subpopulation at Conscription and at Follow-Up (B)
| Moderate consumers versus light consumers | High consumers versus light consumers | Abstainers versus light consumers | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| (A) Full cohort (cross-sectional) crude | 1.07 | 1.06–1.08 | 1.20 | 1.17–1.23 | 1.02 | 1.00–1.04 |
| Adjusted | ||||||
| Childhood SEP | 1.08 | 1.07–1.09 | 1.22 | 1.19–1.25 | 1.02 | 1.00–1.04 |
| Psychiatric symptoms | 1.06 | 1.04–1.07 | 1.13 | 1.10–1.16 | 1.01 | 0.99–1.03 |
| Emotional stability | 1.05 | 1.04–1.06 | 1.13 | 1.10–1.06 | 1.01 | 0.99–1.03 |
| Father's alcohol habits | 1.07 | 1.06–1.08 | 1.20 | 1.17–1.23 | 1.03 | 1.01–1.05 |
| Full model | 1.06 | 1.04–1.07 | 1.12 | 1.09–1.15 | 1.00 | 0.98–1.02 |
Adjusted for childhood socioeconomic position (SEP), psychiatric symptoms, emotional stability, and father's alcohol habits.
Figure 1Mean consumption of grams alcohol/wk by IQ test results in stanines.
Odds Ratios (ORs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) for Each Step Decrease on the Stanine Scale for Binge Drinking, Using Logistic Regression
| Binge drinking | ||
|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | |
| Crude | 1.09 | 1.08–1.11 |
| Adjusted | ||
| Childhood SEP | 1.08 | 1.07–1.10 |
| Psychiatric symptoms | 1.07 | 1.05–1.08 |
| Emotional stability | 1.06 | 1.05–1.08 |
| Father's alcohol habits | 1.09 | 1.07–1.10 |
| Full model | 1.04 | 1.03–1.06 |
Adjusted for childhood socioeconomic position (SEP), psychiatric symptoms, emotional stability, and father's alcohol habits.
Odds Ratios (ORs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) for Each Step Decrease on the Stanine Scale for Each of the 4 Different Subtests and the 2 Different Outcomes, Using Both Multinomial and Logistic Regression
| Total alcohol intake | Pattern of drinking | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate consumer versus light consumer | High consumer versus light consumer | Abstainers versus light consumer | Binge drinking | |||||
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| IQ test parts | ||||||||
| A. Instructions | 1.07 | 1.06–1.08 | 1.22 | 1.19–1.25 | 1.03 | 1.01–1.05 | 1.09 | 1.07–1.10 |
| B. Concept discrimination | 1.05 | 1.04–1.06 | 1.18 | 1.15–1.21 | 1.03 | 1.01–1.05 | 1.07 | 1.06–1.09 |
| C. Paper form board | 1.04 | 1.03–1.05 | 1.12 | 1.09–1.15 | 1.04 | 1.01–1.06 | 1.07 | 1.05–1.09 |
| D. Technical comprehension | 1.09 | 1.08–1.10 | 1.20 | 1.17–1.23 | 1.00 | 0.98–1.02 | 1.10 | 1.08–1.11 |
(A) Instructions (logical inductive/verbal ability—40 items), (B) Concept discrimination (logical inductive/verbal ability—40 items), (C) Paper form board (spatial ability—25 items) and (D) Technical comprehension (technical ability—52 items).