M J Werner1, L S Walker, J W Greene. 1. Division of Adolescent Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous studies suggest that combining the CAGE questionnaire with the Perceived Benefit of Drinking Scale (PBDS), information about an adolescent's use of tobacco, and best friend's drinking pattern is a useful composite screening measure for problem drinking. The present study was undertaken to evaluate this composite screening measure prospectively as a predictor of subsequent problem drinking among late adolescents across 3 years of college. METHODS: A random sample of 452 college freshmen entered a longitudinal study of alcohol use at the beginning of their freshman year. A total of 184 (58%) completed follow-up measures of alcohol use 32 months later. Outcome measures included the quantity and frequency of alcohol use and a composite measure of specific alcohol-related problems. RESULTS: CAGE scores, PBDS scores, tobacco use, and best friend's drinking patterns as reported at college entry together explained 33% of the variance in the quantity/frequency measure and 37% of the variance in the alcohol-related problems measure from the end of the junior year. These same variables as reported at the end of the junior year explained 50% of the variance in the quantity/frequency measure and 61% of the variance in the alcohol-related problems measure. The composite screening measure as reported at college entry had a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 70%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 63%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 78% for students at high risk for problem drinking at the end of the junior year. A similar concurrent composite screening measure consisting of the same variables reported at the end of the junior year had a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 56%, PPV of 60%, and NPV of 83% for high-risk drinkers. A total of 70-73% of students could be correctly categorized by each composite screening measure. These composite screening tests had significantly better test characteristics than the CAGE or PBDS alone. CONCLUSIONS: College students' responses to the CAGE, PBDS, tobacco use, and their friends' drinking remain consistent over 3 years and correlate with concurrent and future risk for problem drinking. These variables explain significant variance in drinking and alcohol-related problems and may constitute a useful screening measure for current and future problem drinking.
PURPOSE: Previous studies suggest that combining the CAGE questionnaire with the Perceived Benefit of Drinking Scale (PBDS), information about an adolescent's use of tobacco, and best friend's drinking pattern is a useful composite screening measure for problem drinking. The present study was undertaken to evaluate this composite screening measure prospectively as a predictor of subsequent problem drinking among late adolescents across 3 years of college. METHODS: A random sample of 452 college freshmen entered a longitudinal study of alcohol use at the beginning of their freshman year. A total of 184 (58%) completed follow-up measures of alcohol use 32 months later. Outcome measures included the quantity and frequency of alcohol use and a composite measure of specific alcohol-related problems. RESULTS: CAGE scores, PBDS scores, tobacco use, and best friend's drinking patterns as reported at college entry together explained 33% of the variance in the quantity/frequency measure and 37% of the variance in the alcohol-related problems measure from the end of the junior year. These same variables as reported at the end of the junior year explained 50% of the variance in the quantity/frequency measure and 61% of the variance in the alcohol-related problems measure. The composite screening measure as reported at college entry had a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 70%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 63%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 78% for students at high risk for problem drinking at the end of the junior year. A similar concurrent composite screening measure consisting of the same variables reported at the end of the junior year had a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 56%, PPV of 60%, and NPV of 83% for high-risk drinkers. A total of 70-73% of students could be correctly categorized by each composite screening measure. These composite screening tests had significantly better test characteristics than the CAGE or PBDS alone. CONCLUSIONS: College students' responses to the CAGE, PBDS, tobacco use, and their friends' drinking remain consistent over 3 years and correlate with concurrent and future risk for problem drinking. These variables explain significant variance in drinking and alcohol-related problems and may constitute a useful screening measure for current and future problem drinking.
Authors: Chudley E Chad Werch; Hui Bian; Carlo C Diclemente; Michelle J Moore; Dennis Thombs; Steven C Ames; I-Chan Huang; Steven Pokorny Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2010-03
Authors: Isabel G Jacobson; Margaret A K Ryan; Tomoko I Hooper; Tyler C Smith; Paul J Amoroso; Edward J Boyko; Gary D Gackstetter; Timothy S Wells; Nicole S Bell Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-08-13 Impact factor: 56.272