How Should Alcohol Problems Be Conceptualized? Causal Indicators Within the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index

Abstract

Alcohol-related problems have traditionally been conceptualized and measured by an effect indicator model. That is, it is generally assumed that observed indicators of alcohol problems are caused by a latent variable. However, there are reasons to think that this construct is more accurately conceptualized as including at least some causal indicators, in which observed indicators cause the latent variable. The present study examined the measurement model of a well-known alcohol consequences questionnaire, the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index. Participants were 703 students from a large public university in the Northeast mandated to an alcohol intervention. We conducted a zero tetrad test to examine a measurement model consisting solely of effect indicators and a model with both causal and effect indicators. Overall, the results suggested the hybrid model fit the data better than a model with only effect indicators. These findings have implications regarding the theoretical underpinnings of alcohol-related consequences.

Differential brain responses to alcohol‐related and natural rewards are associated with alcohol use and problems: Evidence for reward dysregulation

“…Furthermore, reward dysregulation P3 showed better utility in discriminating at-risk from lower-risk individuals than did ACR-P3 or Reward-P3 alone (H3ii)-and did so essentially as well as an alcohol use/heavy drinking composite measure, the "gold standard" indicator of risk for alcohol-related problems. 83 These findings are consistent with recent studies demonstrating that a neurophysiological response profile involving low reactivity to nondrug-related, natural reward images and high reactivity to drug-related cues is associated (positively) with risk for relapse among smokers 36,53 and (negatively) with abstinence in cocaine use disorder. 51,52 The current findings extend prior reports by demonstrating that differential incentive valuation of cues for drug and nondrug reward is associated with heavier, more problematic use of alcohol-a substance far more commonly used than either nicotine or cocaine 84 -and is evident in a nonclinical young adult sample.…”

“…More importantly, attesting to its potential as a neurobiological indicator of problematic drinking, reward dysregulation P3 showed robust and consistent associations with alcohol‐related outcomes, accounting for a greater proportion of variance in those outcomes than its constituent responses (H3i). Furthermore, reward dysregulation P3 showed better utility in discriminating at‐risk from lower‐risk individuals than did ACR‐P3 or Reward‐P3 alone (H3ii)—and did so essentially as well as an alcohol use/heavy drinking composite measure, the “gold standard” indicator of risk for alcohol‐related problems 83 . These findings are consistent with recent studies demonstrating that a neurophysiological response profile involving low reactivity to nondrug‐related, natural reward images and high reactivity to drug‐related cues is associated (positively) with risk for relapse among smokers 36,53 and (negatively) with abstinence in cocaine use disorder 51,52 .…”

The Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index for Adolescent Alcohol and Drug Problems: A Comprehensive Modern Psychometric Study

“…This study considered only a refl ective measurement model assuming that the latent substance-related problems caused variations in item response patterns. However, Arterberry et al (2016) elegantly presented a formative measurement model of the original RAPI as an alternative framework that should be considered in future research. Also, polydrug use in the present study was measured by the number of substance types used while not taking into account frequency and consumption quantity.…”

Self-Medication for Sleep in College Students: Concurrent and Prospective Associations With Sleep and Alcohol Behavior

“…A sum score (Cronbach's α = .87) was used for analyses. The sum score of the 23 items reflects the degree of experience of a range of diverse consequences (White & Labouvie, 1989), which has been demonstrated to map onto a single latent construct of negative drinking consequences (see Arterberry et al, 2016;Cohn et al, 2011).…”