Problem drinking among American men aged 21-59.

Differentiating DSM-IV alcohol dependence and abuse by course: Community heavy drinkers

“…We previously conducted secondary analyses on differences in the course of DSM-III-R abuse and dependence (Hasin et al, 1990). The data came from a small national sample of male drinkers initially interviewed in 1969 (Cahalan & Room, 1974) and followed up four years later (Fillmore, 1987). Diagnostic concepts from the 1980's and 1990's were obviously not specifically operationalized in this older study.…”

Concepts and items in measuring social harm from drinking

“…Age when you began to have ideas of jealousy concerning your wife or girl friend: ___ 90. Age when you sought or accepted the services of an intermediary to straighten out matters with your family, friends, or employer: ___ Table 2 Social harm problem scores and items, 1969 national sample of males (Cahalan and Room, 1974) Problems with wife: 60. During the last 3 years, did your wife show any concern about your drinking?…”

“…However, those engaged in longitudinal studies quickly realized that lifetime questions hamstrung any analysis of change Ð respondents could never get better, they could only become invalid. In early studies, the time period specified for``current problems'' varied, from 6 months in the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) to as long as 3 years (Cahalan & Room, 1974). The literature has settled down to 12 months as the usual time period for``current'' problems.…”

“…Clark (1966), on the other hand, kept the problem-area scores separate, focussing on the extent of overlap between a positive score in one problem area and a positive score in another Ð an approach Room (1977) also applied to problems from opiate use. A third approach, used by Cahalan and Room (1974), used a typology distinguishing``tangible consequences'' (combining social and health consequences) from binge drinking and other problematic consumption.…”

“…However, samples and questions have sometimes been designed to get information from both sides of an interaction (Room, 1989a). Another option for looking beyond the individual level is to analyze survey data in conjunction with census or other aggregate statistics, or (when respondents to a survey are clustered) to aggregate their responses (Cahalan & Room, 1974). Work along these lines is, however, beyond the scope of the present paper.…”