The Alcohol-related Aggression Questionnaire

Abstract

Although alcohol-related violence is a common problem, there is wide variability amongst individuals in the extent to which they engage in alcohol-related violence. To assist with identification of individual differences, we developed a comprehensive measure of alcohol-related aggression. Items for the Alcohol-related Aggression Questionnaire (ARAQ) were generated from a priori literature searches and administered to 226 males. Factor analysis reduced the ARAQ from 64 to 28 items, with five subscales showing good internal consistency and concurrent validity. In a second study, 219 offenders and non-offenders were tested on the ARAQ-28, the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Confirmatory factor analysis did not support the original factor structure, but an exploratory factor analysis gave a new four-factor structure with broadly similar constructs. The ARAQ-28 showed good internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct and discriminant validity. The ARAQ-28 coheres as a univariate scale, and its subscales may have clinical utility.

Drinking Style and Dating Violence in a Sample of Urban, Alcohol-Using Youth

“…Individuals may use alcohol as a "time-out" from usual social expectations and assume that they will not be held culpable for their behavior if they can use drunkenness as an excuse (MacAndrew and Edgerton, 1969). Youths' behavior while intoxicated may also refl ect their alcohol-aggression expectancies-that is, they may have developed a belief that alcohol increases aggression and, therefore, when drinking, act out this expectancy (McMurran et al, 2006). Finally, it is possible that the connection between alcohol use and violent behavior may be spurious and refl ect other factors that underlie both.…”

“…The latent variable drinking style was composed of fi ve alcohol use-related scale scores, including the Alcohol Use Disorders Identifi cation Test (AUDIT; Chung et al, 2002), the Drinking-Induced Disinhibition Scale (Leeman et al, 2007), the Alcohol-Related Aggression Questionnaire (McMurran et al, 2006), the drinking to cope subscale of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire (Cooper, 1994), and using alcohol as a time-out (Field et al, 2004). Each of these scales produced a continuous score that loaded well onto our drinking-style latent variable (Table 1).…”

Treating alcohol-related violence: a feasibility study of a randomized controlled trial in prisons

“…Compared with TAU, there were greater reductions in the COVAID group's alcohol-aggression outcome expectancies, as measured by the ARAQ (McMurran et al, 2006) and greater improvements in controlled drinking self-efficacy, as measured by the CDSES (Sitharthan et al, 2003). In a full RCT, relating these interim outcomes to recidivism would be useful in investigating the processes by which COVAID may exert its effects.…”

“…Reconviction information collected from participants' probation officers at a mean18.5 weeks after referral showed fewer reconvictions in the treated group (1/6) compared with the untreated (3/10) (odds ratio (OR) = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.05-6.63). In a single case design with ten community clients with alcohol-related aggression problems recruited from social services, probation service, and a community alcohol and drug service, five participants showed clinically significant improvement on the Alcohol-Related Aggression Questionnaire (ARAQ; McMurran et al, 2006), and seven showed clinically significant improvement on the Controlled Drinking Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSES; Sitharthan, Job, Kavanagh, Sitharthan, & Hough, 2003), although the mean weekly self-reported alcohol 1 Contact the authors for more information on COVAID.…”

Evaluation of a treatment programme for alcohol‐related aggression

“…This is the defi nition adopted for the ARAQ, a scale for which both functional and dysfunctional norms are available (McMurran et al, 2006). This requires the calculation of the score that the participant's post-treatment score must cross for change to be considered clinically signifi cant using the equation (where M is the mean score): (SD functional population × M dysfunctional population) + (SD dysfunctional population × M functional population)/SD functional population + SD dysfunctional population).…”