1991
DOI: 10.1016/0376-8716(91)90005-j
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The reliability and stability of a quantity-frequency method and a diary method of measuring alcohol consumption

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
25
0
2

Year Published

1995
1995
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
25
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…For test statistics from ANCOVA results, we followed the conversions in Borenstein (38, Table 12.3). We assumed a partial correlation of 0.50 (42) because the most common covariate was baseline drinking, and estimates of the stability of drinking over time are in the range of r = 0.50 for heavy drinkers followed for at least 3 months (43). In the absence of other data, if the results were presented as statistically “significant,” we calculated an effect size consistent with p = .05 (44).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For test statistics from ANCOVA results, we followed the conversions in Borenstein (38, Table 12.3). We assumed a partial correlation of 0.50 (42) because the most common covariate was baseline drinking, and estimates of the stability of drinking over time are in the range of r = 0.50 for heavy drinkers followed for at least 3 months (43). In the absence of other data, if the results were presented as statistically “significant,” we calculated an effect size consistent with p = .05 (44).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More generally, considerable stability in alcohol use or nonuse emerged across time-76% of the sample either never drank from W1 to W6 or had drunk at least something during each wave. But at the same time, change was evident in almost one quarter of the sample, as others have found (Cook and Moore, 2001;Kerr et al, 2002;Webb et al, 1991). Clearly, individual variation is important to consider.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Limitations include the following: the possible inaccuracy of self-reported alcohol consumption (Hilton, 1989;Midanik, 1982Midanik, , 1988Redman et al, 1987;Rehm, 1998;Smith et al, 1990;Webb et al, 1991;Williams et al, 1985); our use of a 1 month recall period to classify typical heavy drinking for a 6 month period of risk for injury; the lack of information to control for personality variables such as sensation seeking and behavioral undercontrol correlated with both risk taking and problem drinking (Cherpitel, 1999); and the lack of information on the drinking history of noncurrent drinkers. Our comparisons between current drinkers and the group of noncurrent drinkers (composed of respondents with an unknown mixture of drinking histories) are therefore difficult to interpret and may be confounded by the association of lifetime abstainers with variables such as religiosity, propensity to avoid deviant behavior, and risk aversion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%