Comparison of a quick drinking screen with the timeline followback for individuals with alcohol problems.

OBJECTIVE Two major strategies have typically been used to assess recent drinking: (1) Daily Estimation (DE) measures such as the Timeline Followback (TLFB) and (2) Quantity-Frequency (QF) summary measures. Although QF measures provide a quick and easy measure of consumption, they have been criticized as not being able to capture sporadic and unpatterned drinking (e.g., days that reflect important social and/or health risks). The TLFB, a psychometrically sound drinking assessment method, is able to capture all drinking, including sporadic heavy days and unpatterned drinking. In some situations, however, recall of daily drinking may not be possible or practical (e.g., limited time; no resources). This article compares results obtained by using a QF measure and a DE measure to assess problem drinkers' pretreatment drinking. METHOD The current study, part of a large community mail intervention with 825 alcohol abusers, compared results from two drinking measures covering the same time interval that were administered on two different occasions approximately 2.5 weeks apart. Both measures, the Quick Drinking Screen (QDS; a QF summary measure that collected data by telephone) and the TLFB (a self-administered daily estimation measure), collected drinking data for the year prior to the interview. RESULTS Although the QDS and the TLFB are very different drinking measures, remarkably similar aggregate drinking data were obtained for five drinking variables. CONCLUSIONS When it is not necessary or possible to gather detailed drinking data, the QDS produces reliable brief summary measures of drinking, at least for not severely alcohol dependent individuals. Also, respondents do not appear to use a repetitive response pattern when completing the TLFB.

[1]  Linda C. Sobell,et al.  Alcohol Timeline Followback , 2000 .

[2]  R. Room Measuring Alcohol Consumption in the United States , 1990 .

[3]  L. Sobell,et al.  Assessing drinking outcomes in alcohol treatment efficacy studies: selecting a yardstick of success. , 2003, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[4]  L C Sobell,et al.  Reliability of a timeline method: assessing normal drinkers' reports of recent drinking and a comparative evaluation across several populations. , 1988, British journal of addiction.

[5]  Linda C. Sobell,et al.  Alcohol Consumption Measures , 1995 .

[6]  F. Rotgers,et al.  Assessing Alcohol Problems: A Guide for Clinicians and Researchers , 1997 .

[7]  Michael B. First,et al.  Handbook of Psychiatric Measures , 2000 .

[8]  T. Babor,et al.  A review of research on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). , 1997, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[9]  J. Cunningham,et al.  What is the price of perfection? The hidden costs of using detailed assessment instruments to measure alcohol consumption. , 1999, Journal of studies on alcohol.

[10]  L C Sobell,et al.  Fostering self-change among problem drinkers: a proactive community intervention. , 1996, Addictive behaviors.

[11]  L C Sobell,et al.  The reliability of a timeline method for assessing normal drinker college students' recent drinking history: utility for alcohol research. , 1986, Addictive behaviors.

[12]  The AUDIT questionnaire: choosing a cut-off score. Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test. , 1995, Addiction.

[13]  L. Sobell,et al.  Promoting self-change with alcohol abusers: a community-level mail intervention based on natural recovery studies. , 2002, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[14]  T. Alanko An Overview of Techniques and Problems in the Measurement of Alcohol Consumption , 1984 .

[15]  Linda C. Sobell,et al.  Timeline Follow-Back A Technique for Assessing Self-Reported Alcohol Consumption , 1992 .

[16]  F. D. Del Boca,et al.  Measurement of drinking behavior using the Form 90 family of instruments. , 1994, Journal of studies on alcohol. Supplement.