Comparing strengths and weaknesses of contemporary quantitative methods to collect data on alcohol consumption: an 'at-a-glance' overview.
Saved in:
| Title: | Comparing strengths and weaknesses of contemporary quantitative methods to collect data on alcohol consumption: an 'at-a-glance' overview. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Kuntsche, Emmanuel, Riordan, Benjamin, Van Egmond, Kelly, Labhart, Florian, Callinan, Sarah, Gmel, Gerhard |
| Source: | Addiction Research & Theory. Aug2023, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p270-277. 8p. 1 Chart. |
| Subjects: | Experimental design, Time, Acquisition of data, Quantitative research, Cost control, Cognition, Ecological research, Human services programs, Alcohol drinking, Questionnaires, Drinking behavior, Breath tests |
| Abstract: | This paper aims to provide an overview of the contemporary quantitative methods to assess alcohol consumption. We identified and rated six data collection methods according to four typical aims (i.e. to assess: per capita consumption, drinking patterns, event-specific consumption, and consumption over time) and five desirable features (low cognitive bias, contextual information, low participant and researcher burden, low costs). The results are presented in an overview table, which reveals that questionnaire-based methods are easy and cost-efficient but often distorted by cognitive biases. These biases can be avoided by analyzing sales/production statistics and wastewater samples, but these methods are unable to provide information on individual drinking patterns. Breathalyzers or transdermal monitors enable relatively precise measurement of individual consumption without any cognitive bias. However, the required devices are expensive and difficult to apply correctly, which makes data collection time, labor, and cost-intensive, particularly as sample sizes increase. Ecological momentary assessment (e.g. series of questionnaires within short timeframes completed in the participants' natural environments) reduces, but does not eliminate, cognitive biases and maximizes ecological validity. Unfortunately, this method also increases the response burden, potentially resulting in assessment reactivity and drop-out. Highlighting the combination of strengths and weaknesses of each method, this overview may serve as useful guidance for study planning and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Addiction Research & Theory is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | This paper aims to provide an overview of the contemporary quantitative methods to assess alcohol consumption. We identified and rated six data collection methods according to four typical aims (i.e. to assess: per capita consumption, drinking patterns, event-specific consumption, and consumption over time) and five desirable features (low cognitive bias, contextual information, low participant and researcher burden, low costs). The results are presented in an overview table, which reveals that questionnaire-based methods are easy and cost-efficient but often distorted by cognitive biases. These biases can be avoided by analyzing sales/production statistics and wastewater samples, but these methods are unable to provide information on individual drinking patterns. Breathalyzers or transdermal monitors enable relatively precise measurement of individual consumption without any cognitive bias. However, the required devices are expensive and difficult to apply correctly, which makes data collection time, labor, and cost-intensive, particularly as sample sizes increase. Ecological momentary assessment (e.g. series of questionnaires within short timeframes completed in the participants' natural environments) reduces, but does not eliminate, cognitive biases and maximizes ecological validity. Unfortunately, this method also increases the response burden, potentially resulting in assessment reactivity and drop-out. Highlighting the combination of strengths and weaknesses of each method, this overview may serve as useful guidance for study planning and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 16066359 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/16066359.2022.2143495 |
