CONCURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE SCREENING FOR PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG COLLEGE-STUDENTS

Citation
Mj. Werner et al., CONCURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE SCREENING FOR PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG COLLEGE-STUDENTS, Journal of adolescent health, 18(4), 1996, pp. 276-285
Citations number
34
Categorie Soggetti
Public, Environmental & Occupation Heath","Public, Environmental & Occupation Heath
ISSN journal
1054139X
Volume
18
Issue
4
Year of publication
1996
Pages
276 - 285
Database
ISI
SICI code
1054-139X(1996)18:4<276:CAPSFP>2.0.ZU;2-B
Abstract
Purpose: Previous studies suggest that combining the CAGE questionnair e with the Perceived Benefit of Drinking Scale (PBDS), information abo ut an adolescent's use of tobacco, and best friend's drinking pattern is a useful composite screening measure for problem drinking. The pres ent study was undertaken to evaluate this composite screening measure prospectively as a predictor of subsequent problem drinking among late adolescents across 3 years of college. Methods: A random sample of 45 2 college freshmen entered a longitudinal study of alcohol use at the beginning of their freshman year. A total of 184 (58%) completed follo w-up measures of alcohol use 32 months later. Outcome measures include d the quantity and frequency of alcohol use and a composite measure of specific alcohol-related problems. Results: CAGE scores, PBDS scores, tobacco use, and best friend's drinking patterns as reported at colle ge entry together explained 33% of the variance in the quantity/freque ncy measure and 37% of the variance in the alcohol-related problems me asure from the end of the junior year. These same variables as reporte d at the end of the junior year explained 50% of the variance in the q uantity/frequency measure and 61% of the variance in the alcohol-relat ed problems measure. The composite screening measure as reported at co llege entry had a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 70%, positive pre dictive value (PPV) of 63%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 78% for students at high risk for problem drinking at the end of the juni or year. A similar concurrent composite screening measure consisting o f the same variables reported at the end of the junior year had a sens itivity of 88%, specificity of 56%, PPV of 60%, and NPV of 83% for hig h-risk drinkers. A total of 70-73% of students could be correctly cate gorized by each composite screening measure. These composite screening tests had significantly better test characteristics than the CAGE or PBDS alone. Conclusions: College students' responses to the CAGE, PBDS , tobacco use, and their friends' drinking remain consistent over 3 ye ars and correlate with concurrent and future risk for problem drinking . These variables explain significant variance in drinking and alcohol -related problems and may constitute a useful screening measure for cu rrent and future problem drinking.