Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26680342›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2016

The ad-libitum alcohol 'taste test': secondary analyses of potential confounds and construct validity.

Andrew Jones, Emily Button, Abigail K Rose, Eric Robinson, Paul Christiansen, Lisa Di Lemma, Matt Field

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Experimental and observational studies on alcohol use and dietary intake: a systematic review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Does alcohol cue inhibitory control training survive a context shift?Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2020
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Impact of lower strength alcohol labeling on consumption: A randomized controlled trial.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2018
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Associations of subjective and objective stress responses with interpersonal trauma, PTSD, stress-induced drinking, and drinking to cope in young adults.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Andrew JonesPsychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK. ajj@liv.ac.uk.
Emily ButtonPsychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Abigail K RosePsychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Eric RobinsonPsychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Paul ChristiansenPsychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Lisa Di LemmaPsychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Matt FieldPsychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K001558/1Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleMotivation to drink alcohol can be measured in the laboratory using an ad-libitum 'taste test', in which participants rate the taste of alcoholic drinks whilst their intake is covertly monitored. Little is known about the construct validity of this paradigm.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate variables that may compromise the validity of this paradigm and its construct validity.

methodsWe re-analysed data from 12 studies from our laboratory that incorporated an ad-libitum taste test. We considered time of day and participants' awareness of the purpose of the taste test as potential confounding variables. We examined whether gender, typical alcohol consumption, subjective craving, scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and perceived pleasantness of the drinks predicted ad-libitum consumption (construct validity).

resultsWe included 762 participants (462 female). Participant awareness and time of day were not related to ad-libitum alcohol consumption. Males drank significantly more alcohol than females (p < 0.001), and individual differences in typical alcohol consumption (p = 0.04), craving (p < 0.001) and perceived pleasantness of the drinks (p = 0.04) were all significant predictors of ad-libitum consumption.

conclusionsWe found little evidence that time of day or participant awareness influenced alcohol consumption. The construct validity of the taste test was supported by relationships between ad-libitum consumption and typical alcohol consumption, craving and pleasantness ratings of the drinks. The ad-libitum taste test is a valid method for the assessment of alcohol intake in the laboratory.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingAlcoholic BeveragesAlcoholismCentral Nervous System DepressantsCravingEthanolFemaleHumansIndividualityMaleModels, PsychologicalMotivationReproducibility of ResultsSex CharacteristicsTaste PerceptionYoung AdultCentral Nervous System DepressantsEthanolAd-libitumAlcoholAwarenessConstruct validityCravingTaste test

Identifiers

PMID26680342
PMCPMC4751185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.