ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2017
Comparing the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor (bifactor) measurement structures of the drinking motives questionnaire.
Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sexual Self-Objectification and Sex-Related Drinking Motives Among College Women: Do Emotion Regulation and Distress Tolerance Matter?Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
- COVID-19 Concerns, Coping and Perceived Peer Norms: Correlates of Increased Alcohol and Marijuana Use Among Sexual Minority Women.Journal of homosexuality · 2024Article
- Clarifying Relations Between Core Features of Psychopathy and Substance (Mis)use: A Replication and Extension in Two Large Independent Samples.Journal of personality disorders · 2024Article
- Mental health and drinking to cope in the early COVID period: Data from the 2019-2020 US National Alcohol Survey.Addictive behaviors · 2022Article
- Negative urgency and alcohol-related problems: indirect links with alcohol expectancies and drinking motives.Journal of addictive diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ-R) is the most widely administered instrument to assess reasons for consuming alcohol and is conventionally premised on a four-factor structure. Recent research instead reveals that a bifactor measurement model of five motive factors (one general and four specific) represents a superior psychometric embodiment of the scale. The current study evaluated and compared the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor models of drinking motives in longitudinally explaining alcohol use and problems.
methodsAdult participants (N=413; age range=18-79 years) completed measures of drinking motives (Time 1) and alcohol use and problems one month later (Time 2).
resultsConfirmatory factor analyses corroborated the four-factor (social, enhancement, conformity, and coping motives) and five-factor (each item double loading on general motives and a specific motives factor) measurement structures, but the latter rendered stronger fit indices. Structural equation models revealed that lower social motives, higher enhancement motives, and higher coping motives prospectively contributed to alcohol use. Furthermore, lower social motives, higher conformity motives, higher coping motives, and greater alcohol use contributed to alcohol problems. DISCUSSION: The same set of paths emerged as significantly predictive in both models, but general motives additionally explained alcohol use and problems in the five-factor model. The incremental contribution of general motives (beyond the specific motives) on alcohol intake and detrimental consequences supports the predictive validity of the drinking reasons paradigm embodied by the inclusion of a global factor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.