ArticleAssessment2020
Item Responses in Quantity-Frequency Questionnaires: Implications for Data Generalizability.
Article in Assessment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Technology-Based Intervention to Reduce Alcohol Use After Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: Examination of Six-month Follow-up Outcomes Following a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Obesity surgery · 2026Trial
- A technology-based intervention to reduce alcohol use after metabolic and bariatric surgery: feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary outcomes.Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery · 2025Trial
- Hindi adaptation and psychometric validation of "Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale" in alcohol dependence.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Questionable generalizability of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption scoring warrants caution when used for outcome monitoring: Evidence from simulated and real-world trial data.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2025Article
- Endpoints for Pharmacotherapy Trials for Alcohol Use Disorder.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Review
- Validity of an online, self-administered Timeline Followback for alcohol use with adolescents.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Putting things in context: Longitudinal relations between drinking contexts, drinking motives, and negative alcohol consequences.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alcohol consumption is an important predictor of a variety of negative outcomes. There is an extensive literature that examines the differences in the estimated level of alcohol consumption between types of assessments (e.g., quantity-frequency [QF] questionnaires, daily diaries). However, it is typically assumed that all QF-based measures are nearly identical in their assessment of the volume of alcohol consumption in a population. Using timeline follow-back data and constructing common QF consumption measures, we examined differences among survey instruments to assess alcohol consumption and heavy drinking. Using three data sets, including clinical to community samples, we demonstrate how scale-specific item characteristics (i.e., number of response options and ranges of consumption assessed by each option) can substantially affect the estimated mean level of consumption and estimated prevalence of binge drinking. Our analyses suggest that problems can be mitigated by employing more resolved measures of quantity and frequency in consumption questionnaires.
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.