Biomedical subjects

E J Heck

Publications and source records attributed to E J Heck.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1995

Criterion variability in problem-drinking research on college students.

A persistent issue confronting research on problem drinking (PD) and heavy drinking (HD) among college-age adults is the lack of a consistent, valid definition and criteria for either of the two conditions. This article presents a review and analysis of the criteria used in a selected group of studies on college students' PD and HD from 1974 to 1993. All studies within the time period that employed a random sample of students were analyzed for variations in criteria used to define either PD or HD. Sample characteristics, the specific criteria used, and data on prevalence rates found with those criteria are described. Areas of uniformity and inconsistency were identified and effects of criterion variations were described for the 23 studies reviewed. Of particular note was the lack of differential criteria for gender.

Adult↗

PubMed1995

Using the CAGE to screen for drinking-related problems in college students.

OBJECTIVE: As a brief alcohol screening instrument the CAGE has demonstrated a high degree of accuracy in identifying problem drinkers among adults. However, some studies have questioned its screening accuracy within a college population. The research presented in this article contains the results of two additional studies that examined the ability of the CAGE to identify problem drinkers within a college student population. METHOD: In both 1988 and 1992 a questionnaire of various drinking practices, including CAGE items, was mailed to a random sample of 1,000 students at a large midwestern university (response rate: 58.2%, 1988; 49.8%, 1992). Using identical problem-drinking criteria, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values at various cutoff scores of the CAGE were calculated for both sets of data and for gender. RESULTS: At the recommended CAGE cutoff score of > 2 for a positive test the sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPV) were slightly higher for the 1992 sample. The PPV values at that cutoff score were 46% (1988) and 49% (1992) and 48% for the combined data. In both samples the screening values were lower for women. CONCLUSIONS: These data from both surveys do not support the CAGE as a screening measure for problem drinking with this population. It appeared to be less accurate with women although that conclusion should be tempered by the fact that there was a relatively low percentage of problem drinkers found among women.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1991

Developing a screening questionnaire for problem drinking in college students.

The CAGE questionnaire is one of several brief screening instruments that has been successful in detecting alcoholism in a general population. There is evidence, however, indicating that none of these instruments has sufficient validity for detecting the less severe pattern of problem drinking that is more typical of college students. This study analyzed survey data, including CAGE questions, to identify items that would have sufficient test operating characteristics more valid for screening problem drinkers. Problem and normal drinking patterns were defined by combining certain categories of quantity-frequency data with categories of alcohol-related problems. Problem and normal drinkers were identified as those students at the ends of the quantity-frequency/alcohol-problems continuum. Differences between the two groups in response frequencies to a 17-item alcohol-use survey were examined using chi-square analyses. Five items showing highly significant differences were identified, and sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were calculated at possible cutoff points. These items were (1) a positive response to any 2 of the 4 CAGE items, (2) reporting rarely or never choosing nonalcoholic beverages at social events, (3) driving under the influence at least 6 to 10 times or more in the last year, and (4) having started regular use of alcohol before the college years. At the recommended cutoff score for a positive test, the items have a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 87%, and positive predictive value of 52%. When used for screening in a population similar to this, it will fail to identify 12% of the problem drinkers and will falsely classify 13% of all normal drinkers as problem drinkers.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adult↗