Examining the validity of the addictions neuroclinical assessment domains in a crowdsourced sample of adults with current alcohol use.
Examining the validity of the addictions neuroclinical assessment domains in a crowdsourced sample of adults with current alcohol use.
复制标题
在当前饮酒的成年人的众包样本中检查成瘾神经临床评估领域的有效性。
DOI：
10.1037/pha0000648
复制
发表时间：
2024
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Witkiewitz,Katie
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Votaw,VictoriaR;Boness,CassandraL;Stein,ElenaR;Watts,AshleyL;Sher,KennethJ;Witkiewitz,Katie
已经提出了用于表征酒精使用障碍（AUD）异质性的几个维度框架，包括成瘾神经临床评估（ANA）。 ANA 是一个框架，用于评估 AUD 内三个领域的个体差异，这三个领域对应于成瘾周期的拟议阶段：奖励（暴饮-中毒阶段）、负面情绪（戒断-负面影响阶段）和认知控制（全神贯注-期待阶段）。最近的工作评估了 ANA 的三因素结构和构建有效性，主要针对患有 AUD 的治疗寻求者。我们通过检查因素结构、饮酒严重程度的偏差、纵向不变性以及对过去 12 个月定期（10+ 酒精单位/周）饮酒的成年人 ANA 域的新评估的并发和预测有效性来扩展这项研究。从众包数据收集平台 Prolific（N = 732）招募的参与者完成了各种自我报告措施。测试-再测试子样本 (n= 234) 在 30 天后完成了这些措施。分半探索性因素分析和验证性因素分析支持 ANA 的三因素结构。整体因子结构在 30 天内保持不变。同时和前瞻性地，ANA 领域证明了理论上一致的酒精相关、心理和人格测量的收敛有效性。然而，有证据表明区分效度较差，并且一些认知控制和奖励项目表现出酒精使用严重程度的偏差。未来的研究需要使用多模态指标改进 ANA 域的测量，检查域的纵向变化及其与饮酒严重程度的关系，根据域的相对水平描述表型亚组的特征，并将 ANA 的效用与其他提出的测量 AUD 异质性的框架进行比较。
Several dimensional frameworks for characterizing heterogeneity in alcohol use disorder (AUD) have been proposed, including the Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment (ANA). The ANA is a framework for assessing individual variability within AUD across three domains corresponding to the proposed stages of the addiction cycle: reward (binge-intoxication stage), negative emotionality (withdrawal-negative affect stage), and cognitive control (preoccupation-anticipation stage). Recent work has evaluated the ANA’s three-factor structure and construct validity, primarily in treatment-seekers with AUD. We extended this research by examining the factor structure, bias across alcohol use severity, longitudinal invariance, and concurrent and predictive validity of a novel assessment of the ANA domains in adults with past 12-month regular (10+ alcohol units/week) alcohol use. Participants recruited from Prolific (N= 732), a crowdsourced data collection platform, completed various self-report measures. A test–retest subsample (n= 234) completed these measures 30 days later. Split-half exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis supported the three-factor structure of the ANA. The overall factor structure was invariant across 30 days. Concurrently and prospectively, ANA domains demonstrated convergent validity concerning theoretically aligned alcohol-related, psychological, and personality measures. However, there was evidence of poor discriminant validity, and several cognitive control and reward items demonstrated bias across alcohol use severity. Future research is needed to improve the measurement of ANA domains using multimodal indicators, examine longitudinal changes in domains and their relationship with alcohol use severity, characterize phenotypic subgroups based on relative levels of domains, and compare the utility of the ANA with other proposed frameworks for measuring AUD heterogeneity.