MICROCOMPUTER ASSESSMENT OF ALCOHOL USE

酒精使用的自我报告得到了广泛应用，因为 令人满意的和实际的措施通常是不存在的。研究 表明有效性受到许多因素的影响。例如, 社会期望的回应压力可能会导致受访者少报 他们的实际酒精使用量。酒精使用的数量 回答选项可能会影响有效性，但现有的研究是 没有定论。对其他话题领域的研究表明，受访者可能是 更有可能支持他们提出的第一反应选项，但 目前尚不清楚这种影响是否适用于自我报告的饮酒行为。 有人建议，通过促进反应偏差可以最小化 检索过程，但精确的细节和最好的方法 便利化还没有建立起来。 我们建议开发一种交互式的、计算机化的评估方法 调查自我报告的饮酒情况，并使用这种方法研究和 提高自我报告的效度。该计划将由以下人员管理 微电脑对1240名受访者在驾驶中的影响治疗 研究影响自我报告饮酒的因素的计划。一次预试- 后测设计将被用来操纵四个因素：(1)顺序 饮酒项目相对于酒精诊断项目的使用频率；(2) 响应选项(低、k、中、高)的数量 酒精使用项目；(3)封闭式回答的提交顺序 选项，以及(4)对受访者的反馈。反馈干预 有四个不同的层次。在所有级别，受访者都会及时做出回应 1并被给予第二次机会回答饮酒问题 时间2的物品。在第二和第三级别下，受访者将是 显示了在响应时间2之前的原始响应。在 第四级，受访者将收到有关 他们从时间%1开始回答的不一致，然后在时间%2回答。 我们会将自我报告与附属报告进行比较。 对这些数据的分析将有助于理解 自我报告的酒精使用(1)操纵是否具体 关于饮酒的问题在诊断项目之前，(2)改变 答复选择的数量，(3)改变提出的顺序 回答选项，(4)向受访者显示他们的原始答案并给予 他们有第二次机会作出回应，以及(5)就以下事项提供反馈 不一致之处，并给受访者一个解决它们的机会。

Self-reports of alcohol use have widespread application because of other satisfactory and practical measures are generally unavailable. Research indicates that validity is influenced by a number of factors. For example, socially desirable response pressures may cause respondent to underreport their actual level of alcohol use. The quantitativeness of alcohol use response options may affect validity, but the available research is inconclusive. Studies in other topic areas suggest that respondents may be more likely to endorse the first response option presented them, but whether this effect generalizes to self-reported alcohol use is unknown. It has been suggested that response bias can be minimized by facilitating the retrieval process, but the precise details and best methods of facilitation have not been established. We propose to develop an interactive, computerized assessment method for investigating self-reported alcohol use and employ this method to study and improve the validity of self-reports. The program will be administered by microcomputer to 1240 respondents in driving under the influence treatment programs to study factors affecting self-reported alcohol use. A pretest- posttest design will be used to manipulate four factors: (1) order of frequency of alcohol use items relative to alcohol diagnostic items; (2) quantitativeness of response options (low,k Medium, High) for frequency of alcohol use items; (3) order of presentation of close-ended response options, and (4) feedback given to respondents. The feedback intervention has four different levels. In all levels, respondents will respond at Time 1 and be given a second opportunity to provide answers to the alcohol use items at Time 2. Under the second and third levels, respondents will be shown their original responses before responding to Time 2. Under the fourth level, respondents will receive information about the inconsistencies of their answers from Time 1 before responding at Time 2. We will compare self-reports with collateral reports. Analyses of these data will contribute to an understanding of the effect on self-reported alcohol use of (1) manipulating whether or not specific questions about alcohol use precede diagnostic items, (2) varying the quantitativeness of response options, (3) varying the order of presenting response options, (4) showing respondents their original answers and giving them a second opportunity to respond, and (5) providing feedback about inconsistencies and giving respondents an opportunity to resolve them.