| Title |
The ad-libitum alcohol ‘taste test’: secondary analyses of potential confounds and construct validity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychopharmacology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00213-015-4171-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew Jones, Emily Button, Abigail K. Rose, Eric Robinson, Paul Christiansen, Lisa Di Lemma, Matt Field |
| Abstract |
Motivation to drink alcohol can be measured in the laboratory using an ad-libitum 'taste test', in which participants rate the taste of alcoholic drinks whilst their intake is covertly monitored. Little is known about the construct validity of this paradigm. The objective of this study was to investigate variables that may compromise the validity of this paradigm and its construct validity. We re-analysed data from 12 studies from our laboratory that incorporated an ad-libitum taste test. We considered time of day and participants' awareness of the purpose of the taste test as potential confounding variables. We examined whether gender, typical alcohol consumption, subjective craving, scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and perceived pleasantness of the drinks predicted ad-libitum consumption (construct validity). We included 762 participants (462 female). Participant awareness and time of day were not related to ad-libitum alcohol consumption. Males drank significantly more alcohol than females (p < 0.001), and individual differences in typical alcohol consumption (p = 0.04), craving (p < 0.001) and perceived pleasantness of the drinks (p = 0.04) were all significant predictors of ad-libitum consumption. We found little evidence that time of day or participant awareness influenced alcohol consumption. The construct validity of the taste test was supported by relationships between ad-libitum consumption and typical alcohol consumption, craving and pleasantness ratings of the drinks. The ad-libitum taste test is a valid method for the assessment of alcohol intake in the laboratory. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 33% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 28 | 57% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2016.
All research outputs
#3,176,474
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Psychopharmacology
#802
of 5,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,674
of 390,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychopharmacology
#8
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.