1 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, London, Ontario and 2 Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, 3 Groupe de Recherche sur les Aspects Sociaux de la Santé et de la Prévention (GRASP) and 4 Department of Sociology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada, 5 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 6 Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 7 Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada and 8 Addiction Research Institute, Zurich, Switzerland, and 9 Swiss Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Drug Problems, Lausanne, Switzerland
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: E-mail: kgraham{at}uwo.ca
(Received 31 December 2003; first review notified 4 February 2004; in revised form 7 May 2004; accepted 9 May 2004)
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Methods: Telephone survey of 464 adults aged 18 and older in Toronto, Canada, using random digit dialling and computer-assisted telephone interviewing.
Results: Respondents reported higher frequency and volume of drinking on the GF compared to overall and beverage-specific quantityfrequency type measures; however, at least 16% of GF responses included double counting on their frequency estimates using the GF. When these cases were excluded or corrected, differences between the GF and quantityfrequency measures mostly disappeared. The GF was superior to quantityfrequency measures for identifying heavy episodic drinkers. However, the GF had little advantage over the weekly recall method except for identifying very infrequent (i.e. less often than twice a month) heavy drinkers. Conclusions: Because the GF has a high rate of response errors in terms of measuring frequency of alcohol consumption, other combinations of measures, including alternate measures of heavy episodic drinking should be considered.
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Increasingly, the graduated frequency (GF) approach that asks about the frequency of consuming alcohol at different quantity levels, usually starting at the highest quantity consumed by the respondent (e.g. frequency of drinking 12-plus drinks, eight to 12 drinks, six to eight drinks) is recommended for survey research (Hilton, 1989; Greenfield, 2000
). Theoretically, the GF provides one of the best measures of drinking pattern and volume to date. In practice, however, the GF requires estimates that many respondents find difficult and burdensome, and some problems have been encountered. For example Greenfield reported that nine percent of respondents in the 1995 National Alcohol Survey reported drinking more than 365 days of the year, although some of this overestimate may have been partly due to the algorithm for calculating total frequency which used the middle range for each frequency category (Greenfield, 2000
).
Commonly used alternatives to the GF include: overall quantityfrequency (QF) (i.e. usual frequency of drinking by usual number of drinks consumed per drinking occasion (Rehm, 1998), beverage-specific quantityfrequency (BQF) [i.e. QF for each type of beverage (Serdula et al., 1999
)] and methods involving the last several drinking occasions (Wyllie et al., 1994; Dawson and Room, 2000
), past 7 days (WR) (Rehm, 1998
) or detailed questions regarding the number of drinks consumed yesterday (Knibbe and Bloomfield, 2001
).
Each of these measures has some strengths and weaknesses. As noted by Midanik, the basic QF, while brief and easy to use, underestimates overall volume of consumption and does not address drinking pattern (Midanik, 1994); however, the QF may provide a reasonable estimate of drinking frequency and, because of its widespread use, it is useful to include for comparisons to other studies (Dawson and Room, 2000
). The BQF has some major advantages over the simple QF, particularly in terms of comparing drinking by sex and culture (Dawson, 1993
) and in estimating overall volume (Williams et al., 1994
; Serdula, 1999
); however, the BQF does not provide an overall measure of frequency. The recent occasions, WR and yesterday's consumption have the advantage over most other measures in that they do not require mental averaging or estimating usual drinking; instead, actual drinks consumed are reported. The WR also captures drinking pattern, at least to some extent (Lemmens, 1988
). The yesterday method (Knibbe and Bloomfield, 2001
) allows very detailed questions about drink size and content, relies least on memory and mental averaging and produces overall estimates closest to sales data, but does not allow estimates of drinking pattern. The major disadvantages of the WR and the yesterday method are that past week's drinking (or yesterday) may be atypical for a subset of respondents, and that the restricted time frame overestimates the proportion of abstainers and daily drinkers.
Recently, the GF was adopted by the cross-national collaborators on the GENACIS project (Gender, Alcohol and Culture: An International Study: Wilsnack et al., 20022005) as the primary measure of alcohol consumption to be used by all countries entering into the collaboration along with the two-question QF. As part of conducting pilot research for the Canadian GENACIS national survey, we included several other measures of alcohol consumption in addition to the overall QF and the GF, namely, beverage-specific QF (BQF) and weekly recall (WR) in order to identify the best combination of measures to use in the national survey. In the present paper, we first compare the GF to the QF and BQF for drinking frequency, volume and quantity per drinking day, exploring the reasons for inconsistencies between the GF and other measures and the impact of these inconsistencies on the overall estimates. To our knowledge, an analysis of this type has never been conducted before. Although Midanik (1994)
examined characteristics of respondents who provided inconsistent responses to the GF versus the QF, she did not examine the nature of these inconsistencies. The WR was not used in these comparisons as it is not considered an appropriate measure of drinking frequency, volume or quantity because it provides no information for those who did not consume alcohol in the past week.
Second, because assessing drinking pattern (especially heavy episodic drinking) is a major strength of the GF, we compare the GF to the WR, QF and BQF in terms of identification of persons who drink five-plus, eight-plus and 12-plus drinks at various frequency levels. Although the QF and BQF are not designed to measure heavy episodic drinking in that they ask the respondent about usual consumption, comparing these methods with the GF can be used to identify the extent that heavy episodic drinkers are identified by the GF but missed by QF type methods. Similarly, the WR is not designed to measure heavy episodic drinking in that it only measures whether a specific number of drinks was consumed on a single day during the past week but it has the advantage of asking about actual rather than usual consumption. Thus, comparison of the WR and the GF can assess the extent that the GF outperforms the WR in assessing heavy episodic drinking.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
During the last 12 months, how often did you usually have any kind of drink containing alcohol, whether it was wine, beer, liquor or any other alcohol? Every day, 46 days a week, 23 days a week, once a week, 23 days a month, once a month, less than once a month, never in the last 12 months?The BQF used the same question format and response options as the QF but asked questions separately for wine, beer, spirits and 'coolers' (i.e. premixed drinks).In the past 12 months when you had any kind of beverage containing alcohol including beer, wine, liquor and other drinks, how many drinks did you have on a typical day?
The GF was preceded by a question asking the most drinks the respondent had consumed on a single day during the past year. This question determined the level of drinking that started the GF process, with 12 or more drinks being the highest quantity for starting the frequency questions. Light infrequent drinkers (maximum of fewer than three drinks on a single day and usual frequency once a month or less on the QF) were not asked the GF. In addition, because respondents reacted negatively in pretesting when asked about frequency levels that exceeded their overall frequency level reported on the QF, response categories for the GF were scaled to match the overall frequency on the QF (e.g. if the person reported drinking once a week on the QF, the frequency response options for the quantity categories on the GF began with once a week). Finally, as soon as a respondent replied every day to any quantity category on the GF, the subsequent quantity categories were not asked.
The WR used a standard format employed in most other Canadian alcohol surveys involving asking the respondent how many drinks he/she consumed yesterday, the day before yesterday, and so on for the previous seven days.
Calculations of frequency, volume, and quantity of drinking and heavy episodic drinking
Annual frequency of drinking based on the GF was calculated by summing the frequency responses at each quantity level using the following values: every day = 365, 46 days per week = 260 (i.e. 5 days per week x 52 weeks), 23 days per week = 130, 1 day per week = 52, 23 days per month = 30, once per month = 12 and less than once per month = 6. The same values were used for calculating annual frequency from the QF and annual beverage-specific frequencies on the BQF. It is not possible to calculate a measure of overall frequency for the BQF.
Average volume was calculated for the GF by multiplying the midpoints of each quantity (for the category of 12-plus drinks per occasion, 13 drinks was used for the calculation of volume as recommended by Greenfield, 2000) by the annual frequency and summing these products. Volume on the QF was calculated by multiplying usual quantity by usual (annual) frequency. Volume for the BQF was calculated by multiplying the quantity for each beverage by the annual frequency for that beverage and summing the values obtained.
Usual quantity per drinking day was calculated from the GF by dividing the total volume per year by total frequency and from the BQF by dividing the total volume per year by overall frequency based on the maximum frequency provided for the QF or BQF. Usual quantity was asked as part of the QF.
Three levels of heavy drinking were defined (five-plus, eight-plus, 12-plus) for three levels of frequency of heavy drinking (at least once a week, at least twice a month, at least once a month). For the GF, these values were calculated by summing frequencies for relevant quantity categories. For the QF and the BQF those reporting usual consumptions of five-plus, eight-plus or 12-plus at usual frequencies of weekly or more frequent, twice monthly or once a month were identified. The QF and BQF were combined into a single measure by including those who scored positive for frequent high quantity drinking using either measure. For the WR, those who had consumed each quantity on at least one day in the previous week were identified.
Analyses
Matched t-tests were used to assess significance of pairwise comparisons of mean levels of consumption on the GF with the QF and BQF for frequency, volume and quantity; Pearson and Spearman rank order correlations were also used to illustrate the relationships between the measures. McNemar's test of proportions was used to assess the significance of differences (and the Kappa statistic used to assess agreement) between the GF and other measures in terms of identifying heavy episodic drinkers.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Frequency of drinking
As shown in Table 1, the Spearman rho rank order correlations indicated fairly high agreement between the GF and QF; the Pearson correlations were similar except slightly lower for men and higher for women. These correlations are probably underestimates because light infrequent drinkers were not asked the GF. Mean number of drinking days per year was significantly higher for the GF compared to the QF. Inspection of the actual responses, however, suggested that at least some of the higher scores on the GF were due to double-counting in the following ways.
|
When cases with double counting on the GF were excluded from the analyses, the mean frequency of drinking on the GF was no longer significantly different from the mean frequency on the QF (see Table 1). However, there were differences between sexes in the comparison of the GF with the QF. For men, the pattern was the same as that for the total sample; whereas for women, the mean frequency on the QF was the same as that of the GF before removing double counting and significantly higher than the GF when cases with double counting were removed.
Volume of alcohol consumption
As shown in Table 1, the GF correlated quite highly with the QF and BQF on volume. The mean volume of consumption was significantly higher on the GF than on the QF or BQF; however, when cases with double counting were excluded, the GF was no longer significantly different from the BQF and the difference between the GF and the QF was substantially reduced.
It is possible that excluding cases with double counting overestimates the comparability of the GF with other measures. Therefore, where sufficient information was available, estimates were developed on the GF for the excluded cases in the following manner. Each case was examined individually, including responses to the GF, QF, BQF and WR. Where data were consistent in suggesting that the respondents erroneously applied usual frequency to all relevant quantity levels, the frequencies on the GF were divided by the number of quantity levels for which overall frequency was reported (nine cases). Where it appeared that each lower level was subsumed under higher levels (e.g. frequency of consuming five to seven drinks included those times when more than seven drinks were consumed) and other data suggested that the overall frequency on the QF was consistent with the BQF and the WR, each previous frequency was subtracted from the subsequent frequency so that the total frequency was the same as the overall frequency (11 cases). There were a number of cases, however, that seemed to involve a combination of errors. For example, once person reported consuming 12-plus drinks less than once per month, eight to 11 drinks once per month, five to seven drinks once per month, three to four drinks 23 days per week and one to two drinks 23 days per week, with an overall frequency of 23 days per week and usual quantity of four drinks per day. Subtracting each higher frequency would have made the frequency of drinking one to two drinks zero. Yet, the past week's drinking measure showed the person consuming two drinks per day on 2 days. Therefore, the frequency of consuming three to four drinks was adjusted before the calculation so that the remaining frequency after subtracting frequencies for higher levels was split between three to four and one to two drinks. After similar changes, it was possible to produce estimates for an additional 12 cases. For 13 cases, the data were too inconsistent to make estimates. When these additional estimates were included, the mean volume was 313 (SD = 393) versus 262 (SD = 320) for the GF versus QF respectively (t = 3.2, d.f. = 262, P = 0.002) and 290 (SD = 373) versus 285 (SD = 368) for the GF versus BQF (t = 0.2, d.f. = 188, P = 0.820). These results essentially show the same pattern as those excluding all cases with double counting.
Quantity per drinking day
The number of drinks per drinking day as measured by the GF was moderately correlated with the average quantities from the QF and the BQF, although these correlations were generally lower than for frequency and volume (possibly related to the lower variability on quantity compared to frequency or volume). There was an overall pattern for the GF to result in higher mean values on drinks per drinking day than the QF but lower or equal quantities when compared with the BQF, regardless of whether cases with double counting were excluded.
Identifying heavy episodic drinkers
The following analyses were conducted on the whole sample, that is, did not exclude cases with double counting. As shown in Table 2, the GF was not significantly better than the BQF/QF in terms of identifying persons who consumed five-plus drinks at least weekly. However, the GF was significantly better at identifying those who consumed five-plus drinks at least twice per month and at least once per month. The superiority of the GF over the BQF/QF in measuring frequency of high risk drinking is also evident for consuming eight or more drinks and 12 or more drinks even for weekly frequency.
|
In terms of sex, the comparison of the GF with the BQF/QF and the WR showed the same trend for men as found for the whole sample. For women, differences between the GF and the BQF/QF were only significant for those identified as drinking five-plus or eight-plus at a frequency of at least once per month, and the only significant difference between the GF and the WR was that significantly more female respondents reported consuming eight-plus drinks on the WR than reported consuming eight-plus drinks at least weekly on the GF. Thus, the WR actually outperformed the GF for identifying female heavy episodic drinkers.
Overall, there was considerable disagreement among the methods in terms of which respondents were identified as hazardous drinkers at each of the frequency levels; most Kappa statistics comparing alternate options of identifying high risk drinkers were less than 0.40 (results not shown).
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
It is possible that the method used in the present study of beginning the GF at a maximum of 12 or more drinks and using 13 drinks in the computation actually resulted in underestimates on the GF for some heavy drinkers. However, in the present study, 75% of the 56 respondents who reported drinking 12 or more drinks reported consuming this amount once per month or less; therefore, the impact of this factor on overall consumption of the sample was likely to be small. Ideally, the GF questions would start at a higher quantity level (e.g. 20-plus drinks) in order to fully capture amounts consumed by heavier drinkers. At the same time, this benefit needs to be weighed against the overall goals of the survey and repetitiveness of GF questions when numerous levels are included.
The pattern of results by sex indicated that double counting had a substantial impact on estimates of frequency and volume of drinking for men but relatively little impact for women. This differential impact by sex suggests that differences on frequency and volume of drinking between sexes might be over-estimated when the GF is used.
The fact that the GF tends to result in higher reported volume of drinking than other measures has been considered a strength of the measure because survey estimates of overall alcohol consumption are generally lower than production and sales figures. However, if the higher estimate on the GF is due to double counting on frequency, the GF may be less accurate than other measures for analyses at the individual level even though it produces aggregate estimates that are closer to sales and production estimates. Given that the BQF appears to overcome underestimates of volume found with the overall QF (Serdula et al., 1999), there appears to be no advantage of using the GF in terms of measuring volume, while the BQF has the added advantage of measuring beverage-specific consumption, a feature that is important in terms of sex and cultural comparisons (Dawson, 1993
).
It is clear that the GF has advantages over the BQF/QF in identifying heavy episodic drinkers, especially for men. However, even though the WR misses heavy drinking by some occasional drinkers who did not drink in the week prior to the survey, it does considerably better than the GF in terms of the total number of people identified as consuming high levels of alcohol at a frequency of at least once per week and does as well as the GF for identifying those consuming at high levels at least twice per month. Thus, although the WR may not be as good as the GF or even the QF for identifying hazardous drinkers based on volume of consumption (Rehm, 1998), the WR appears to be equally effective as the GF in terms of identifying heavy episodic drinkers, except for those who consume high quantities very rarely (i.e. less frequently than twice per month). However, the lack of agreement among the measures in these analyses suggests that there is still work to be done to develop reliable and valid measures of heavy episodic drinking. It may be that such identification needs to be based on multiple measures rather than relying on a single measure.
In conclusion, the GF led the field as an innovative and comprehensive method to capture not only frequency, quantity and volume of alcohol consumption but also drinking pattern. Nevertheless, as our analyses show, in practice a substantial proportion of respondents, at least in telephone interviews, err by double counting frequency on this measure. Thus, an alternative approach might be to combine the BQF/QF with less cognitively complex alternatives to the GF for measuring heavy episodic drinking, such as asking the frequency of consuming five-plus, eight-plus and 12-plus drinks (Midanik, 1994; Dawson and Room, 2000
). Greenfield (2000)
has suggested that an advantage of the GF is that by using mutually exclusive categories that start the GF questions at the highest level of quantity, the approach 'legitimizes' high quantity drinking and makes the respondent more willing to report higher quantities. If this is the case, using the alternative questions that ask about levels in ascending order may reduce response errors but may also underestimate high quantity drinking compared to the GF. The extent that this is a problem with alternatives to the GF needs to be evaluated in future research.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Dawson, D. A. (1993) Patterns of alcohol consumption: beverage effects on gender differences. Addiction 88, 133138.[ISI][Medline]
Dawson, D. A. and Room, R. (2000) Towards agreement on ways to measure and report drinking patterns and alcohol-related problems in adult general population surveys: the Skarpö Conference overview. Journal of Substance Abuse 12, 121.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Greenfield, T. K. (2000) Ways of measuring drinking patterns and the difference they make: experience with graduated frequencies. Journal of Substance Abuse 12, 3349.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Greenfield, T. G. and Kerr, W. C. (2003) Tracking alcohol consumption over time. Alcohol Research and Health 27, 3038.[ISI][Medline]
Hilton, M. E. (1989) A comparison of a prospective diary and two summary recall techniques for recording alcohol consumption. British Journal of Addiction 84, 10851092.[ISI][Medline]
Knibbe, R. and Bloomfield, K. (2001) Alcohol consumption estimates in surveys in Europe: Comparability and sensitivity for gender differences. Substance Abuse 22, 2238.
Lemmens, P., Knibbe, R. A. and Tan, F. (1988) Weekly recall and diary estimates of alcohol consumption in a general population survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 49, 131135.[ISI][Medline]
Midanik, L. T. (1994) Workshop on measurement issues in alcohol consumption: comparing usual quantity/frequency and graduated frequency scales to assess yearly alcohol consumption: results from the 1990 US National Alcohol Survey. Addiction 89, 407412.[ISI][Medline]
Poikolainen, K., Podkletnova, I. and Alho, H. (2002) Accuracy of quantityfrequency and graduated frequency questionnaires in measuring alcohol intake: Comparison with daily diary and commonly used laboratory markers. Alcohol and Alcoholism 37, 573576.
Rehm, J. (1998) Measuring quantity, frequency and volume of drinking. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 22(Suppl. 2), 4S14S.[ISI][Medline]
Rehm, J., Room, R., Monteiro, M., Gmel, G., Graham, K., Rehn, N., Sempos, C. T., Frick, U. and Jernigan, D. (2004). Alcohol. In Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease due to Selected Major Risk Factors, Ezzati, M., Lopez, A. D., Rodgers, A. and Murray C. J. L. eds. WHO, Geneva.
Serdula, M. K., Mokdad, A. H., Byers, T. and Siegel, P. Z. (1999) Assessing alcohol consumption: Beverage-specific versus grouped-beverage questions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 60, 99102.[ISI][Medline]
Williams, G. D., Proudfit, A. H., Quinn, E. A. and Campbell, K. E. (1994) Variation in quantity-frequency measures of alcohol consumption from a general population survey. Addiction 89, 413420.[ISI][Medline]
Wilsnack, S. C., Bloomfield, K. and Monteiro, M. (20022005) Gender, Culture, and Alcohol: A Multinational Study (R21 AA12941-01A1). National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.