Historique
Article de Périodique
Questioning the validity of the 4+/5+ binge or heavy drinking criterion in college and clinical populations [For debate] (2016)
Auteur(s) :
M. R. PEARSON ;
M. KIROUAC ;
K. WITKIEWITZ
Article en page(s) :
1720-1726
Refs biblio. :
47
Domaine :
Alcool / Alcohol
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Thésaurus mots-clés
ALCOOL
;
REPERE DE CONSOMMATION
;
ABUS
;
USAGE PROBLEMATIQUE
;
VALIDITE
;
TRAITEMENT
;
EFFICACITE
;
DEFINITION
;
AUTOEVALUATION
;
RECHERCHE
Note générale :
Commentaries:
- Better options than self-report of consumption. Andreasson S., p. 1727-1728.
- Settling the score: moving beyond the 5/4 criterion debate. Wells S., De Wit D.J., Elton-Marshall T., p. 1728-1729.
- One size should not fit all, so use the right tool for the job. Carey K.B., Miller M.B., p. 1729-1731.
- Questions about the validity of the binge or heavy drinking criterion have implications for more than just treatment evaluation. Havard A., p. 1731-1732.
- Human cognition tips the balance away from thresholds. Moore S.C., p. 1732-1733.
- We still question the utility and validity of the binge/heavy drinking criterion. Pearson M.R., Kirouac M., Witkiewitz K., p. 1733-1734.
- Better options than self-report of consumption. Andreasson S., p. 1727-1728.
- Settling the score: moving beyond the 5/4 criterion debate. Wells S., De Wit D.J., Elton-Marshall T., p. 1728-1729.
- One size should not fit all, so use the right tool for the job. Carey K.B., Miller M.B., p. 1729-1731.
- Questions about the validity of the binge or heavy drinking criterion have implications for more than just treatment evaluation. Havard A., p. 1731-1732.
- Human cognition tips the balance away from thresholds. Moore S.C., p. 1732-1733.
- We still question the utility and validity of the binge/heavy drinking criterion. Pearson M.R., Kirouac M., Witkiewitz K., p. 1733-1734.
Résumé :
Background and Aims: The terms 'binge drinking' and 'heavy drinking' are both operationalized typically as 4+/5+ standard drinks per occasion for women/men, and are used commonly as a proxy for non-problematic (
Analysis and evidence: We question the validity of the 4+/5+ cut-off (and other similar cut-offs) on multiple accounts. The 4+/5+ cut-off has not been shown to have unique predictive validity or clinical utility. The cut-off has been created based on retrospective self-reports and its use demonstrates ecological bias. Given strong evidence that the relationship between alcohol consumption and problems related to drinking is at least monotonic, if not linear, there is little existing evidence to support the 4+/5+ cut-off as a valid marker of problematic alcohol use.
Conclusions: There is little empirical evidence for the 4+/5+ standard drinks per occasion threshold for 'binge' or 'heavy' drinking in indexing treatment efficacy. Further consideration of an appropriate threshold seems to be warranted.
Conclusions: There is little empirical evidence for the 4+/5+ standard drinks per occasion threshold for 'binge' or 'heavy' drinking in indexing treatment efficacy. Further consideration of an appropriate threshold seems to be warranted.
Affiliation :
Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse and Addictions, University of New Mexico, NM, USA