Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 15, pp. 567-572, 1990 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

0306~4603/90 $3.00 + HI Copyright e 1990 Pergamon Press plc

BRIEF REPORT

USING THE ALCOHOL EXPECTANCY QUESTIONNAIRE-ADOLESCENT FORM TO PREDICT

COLLEGE DRINKING: LONG VERSUS SHORT FORMS

BRUCE C. RATHER University of South Florida

Abstract - This study reports the development of a short form of the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire-Adolescent Form, consisting of 27 items measuring expectations of enhanced social behavior and enhanced cognitive and motor functioning. The goals of this study are to examine whether the AEQ-A can be used in a college population and whether a shortened version is a reliable and valid substitute. The reliability and predictive validity of this instrument was assessed in a college population (IV = 377) by replication of previous work predicting drinking styles from expectancies. Scale 2 of the short form predicted drinking styles as well as the seven long-form scales. The results suggest the new instrument will be useful in expediting future research.

The Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (Brown, Goldman, Inn, & Anderson, 1980) and Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire-Adolescent Form (Christiansen, Goldman, & Inn, 1982) have been successfully used to describe individual expectancies about the reinforcing effects of alcohol and to predict actual drinking up to a year or more after questionnaire administration (Christiansen, Smith, Roehling, & Goldman, 1989) in a variety of popula- tions. These populations include: young adolescents (Christiansen et al., 1982), adolescents (Christiansen & Goldman, 1983), adolescent alcohol abusers (Christiansen, Goldman, & Brown, 1985), college students (Brown, 1985a), alcoholics in inpatient treatment (Brown, 1985b; Brown, Goldman, & Christiansen, 1985), and outpatient Alcoholics Anonymous members (Rather & Sherman, 1989).

Researchers wishing to use this instrument in the context of a time consuming battery of other measures have felt constrained, however, by the need for administering the 90 items appearing on the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (AEQ). The Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire-Adolescent Form (AEQ-A) has been shortened by choosing items with the highest factor loadings (Mann, Chassin, & Sher, 1987). The AEQ has been abbreviated in the same manner, with additional items written to flesh out existing scales and to construct two new scales (Rohsenow, 1983). Further, the instructions had been altered. A subsequent study (Cooper, Russell, & George, 1988) used the latter abbreviated version of the AEQ, but with the original instructions (Brown et al., 1980). Finally, in one study, Scale 3 (i.e., alcohol improves cognitive and motor functioning) from the AEQA was selected for inclusion in a path analysis model (Smith, Canter, & Robin, 1989) despite the fact that Scale 2 (i.e., social facilitation) is a much stronger predictor of drinking behavior (Christiansen & Goldman, 1983). Results from such studies would be difficult to compare to each other or those using unadulterated expectancy questionnaires.

Appreciation is expressed to Mark Prange for his comments and statistical assistance and to two anonymous readers who reviewed earlier versions of this manuscript.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Bruce Rather, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620.

567

568 BRUCE C. RATHER

In contrast to previous studies, the current one sought to provide an empirical foundation for selecting a shortened version of the AEQ-A. Two scales from the AEQ-A were used to construct the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire-Short Form (AEQ-SF). The AEQ-A scales were chosen for their potential use with college students or adolescents. They have been heretofore untested in a college population for the purpose of predicting drinking patterns. The AEQ-A Scale 2 (i.e., alcohol can enhance or impede social functioning) was selected because of its moderate-to-high correlations with the adult AEQ scales measuring social assertion (t = 51) and physical and social pleasure (r = .60) (Brown, Christiansen, & Goldman, 1987). It has the additional advantages of representing a dimension of social functioning, has simplified wording, and has some items that are scored in the false direction. Scale 3 (i.e., alcohol improves cognitive and motor abilities) was included because of evidence that it may be a marker for alcoholism (Christiansen et al., 1985). In addition, both scales were selected because of their previously demonstrated ability to significantly predict drinking patterns, concurrently and across time, that has not been demonstrated by other scales (Christiansen et al., 1989; Christiansen & Goldman, 1983). That the AEQ-SF was derived from an adolescent form should not be problematic because the primary difference between the retained scales from the AEQ-A and the adult form is the more general wording and some items are scored in the false direction.

The first goal of the present study was to examine whether the AEQ-A could be used in a college population. Previous work has reported test-retest reliabilities of the AEQ-A scales in a college population but not validity coefficients in the form of prediction of concurrent drinking practices (Brown et al., 1987). The second goal of the study was to determine whether a shortened version of the AEQ-A is a valid and reliable substitute for the AEQ-A. This study examined whether the two scales selected for AEQ-SF could predict college drinking patterns as well as the seven scales of the AEQ-A. Further, the AEQ-SF, to be useful, needs to have comparable reliability to the AEQ-A scales. To this end, internal consistency and immediate test-retest reliability were examined. Finally, it was useful to compare the predictive power of the AEQ-SF to that of the AEQ, which was used to predict college drinking patterns in an earlier study (Brown, 1985a).

METHOD

Subjects The subject sample consisted of 377 undergraduate psychology students at the University

of South Florida. Sixty-three percent of the population was female and subjects ranged in age from 17 to 28 years-old (M = 20.2). The majority of subjects were single (94.8%) and Caucasian (92%). The subjects ranged from nondrinkers (9.3%) to moderate to heavy drinkers (e.g., 33.0% report drinking 4 to 8 drinks per occasion, 20.1% report getting drunk more than once a week, 5.8% reported drinking almost daily). The modal drinker consumes 2 or 3 alcoholic drinks (39.2%) once or twice a week (46%) with friends (73.3%) at a party (39.7%) and began drinking at 14 or 15 years of age (30.6%).

Procedure Each subject sequentially completed the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire for Adoles-

cents (AEQ-A), the Demographic Data/Drinking History Questionnaire, and the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire-Short Form (AEQ-SF), or the reverse, such that the administra- tion of the AEQ-A and the AEQ-SF were counterbalanced for order.

A complete description of the development and the measurement characteristics of the AEQ-A can be found in Brown et al. (1987), Christiansen et al. (1982), and Christiansen and Goldman (1983). The Demographic Data/Drinking History Questionnaire elicits personal

Using the AEQ-A to predict college drinking 569

information about the subject and self-report of alcohol use (e.g., frequency, amount, context of alcohol consumption). The Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire-Short Form consists of 27 items and represents Scales 2 and 3 of the AEQ-A in their entirety. The AEQ-SF measures the following two expectations about alcohol: (a) alcohol can enhance or impede social behavior (“alcoholic beverages make parties more fun”; “people become harder to get along with after they have had a few drinks of alcohol”), and (b) alcohol improves one’s cognitive and motor abilities, (“people understand things better when they are drinking alcohol”; “people drive better after a few drinks of alcohol”). The AEQ-SF items are structured in an agreedisagree format, indicating whether a moderate amount of alcohol may produce a particular effect. The experimenter administered all three question- naires in a classroom setting. In all cases, participation was voluntary and responses to the questionnaire items were kept completely confidential.

RESULTS

The primary drinking styles of this population were empirically defined by principal components analysis of 21 variables from the Demographic Data/Drinking History Ques- tionnaire. Oblique and orthogonal factor rotations resulted in the selection of identical items for the factors. Three factors accounting for 51% of the variance were retained and were essentially identical to those obtained in previous research-see Brown (1985a) and Christiansen and Goldman (1983) for a complete description of the factors. Drinking Style 1, was found to be a heavy drinking style. Briefly, high scorers on this factor drink often whereas low scorers do not. Drinking Style 2, was found to be a problem drinking style. High scorers report having gotten in family and legal trouble because of drinking whereas low scorers on this factor do not report alcohol-related problems, although they may be drinkers. Drinking Style 3, was seen as a contextually determined. High scorers on this factor tend to drink alone or in impersonal settings whereas low scorers on this factor tend to drink at home with family and friends. Composite scores were calculated for subjects by summing the items on the factors. These served as the criterion variables to be predicted.

It was necessary to determine the predictive validity of the AEQ-A, replicating previous work (Christiansen & Goldman, 1983), and demonstrate comparable predictive validity of the AEQ-SF. Two replications were performed; expectancy scores were used to predict drinking styles in those subjects who received the AEQ-A first and in those subjects who received the AEQ-SF first. Identical multiple regression analyses were calculated for each group. The result of the prediction equations are presented in Table 1. As can be seen from the equations, Scale 2 of the AEQ-A and AEQ-SF significantly predict heavy drinking in college students. The correlation of the AEQ-SF Scale 2 with heavy drinking is higher than that of the AEQ-A, but this difference is not significant. Problem drinking is predicted by Scale 2 of the AEQ-A and AEQ-SF, but for the former the R is not significant and the difference between the Rs is also not significant. Context-determined drinking is significantly predicted by Scales 2 and 4 of the AEQ-A and Scale 2 of AEQ-SF. The difference between these Rs is not significant. Scale 3 failed to significantly predict any of the criterion variables.

The reliabilities of the individual scales on the AEQ-SF and the AEQ-A compare favorably as can be seen from Table 2, which presents the scale means, standard deviations, and reliabilities. An estimate of immediate test-retest reliability is provided by the correlations between the AEQ-SF and AEQ-A Scale 2 (r = .90) and between the AEQ-SF and AEQ-A Scale 3 (r = .64).

DISCUSSION

There are some potential drawbacks of the AEQ-SF that need to be mentioned. First, by

570 BRUCE C. RATHER

Table 1. Prediction of college drinking patterns using the AEQ-A and AEQ-SF

Group 1 (AEQ-A) Group 2 (AEQ-SF)

Predictor Beta Predictor Beta

(N = 157) Heavy drinking (N = 163)

Scale 1 -.lll Scale 2 .499** Scale 2 .625** Scale 3 .039 Scale 3 .045 Scale 4 .078 Scale 5 - .024 Scale 6 - .004 Scale 7 .083 Multiple R .535** Multiple R .637** Adjusted R2 .253 Adjusted RZ .398

(N = 164) Problem drinking (N = 166)

Scale 1 ,081 Scale 2 .298* Scale 2 .313** Scale 3 ,054 Scale 3 ,069 Scale 4 -.112 Scale 5 ,076 Scale 6 -.104 Scale 7 .027 Multiple R .290 (ns) Multiple R .335** Ajusted R2 .043 Adjusted R2 ,101

(N = 165) Context-determined drinking (N = 164)

Scale 1 -.133 Scale 2 .431** Scale 2 .389** Scale 3 - .087 Scale 3 - .020 Scale 4 .214* Scale 5 - .053 Scale 6 .Oll Scale 7 .030 Multiple R .507** Multiple R .385** Adjusted R2 .224 Adjusted R2 .137

*p cr .Ol. **p 5 .OOl.

using only two alcohol expectancy scales there may be a loss of information on other alcohol expectancies which may be theoretically important. Second, the AEQ-SF may not be as good at predicting drinking behavior across time and there is reason to believe that the AEQ-A Scale 1 is important in predicting transition to problem drinking, at least in adolescents (Christiansen et al., 1989). However, in this study, Scale 1 was not significantly predictive of the drinking styles beyond that provided by Scale 2. Third, the test-retest

Table 2. Mean ( L SD) scores and reliabilities on the AEQ-SF in a college population

Mean + SD

(N = 344)

Maximum possible

score Reliability

AEQ-SFIAEQ-A

Scales: Social Facilitation Cognitive and Motor

Enhancement

9.09 2 3.59 17 .75/.72 0.81 k 1.22 10 .61/.68

Using the AEIQ-A to predict college drinking 571

reliability (eight-week) of the AEQ-A has not been demonstrated to be as strong as that of the AEQ in college students (Brown et al., 1987), however, in this study the immediate test-retest reliability was adequate. Fourth, it cannot be determined from the data obtained whether these findings are generalizable, with confidence, to other populations.

Despite the limitations considered above, it can be concluded from the results of this study that the AEQ-SF, composed of two AEQ-A scales (i.e., changes in social behavior and improved cognitive and motor functioning) is a potentially useful research and clinical tool in college populations. Researchers may be able to expedite their investigations by using the AEQ-SF. The AEQ-SF scales are just as reliable as the AEQ-A scales in a college population and Scale 2 shows very good immediate test-retest reliability. Scale 3 shows only fair immediate test-retest reliability probably due to the fact that there is very little variation on the scale. The AEQ-SF shows concurrent predictive validity that is comparable to the seven AEQ-A scales. Scales 2 and 3 have shown the highest predictive validity in previous research (Christiansen et al., 1989; Christiansen & Goldman, 1983) and in the present study Scale 2 emerged as the significant predictor of alcohol consumption patterns. Scale 3 failed to significantly enter into the prediction equations and may not be useful in this population as hypothesized. Scale 4 (i.e., sexual enhancement) of the AEQ-A was able to slightly add to the prediction of context-determined drinking.

It is particularly noteworthy that the AEQ-SF, in comparison to the six scales of the AEQ, achieved somewhat better prediction of the heavy and context-determined drinking styles. In a previous study the AEQ was used to predict the college drinking styles used in this study. The overall predictive power of alcohol expectancies for heavy drinkers, problem drinkers, and context-determined drinkers was .47, .39, and .29 respectively (Brown, 1985a). In this study the correlations between Scale 2 and these styles was .64, .34, and .39 respectively (for the latter, Scale 2 and Scale 4 were predictors with Scale 2 having the highest beta). It appears that the AEQ-SF Scale 2 correlations with these drinking styles are at least as high, and perhaps higher than, the multiple correlations obtained between the AEQ and similar drinking styles. Why this should be so is unclear. Perhaps, since the AEQ-A was developed with adolescents age 12 to 19, and the AEQ was developed with a wide range of subjects from 15 to 60, the AEQ-A scales are slightly more suitable for college students than the AEQ scales.

That Scale 3 was not a better predictor of the drinking styles may be due to the distribution of scores, indicating a restriction of range, on this scale in this population. The belief that alcohol enhances cognitive and motor functioning is rare event in this population where the majority of subjects endorsed either none (N = 179) or only one of these items (N = 100). Perhaps, Scale 3 would have emerged as a predictor if there had been more heavy drinkers in the sample since it has been suggested that Scale 3 may be a marker for alcoholism (Christiansen et al., 1985). It is also possible, however, that older individuals simply do not believe that alcohol is a powerful cognitive and motor enhancer.

Researchers wishing to use an alcohol expectancy instrument in the context of a time consuming battery of other measures now have an option to use the AEQ-SF. The results of this study suggest that it is possible, in fact, to use only Scale 2 of the AEQ-A which has been shown here to be have good test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and to correlate with drinking styles. This measure can be used with college students and, since the AEQ-SF scales are unchanged from the AEQ-A, it can probably be used with adolescents. In any case, despite its limitations, the use of the AEQ-SF is preferable to extensive alteration of the AEQ or AEQ-A, which seriously limits the comparability of the research results generated from studies using these altered forms.

572 BRUCE C. RATHER

REFERENCES

Brown, S.A. (1985a). Expectancies versus background in the prediction of college drinking patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 123-130.

Brown, S.A. (1985b). Reinforcement expectancies and alcoholism treatment outcome after a one-year follow-up. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46, 304-308.

Brown, S.A., Christiansen, B.A., 8r Goldman, M.S. (1987). The alcohol expectancy questionnaire: An instrument for the assessment of adolescent and adult alcohol expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 5, 483-491.

Brown, S.A., Goldman, M.S., & Christiansen, B.A. (1985). Do alcohol expectancies mediate drinking patterns of adults? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 512-519.

Brown, S.A., Goldman, M.S., Inn, A., & Anderson, L.R. (1980). Expectations of reinforcement from alcohol: Their domain and relations to drinking patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48,419426.

Christiansen, B.A. & Goldman, M.S. (1983). Alcohol-related expectancies versus demographic/background variables in the prediction of adolescent drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 249-257.

Christiansen, B.A., Goldman, M.S., & Brown, S.A. (1985). The differential development of adolescent alcohol expectancies may predict adult alcoholism. Addictive Behaviors, 10, 299-306.

Christiansen, B.A., Goldman, M.S., & Inn, A. (1982). Development of alcohol-related expectancies in adolescents: Separating pharmacological from social-learning influences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 336-344.

Christiansen, B.A., Smith, G.T., Roehling, P.V., & Goldman, M.S. (1989). Using alcohol expectancies to predict adolescent drinking behavior at one year. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 93-99.

Cooper, M.L., Russell, M., & George, W.H. (1988). Coping, expectancies, and alcohol abuse: A test of social learning formulations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 218-230.

Mann, L.M., Chassin, L., & Sher, K.J. (1987). Alcohol expectancies and the risk for alcoholism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 41 l-417.

Rather, B.C. & Sherman, M.F. (1989). Relationship between alcohol expectancies and length of abstinence among Alcoholics Anonymous members. Addictive Behaviors, 14, 531-536.

Rohsenow, D.M. (1983). Drinking habits and expectancies about alcohol’s effects for self versus others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 752-756.

Smith, M.B., Canter, W.A., & Robin, A.L. (1989). A path analysis of an adolescent drinking behavior model derived from problem behavior theory. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50, 128-142.