The Color of Drinking Survey Questionnaire for Measuring the Secondhand Impacts of High-Risk Drinking in College Settings: Validation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The "Color of Drinking" is a study conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It examines the secondhand harms of high-risk drinking on college students of color and explores the connection between alcohol use and the campus racial climate. Since its findings were released in 2018, this study has received significant attention from other college settings around the country. Objective: This study aims to describe the development of the most recent version of the Color of Drinking questionnaire and to assess its internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity in a sample of undergraduate students attending the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Methods: This is an observational, analytic study. Questionnaire design experts revised the original instrument, and in-depth cognitive interviews with students were conducted to evaluate comprehensibility and acceptability. The revised questionnaire was administered 2 times, 3 to 4 weeks apart, in a sample of undergraduate students. The following properties were studied: internal consistency in 4 sets of items (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability among closed-ended questions (κ statistics and intraclass correlation coefficient), and construct validity (associations with other validated instruments, such as the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test). For a section of questions showing low reliability, the answers to open questions and other in-depth interviews were carried out, and online surveys were conducted with another sample of undergraduate students to evaluate reliability after changes. Results: Eight students participated in the in-depth interviews, 177 responses from the online survey were included for the analysis of internal consistency, 115 for test-retest reliability, and 98 for construct validity. The 4 sets of items (sections) evaluated ("impact of alcohol consumption on academics," "impact of microaggressions," "witnessing microaggressions and alcohol intoxication," and "bystanders' interventions on alcohol intoxication") presented good internal consistency (Cronbach α between 0.723 and 0.898). Most items showed moderate to substantial test-retest reliability; agreement was from 68.1% to 95.2%, and κ coefficients ranged from 0.214 to 0.8. For construct validity, correlations between the number of drinking days, the maximum number of drinks in a day and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score were moderate to high, r=0.630 (95% CI 0.533-0.719) and r=0.647 (95% CI 0.548-0.741), respectively. Due to low reliability, a section regarding "health impacts" has been redesigned, including 8 items for the personal consumption of alcohol and the consumption of others (Cronbach α 0.735 and 0.855, respectively; agreement between the first and the second time the questionnaire was administered were 83.4% and 99.1%, and most of the items with κ coefficient from 0.476 to 0.877). Conclusions: The revised version of the Color of Drinking questionnaire showed acceptable to adequate reliability and construct validity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».