Drinking Motives in Clinical and General Populations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This paper had three aims: (1) to validate a Spanish adaptation of the Modified Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised (M DMQ-R), (2) to explore the relationship of each drinking motive with different patterns of alcohol use, and (3) to compare the drinking motives of moderate drinkers, heavy drinkers, and alcohol abusing/dependent individuals. METHODS: Two studies were carried out. In Study 1, a sample of 488 participants completed the M DMQ-R and a self-report scale of alcohol consumption in order to study the factor structure and different indices of reliability and validity of the Spanish M DMQ-R. In Study 2, we compared the drinking motives of moderate and heavy drinkers from Study 1 and an additional sample of 59 clinical drinkers. RESULTS: The M DMQ-R demonstrated sound reliability and validity indices. Coping-with-anxiety, social, and enhancement motives predicted higher alcohol use on weekends, but only coping-with-anxiety and social motives were related to consumption on weekdays. Furthermore, moderate drinkers had the lowest scores for all motives, whereas alcohol-dependent participants obtained the highest scores for negative reinforcement drinking motives. CONCLUSION: The Spanish M DMQ-R is a reliable and valid measure of drinking motives and has potential for assisting with treatment planning for problem drinkers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it