Alcohol-related problems have traditionally been conceptualized and measured by an effect indicator model. That is, it is generally assumed that observed indicators of alcohol problems are caused by a latent variable. However, there are reasons to think that this construct is more accurately conceptualized as including at least some causal indicators, in which observed indicators cause the latent variable. The present study examined the measurement model of a well-known alcohol consequences questionnaire, the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index. Participants were 703 students from a large public university in the Northeast mandated to an alcohol intervention. We conducted a zero tetrad test to examine a measurement model consisting solely of effect indicators and a model with both causal and effect indicators. Overall, the results suggested the hybrid model fit the data better than a model with only effect indicators. These findings have implications regarding the theoretical underpinnings of alcohol-related consequences.
BainterS. A.BollenK. A. (2014). Interpretational confounding or confounded interpretations of causal indicators?Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 12, 125–140. doi:10.1080/15366367.2014.968503
2.
BollenK. A. (1990). Outlier screening and a distribution-free test for vanishing tetrads. Sociological Methods & Research, 19, 80–92.
3.
BollenK. A. (2011). Evaluating effect, composite, and causal indicators in structural equation models. MIS Quarterly, 35, 359–372.
4.
BollenK. A.BauldryS. (2011). Three Cs in measurement models: Causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates. Psychological Methods, 16, 265–284.
5.
BollenK. A.LennoxR. D. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314.
6.
BollenK. A.LennoxR. D.DahlyD. L. (2009). Practical application of the vanishing tetrad test for causal indicator measurement models: An example from health-related quality of life. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 1524–1536.
BollenK. A.TingK. F. (1998). Bootstrapping a test statistic for vanishing tetrads. Sociological Methods & Research, 27, 77–102.
9.
BollenK. A.TingK. F. (2000). A tetrad test for causal indicators. Psychological Methods, 5, 3–22. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.5.1.3
10.
BonarE. E.RosenbergH.HoffmannE.KrausS. W.KryszakE.YoungK. M.BannonE. E. (2011). Measuring university students’ self-efficacy to use drinking self-control strategies. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25, 155–161.
11.
CiminiM. D.MartensM. P.LarimerM. E.KilmerJ. R.NeighborsC.MonserratJ. M. (2009). Assessing the effectiveness of peer-facilitated interventions addressing high-risk drinking among judicially mandated college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Supplement, 16, 57–66.
12.
CliffN. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 115–126.
13.
CollinsS. E.LoganD. E.NeighborsC. (2010). Which came first: The readiness or the change? Longitudinal relationships between readiness to change and drinking among college drinkers. Addiction, 105, 1899–1909.
14.
ColtmanT.DevinneyT. M.MidgleyD. F.VenaikS. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1250–1262.
15.
Devos-CombyL.LangeJ. E. (2008). Standardized measures of alcohol-related problems: A review of their use among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 349–361.
16.
DiamantopoulosA.RieflerP.RothK. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1201–1302.
17.
EarleywineM.LaBrieJ. W.PedersenE. R. (2008). A brief Rutgers alcohol problem index with less potential for bias. Addictive Behaviors, 33, 1249–1253.
18.
HardinA.MarcoulidesG. A. (2011). A commentary on the use of formative measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 753–764.
19.
HurlbutS. C.SherK. J. (1992). Assessing alcohol problems in college students. Journal of American College Health, 41, 49–58.
20.
HaynesS. N.SmithG. T.HunsleyJ. D. (2011). Scientific foundations of clinical assessment. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
21.
HingsonR. W.ZhaW.WeitzmanE. R. (2009). Magnitude of and trends in alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among US college students ages 18-24, 1998-2005. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Supplement, 16, 12–20.
JohnsonT. R.BodnerT. E. (2007). A note on the use of bootstrap tetrad tests for covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 113–124.
24.
JohnstonL. D.O’MalleyP. M.BachmanJ. G.SchulenbergJ. E. (2009). Monitoring the Future national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2008, p. 73(NIH Publication No. 09–7401). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
25.
KahlerC. W.StrongD. R.ReadJ. P. (2005). Toward efficient and comprehensive measurement of the alcohol problems continuum in college students: The brief young adult alcohol consequences questionnaire. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29, 1180–1190. doi:10.1097/01.ALC.0000171940.95813.A5
26.
KelleyT. L. (1928). Crossroads in the mind of man: A study of differentiable mental abilities. Stanford, CA: Stanford university press.
27.
LarimerM. E.TurnerA. P.AndersonB. K.FaderJ. S.KilmerJ. R.PalmerR. S.CronceJ. M. (2001). Evaluating a brief alcohol intervention for fraternities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 370–380.
28.
MartensM. P.ArterberryB. J.CadiganJ. M.SmithA. E. (2012). Review of clinical assessment tools. In CorreiaC.MurphyJ.BarnettN. (Eds.), College student alcohol abuse: A guide to assessment, intervention, and prevention (pp. 115–145). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
29.
MartensM. P.NeighborsC.Dams-O’ConnorK.LeeC. M.LarimerM. E. (2007). The factor structure of a dichotomously scored Rutgers alcohol problem index. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 597–606.
30.
MartensM. P.TaylorK. K.DamannK. M.PageJ. C.MowryE. S.CiminiM. D. (2004). Protective behavioral strategies when drinking alcohol and their relationship to negative alcohol-related consequences in college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 390.
31.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
32.
NeighborsC.LarimerM. E.LewisM. A. (2004). Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: Efficacy of a computer-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 434–447.
33.
NealD. J.CorbinW. R.FrommeK. (2006). Measurement of alcohol-related consequences among high school and college students: Application of item response models to the Rutgers alcohol problem index. Psychological Assessment, 18, 402–414.
34.
WakefieldJ. C.SchmitzM. F. (2015). The harmful dysfunction model of alcohol use disorder: Revised criteria to improve the validity of diagnosis and prevalence estimates. Addiction, 110, 931–942.
35.
WechslerH.LeeJ. E.KuoM.SeibringM.NelsonT. F.LeeH. (2002). Trends in college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts. Journal of American College Health, 50, 203–217.
36.
WestS. G.GrimmK. J. (2014). Causal indicator models: Unresolved issues of construction and evaluation. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 12, 160–164. doi:10.1080/15366367.2014.980108
37.
WhiteH. R.LabouvieE. W. (1989). Towards the assessment of adolescent problem drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 50, 30–37.
