Predictors of Subgroups Based on Maximum Drinks per Occasion Over Six Years for 833 Adolescents and Young Adults in COGA.

Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs (Impact Factor: 1.68). 01/2014; 75(1):24-34.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objective: A person's pattern of heavier drinking often changes over time, especially during the early drinking years, and reflects complex relationships among a wide range of characteristics. Optimal understanding of the predictors of drinking during times of change might come from studies of trajectories of alcohol intake rather than cross-sectional evaluations. Method: The patterns of maximum drinks per occasion were evaluated every 2 years between the average ages of 18 and 24 years for 833 subjects from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism. Latent class growth analysis identified latent classes for the trajectories of maximum drinks, and then logistic regression analyses highlighted variables that best predicted class membership. Results: Four latent classes were found, including Class 1 (69%), with about 5 maximum drinks per occasion across time; Class 2 (15%), with about 9 drinks at baseline that increased to 18 across time; Class 3 (10%), who began with a maximum of 18 drinks per occasion but decreased to 9 over time; and Class 4 (6%), with a maximum of about 22 drinks across time. The most consistent predictors of higher drinking classes were female sex, a low baseline level of response to alcohol, externalizing characteristics, prior alcohol and tobacco use, and heavier drinking peers. Conclusions: Four trajectory classes were observed and were best predicted by a combination of items that reflected demography, substance use, level of response and externalizing phenotypes, and baseline environment and attitudes. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 75, 24-34, 2014).

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies have implicated a wide variety of variables as being associated with an early age of first drink (AFD). AFD in turn has been associated with a variety of negative outcomes in adolescence and early adulthood. This study is designed to quantify the contributions of these antecedent variables to prediction of AFD; in particular it will carefully examine the involvement of variables in four areas (child characteristics, family demographics, family psychopathology, and child behavior problems). Using data from a multicenter study on alcoholism, we first investigated the differences between two groups of children (ages 7 to 17 years), one from families heavily loaded for alcohol dependence and the other from population controls. Second, a multidomain, multistep regression model using child characteristics, family demographics, family psychopathology, and child behavior problems was performed to determine significant contributors to predicted AFD. Five variables initially contributed to the prediction of AFD. These included gender, age at interview, the number of adult sibs with alcohol dependence, being held back a year in school, and conduct scale score. However, the number of conduct symptoms appeared to contain the contributions of gender and being held back a grade in school, and these two variables were subsequent removed from the model. The remaining three variables explained 45% of the model variance; age at interview accounted for 38.3%, conduct scale score accounted for 6.2%, and the number of alcohol-dependent adult sibs accounted for 0.5%. No family history measures of alcohol dependence or antisocial personality disorder were contributory to the prediction model for AFD. Both the "number of conduct symptoms" and the "number of adult sibs with alcohol dependence" are inversely associated with predicted AFD. The latter variable appears marginally predictive of AFD and suggests a condition in which the child's household, regardless of strength of family history of AD (or antisocial personality disorder), appears conducive to early drinking. Thus, child and environmental factors are stronger predictors of age of first drink than family history.
    Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research 11/2005; 29(10):1869-76. DOI:10.1097/01.alc.0000183190.32692.c7 · 3.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Control of young people's access to alcohol via licensed premises has been shown to be an effective alcohol harm reduction strategy in the United States. In a longitudinal study of young New Zealanders their access to alcohol at the ages of 15 and 18 years was shown to be significantly predictive of the quantities of alcohol they consumed during a drinking occasion both then and in subsequent years. In turn the quantities of alcohol consumed were predictive of the respondents' experience of intoxication related adverse consequences. The impact of access via licensed premises on drinking and related problems was greater in this cohort of young people than the impact of peer or parental influences.
    Addiction 07/1997; 92(6):737-45. · 4.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most previous research has assumed that adolescent alcohol use and problem use represent a continuum and are influenced by the same psychosocial factors, with problem use representing more severe psychosocial impairment. The current study evaluated this assumption by identifying the correlates of adolescent alcohol use and those of problem use. Using a community sample of adolescent children of alcoholics (COAs) and a demographically matched comparison group (non-COAs), a typology of adolescent alcohol use was created, and alcohol use groups were compared on variables chosen from nine psychosocial domains. The correlates of problem alcohol use were different from those of moderate use. Problem use was associated with fundamental family disruptions and poor psychological functioning. In contrast, the determinants of moderate alcohol use reflected unconventionality and socialization specific to alcohol. Few psychosocial variables distinguished abstainers from light drinkers. Intervention and methodological implications of these findings are discussed.
    Development and Psychopathology 02/1999; 11(2):321-48. DOI:10.1017/S0954579499002084 · 4.40 Impact Factor