Examining the validity of the addictions neuroclinical assessment domains in a crowdsourced sample of adults with current alcohol use.

Several dimensional frameworks for characterizing heterogeneity in alcohol use disorder (AUD) have been proposed, including the Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment (ANA). The ANA is a framework for assessing individual variability within AUD across three domains corresponding to the proposed stages of the addiction cycle: reward (binge-intoxication stage), negative emotionality (withdrawal-negative affect stage), and cognitive control (preoccupation-anticipation stage). Recent work has evaluated the ANA's three-factor structure and construct validity, primarily in treatment-seekers with AUD. We extended this research by examining the factor structure, bias across alcohol use severity, longitudinal invariance, and concurrent and predictive validity of a novel assessment of the ANA domains in adults with past 12-month regular (10 + alcohol units/week) alcohol use. Participants recruited from Prolific (N = 732), a crowdsourced data collection platform, completed various self-report measures. A test-retest subsample (n = 234) completed these measures 30 days later. Split-half exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis supported the three-factor structure of the ANA. The overall factor structure was invariant across 30 days. Concurrently and prospectively, ANA domains demonstrated convergent validity concerning theoretically aligned alcohol-related, psychological, and personality measures. However, there was evidence of poor discriminant validity, and several cognitive control and reward items demonstrated bias across alcohol use severity. Future research is needed to improve the measurement of ANA domains using multimodal indicators, examine longitudinal changes in domains and their relationship with alcohol use severity, characterize phenotypic subgroups based on relative levels of domains, and compare the utility of the ANA with other proposed frameworks for measuring AUD heterogeneity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Evidence-Based Assessment of Substance Use Disorder.

The current review describes updated information on the evidence-based assessment of substance use disorder. We offer an overview of the state of the science for substance-related assessment targets, instruments (screening, diagnosis, outcome and treatment monitoring, and psychosocial functioning and wellbeing) and processes (relational and technical) as well as recommendations for each of these three components. We encourage assessors to reflect on their own biases, beliefs, and values, including how those relate to people that use substances, and to view the individual as a whole person. It is important to consider a person's profile of symptoms and functioning inclusive of strengths, comorbidities, and social and cultural determinants. Collaborating with the patient to select the assessment target that best fits their goals and integration of assessment information in a holistic manner is critical. We conclude by providing recommendations for assessment targets, instruments, and processes as well as recommendations for comprehensive substance use disorder assessment, and describe future directions for research.

Shifting the discourse on disability: Moving to an inclusive, intersectional focus.

Individuals with disabilities comprise one of the largest marginalized groups in the United States and experience systemic barriers in health care. In Westernized communities, disability has historically been conceptualized via the medical model, which considers disability an individual-level deficit in need of correction. Although other models of disability (e.g., social model) have been developed to address the medical model's ableist shortcomings, these fail to consistently acknowledge intersectionality. Specifically, these models fail to consider that (a) a disabled individual may hold other marginalized or oppressed identities and (b) these intersecting oppressions may exacerbate health inequities. Intersectionality, which originates from Black feminist literature, describes the ways that systems of power and oppression (e.g., racism, sexism) interact to form an individual's unique experience. To date, the intersection of disability and other marginalized identities has been neglected in psychology and related fields, leaving little guidance for how scholars, clinicians, and other stakeholders can address disability via an intersectional lens. The present article discusses how a disability-affirmative, intersectional approach can serve as a strategy for challenging and reforming oppressive systems across the field of psychology. We assert that, ultimately, this approach has the potential to optimize and expand access to equitable, inclusive mental health care, and we propose actionable steps psychologists can take in research, practice, training, and policy in pursuit of this aim. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Self-report assessment of alcohol sensitivity: An examination of the effects of different probes.

OBJECTIVE: Level of response (LOR) to alcohol is associated with several alcohol-related risk factors and outcomes. However, existing self-report measures of LOR have important limitations. For example, the Self-Rating of the Effects of Alcohol Scale assesses a limited range of alcohol-related effects. Although the Alcohol Sensitivity Questionnaire (ASQ) samples a broader range of effects, it uses different probes across effects, confounding type of effect with method variation associated with the use of different probes. Focusing on the ASQ, we systematically evaluate variation in estimated LOR as a function of how number of drinks to achieve an effect is probed. Our approach addresses a major limitation of existing LOR measures which fail to account for sensitivity variability across drinking occasions. METHOD: This study randomized 732 adult drinkers into one of four versions of the ASQ that assessed sensitivity to 15 alcohol-related effects, systematically varying the follow-up probes. RESULTS: Accounting for (a) the minimum number of drinks consumed before feeling an effect and (b) the maximum number of drinks consumed without feeling an effect for all effects is superior to the original ASQ approach in predicting relevant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of sensitivity should probe for minimum and maximum number of drinks across each of the effects. If impractical to probe for both, consistently probing for maximum number of drinks is desirable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

An Ethics and Social-Justice Approach to Collecting and Using Demographic Data for Psychological Researchers.

The collection and use of demographic data in psychological sciences has the potential to aid in transforming inequities brought about by unjust social conditions toward equity. However, many current methods surrounding demographic data do not achieve this goal. Some methods function to reduce, but not eliminate, inequities, whereas others may perpetuate harmful stereotypes, invalidate minoritized identities, and exclude key groups from research participation or access to disseminated findings. In this article, we aim to (a) review key ethical and social-justice dilemmas inherent to working with demographic data in psychological research and (b) introduce a framework positioned in ethics and social justice to help psychologists and researchers in social-science fields make thoughtful decisions about the collection and use of demographic data. Although demographic data methods vary across subdisciplines and research topics, we assert that these core issues-and solutions-are relevant to all research within the psychological sciences, including basic and applied research. Our overarching aim is to support key stakeholders in psychology (e.g., researchers, funding agencies, journal editors, peer reviewers) in making ethical and socially-just decisions about the collection, analysis, reporting, interpretation, and dissemination of demographic data.

Contextual decision-making and alcohol use disorder criteria: Delayed reward, delayed loss, and probabilistic reward discounting.

OBJECTIVE: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is an etiologically heterogeneous psychiatric disorder defined by a collection of commonly observed co-occurring symptoms. It is useful to contextualize AUD within theoretical frameworks to identify potential prevention, intervention, and treatment approaches that target personalized mechanisms of behavior change. One theoretical framework, behavioral economics, suggests that AUD is a temporally extended pattern of cost/benefit analyses favoring drinking decisions. The distribution of costs and benefits across choice outcomes is often unequally distributed over time and has different probabilities of receipt, such that delay and probability become critical variables. The present study examines the relations between different forms of economic discounting (delayed reward, delayed cost, and probabilistic reward) and individual symptoms of AUD to inform etiological models. METHOD: Participants (N = 732; 41% female, 4.2% Black, 88.1% White, 8% Hispanic) completed an online survey with measures of AUD symptoms and economic discounting. We examined relations between economic discounting and AUD symptoms with zero-order correlations, in separate models (factor models), and in models controlling for an AUD factor (factor-controlled models). RESULTS: Delayed reward discounting was positively associated with the give up AUD criteria across all three levels of analysis. Probability discounting was associated with social/interpersonal problems across two out of three sets of analyses. Consistent with the broad discounting literature, effect sizes were small (range = -.15 to .13). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the idea that AUD criteria are etiologically distinct, resulting in varying AUD profiles between persons that are differentially associated with behavioral economic discounting. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Supporting Students in Health Service Psychology Training: A Theory-Driven Approach to Meeting the Diverse Needs of Trainees.

The demographic characteristics of health service psychology (HSP) trainees have shifted considerably in recent decades. In what was previously a field comprised predominantly of White men, HSP trainees today represent a much broader range of backgrounds. Nonetheless, the leadership within HSP training (e.g., faculty) remains relatively homogenous, and the training approaches (e.g., mentorship styles, expectations for students) may have failed to evolve to meet the needs of this more diverse pool of trainees. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the training needs of students who represent an array of diverse backgrounds, identities, and life experiences may not be met by existing conceptualizations of and approaches to training. In this article, we discuss several training issues that are specific to a range of trainees, including women, trainees who are parents, sexual/gender minoritized trainees, trainees with disabilities, and trainees from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. We draw from social-ecological and feminist mentoring theories to provide recommendations, consistent with APA's (2018) Standards of Accreditation for HSP Doctoral Programs in order to offer recommendations for optimizing the training experiences of HSP trainees across multiple levels of analysis.

The Case for Cognitive Interviewing in Survey Item Validation: A Useful Approach for Improving the Measurement and Assessment of Substance Use Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To accurately identify substance use disorders, we must be confident of our ability to define and measure the construct itself. To date, research has demonstrated that the ways in which substance use disorder criteria are operationalized or assessed can significantly affect the information we obtain from these diagnoses. For example, differing operationalizations of the same construct, such as impaired control over substance use, can result in markedly different estimates of prevalence. This points to the need for approaches that aim to improve the validity of diagnostic assessments during the measure development phase. METHOD: We performed a scoping review of the cognitive interviewing literature, a technique that aims to provide a systematic way of identifying and reducing measurement error associated with the structure and content of assessment items. Along with this, we apply cognitive interviewing to items assessing alcohol tolerance. RESULTS: We argue that cognitive interviewing is well suited for reducing measurement error in substance use disorder assessment items. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating cognitive interviewing into the item generation stage of measure development for substance use disorder assessments is a worthwhile endeavor for improving validity.

Assessment of Withdrawal and Hangover is Confounded in the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule: Withdrawal Prevalence is Likely Inflated.

BACKGROUND: The Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-IV (AUDADIS-IV) and AUDADIS-5 are diagnostic interviews used in major epidemiological and other studies of alcohol use disorder (AUD). Much of what we know regarding the prevalence of AUD in the United States is based upon this interview. However, past research and meta-analytic evidence suggest that differential operationalization of the AUD criteria across instruments can lead to differential endorsement of symptoms and resulting AUD diagnosis rates. In particular, studies employing the AUDADIS are observed to have markedly higher endorsement rates of withdrawal than other large epidemiological studies. One explanation for this is that when assessing withdrawal, the AUDADIS combines effects from the morning after drinking with those from the days following, thereby conflating hangover and withdrawal. METHODS: This study addresses whether this operationalization confounds rates of endorsement when compared to simpler, less ambiguous hangover or withdrawal stems. To this aim, 497 college student drinkers were randomized into 1 of 3 stem conditions: (i) hangover (n = 164), (ii) withdrawal (n = 167), or (iii) combined AUDADIS-IV (n = 166). RESULTS: Across conditions, participants were more likely to report the occurrence of each withdrawal symptom in the combined stem condition than in the explicit withdrawal stem condition, but not in the explicit hangover stem condition. Within the combined stem condition, probed symptoms were more likely to be reported as a result of a hangover. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDADIS potentially results in false positives for withdrawal, arguably a pathognomonic symptom of alcoholism and, in turn, likely affects rates of the diagnosis of AUD.