Measuring adolescent drinking-refusal self-efficacy: Development and validation of the Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire-Shortened Adolescent version (DRSEQ-SRA)

This study aimed to develop and validate a shortened version of the Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire-Revised Adolescent version (DRSEQ-RA) using a large sample of adolescents. Secondary school students (N = 2609, M = 14.52 years, SD = 0.94) completed the DRSEQ-RA (consisting of subscales...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Addictive behaviors 2018-06, Vol.81, p.70-77
Hauptverfasser: Patton, Kiri, Connor, Jason P., Rundle-Thiele, Sharyn, Dietrich, Timo, Young, Ross McD, Gullo, Matthew J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study aimed to develop and validate a shortened version of the Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire-Revised Adolescent version (DRSEQ-RA) using a large sample of adolescents. Secondary school students (N = 2609, M = 14.52 years, SD = 0.94) completed the DRSEQ-RA (consisting of subscales: Social Pressure; Opportunistic; Emotional Relief) and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). These data were analysed using non-parametric item response theory (NIRT) including Mokken scalability coefficients, and confirmatory factor analysis. Social Pressure subscale items were better able to distinguish between adolescents with lower or higher levels of drinking refusal self-efficacy, while the Opportunistic and Emotional Relief subscale items were able to distinguish adolescents with low drinking-refusal self-efficacy. The DRSEQ-RA was reduced from 19-items to a 9-item scale and retained the original three-factor structure. The reduced scale was named the Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire-Shortened Revised Adolescent version (DRSEQ-SRA). The DRSEQ-RA and the DRSEQ-SRA have almost identical psychometric properties. They both demonstrated good fit to the data, each explained 18% of the variance in alcohol consumption, Adj. R2 = 0.18, p 
ISSN:0306-4603
1873-6327
DOI:10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.02.007