Comparing the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor (bifactor) measurement structures of the drinking motives questionnaire
•The five-factor (bifactor) was superior to the four-factor model in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).•The same set of motive factors was longitudinally predictive in both models.•General motives also explained usage and problems in the bifactor model.•The incremental predictive validity of genera...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Drug and alcohol dependence 2017-12, Vol.181, p.108-115 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 115 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 108 |
| container_title | Drug and alcohol dependence |
| container_volume | 181 |
| creator | Lac, Andrew Donaldson, Candice D. |
| description | •The five-factor (bifactor) was superior to the four-factor model in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).•The same set of motive factors was longitudinally predictive in both models.•General motives also explained usage and problems in the bifactor model.•The incremental predictive validity of general motives was supported.
The Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ-R) is the most widely administered instrument to assess reasons for consuming alcohol and is conventionally premised on a four-factor structure. Recent research instead reveals that a bifactor measurement model of five motive factors (one general and four specific) represents a superior psychometric embodiment of the scale. The current study evaluated and compared the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor models of drinking motives in longitudinally explaining alcohol use and problems.
Adult participants (N=413; age range=18–79 years) completed measures of drinking motives (Time 1) and alcohol use and problems one month later (Time 2).
Confirmatory factor analyses corroborated the four-factor (social, enhancement, conformity, and coping motives) and five-factor (each item double loading on general motives and a specific motives factor) measurement structures, but the latter rendered stronger fit indices. Structural equation models revealed that lower social motives, higher enhancement motives, and higher coping motives prospectively contributed to alcohol use. Furthermore, lower social motives, higher conformity motives, higher coping motives, and greater alcohol use contributed to alcohol problems.
The same set of paths emerged as significantly predictive in both models, but general motives additionally explained alcohol use and problems in the five-factor model. The incremental contribution of general motives (beyond the specific motives) on alcohol intake and detrimental consequences supports the predictive validity of the drinking reasons paradigm embodied by the inclusion of a global factor. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.012 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5683928</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0376871617304945</els_id><sourcerecordid>1952525187</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-f459f205ce46e899d17b65e43044cba66549273e3649990e9aed5ff482eab3e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUU1v1DAQtRCIbgt_AVniUg4J48Rx4gsSXVFAqsSld8txxlsvSbzYzkr9D_xovN1u-bhgH-yx37w3M48QyqBkwMT7bTmEZaNHM-CurIC1JcgSWPWMrFjXygKAi-dkBXUriq5l4oycx7iFvISEl-SsksChq5oV-bn2004HN29oukO6Czg4k9we6V6PbnDpnnr78GX9EgqrTfKB6nmgNoNO8WXvjrd3dEIdl4ATzonGFBaTchRPJENW-n4Qm_xBJNIfC8bk_DxrF_AVeWH1GPH143lBbq8_3a6_FDffPn9df7wpTANtKixvpK2gMcgFdlIOrO1Fg7wGzk2vhWi4rNoaa8GllIBS49BYy7sKdZ-fL8iHI-1u6SccTC416FHtgpt0uFdeO_X3z-zu1MbvVSO6WlZdJrh8JAj-oQE1uWhwHPWMfomKyabKO1uRoW__gW7zHOfcXUZ1AJLzWmRUd0SZ4GMMaJ-KYaAOjqut-u24OjiuQKrseE5982czT4knizPg6gjAPNG9w6CicTibbHRAk9Tg3f9VfgGeW8YX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1980094436</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor (bifactor) measurement structures of the drinking motives questionnaire</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Lac, Andrew ; Donaldson, Candice D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lac, Andrew ; Donaldson, Candice D.</creatorcontrib><description>•The five-factor (bifactor) was superior to the four-factor model in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).•The same set of motive factors was longitudinally predictive in both models.•General motives also explained usage and problems in the bifactor model.•The incremental predictive validity of general motives was supported.
The Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ-R) is the most widely administered instrument to assess reasons for consuming alcohol and is conventionally premised on a four-factor structure. Recent research instead reveals that a bifactor measurement model of five motive factors (one general and four specific) represents a superior psychometric embodiment of the scale. The current study evaluated and compared the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor models of drinking motives in longitudinally explaining alcohol use and problems.
Adult participants (N=413; age range=18–79 years) completed measures of drinking motives (Time 1) and alcohol use and problems one month later (Time 2).
Confirmatory factor analyses corroborated the four-factor (social, enhancement, conformity, and coping motives) and five-factor (each item double loading on general motives and a specific motives factor) measurement structures, but the latter rendered stronger fit indices. Structural equation models revealed that lower social motives, higher enhancement motives, and higher coping motives prospectively contributed to alcohol use. Furthermore, lower social motives, higher conformity motives, higher coping motives, and greater alcohol use contributed to alcohol problems.
The same set of paths emerged as significantly predictive in both models, but general motives additionally explained alcohol use and problems in the five-factor model. The incremental contribution of general motives (beyond the specific motives) on alcohol intake and detrimental consequences supports the predictive validity of the drinking reasons paradigm embodied by the inclusion of a global factor.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0376-8716</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0046</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.012</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29040825</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Adaptation, Psychological ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Adults ; Aged ; Alcohol ; Alcohol Drinking - psychology ; Alcohol use ; Alcoholic beverages ; Alcohols ; Bifactor analysis ; Confirmatory factor analysis ; Conformity ; Coping ; Drinking ; Drinking behavior ; Drinking motives ; Factor Analysis, Statistical ; Female ; Five factor model ; Humans ; Male ; Mathematical models ; Measurement ; Middle Aged ; Motivation ; Predictive validity ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Psychometrics ; Questionnaires ; Reproducibility of Results ; Social Behavior ; Structural equation modeling ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Drug and alcohol dependence, 2017-12, Vol.181, p.108-115</ispartof><rights>2017 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Dec 1, 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-f459f205ce46e899d17b65e43044cba66549273e3649990e9aed5ff482eab3e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-f459f205ce46e899d17b65e43044cba66549273e3649990e9aed5ff482eab3e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.012$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3550,27924,27925,30999,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29040825$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lac, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donaldson, Candice D.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor (bifactor) measurement structures of the drinking motives questionnaire</title><title>Drug and alcohol dependence</title><addtitle>Drug Alcohol Depend</addtitle><description>•The five-factor (bifactor) was superior to the four-factor model in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).•The same set of motive factors was longitudinally predictive in both models.•General motives also explained usage and problems in the bifactor model.•The incremental predictive validity of general motives was supported.
The Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ-R) is the most widely administered instrument to assess reasons for consuming alcohol and is conventionally premised on a four-factor structure. Recent research instead reveals that a bifactor measurement model of five motive factors (one general and four specific) represents a superior psychometric embodiment of the scale. The current study evaluated and compared the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor models of drinking motives in longitudinally explaining alcohol use and problems.
Adult participants (N=413; age range=18–79 years) completed measures of drinking motives (Time 1) and alcohol use and problems one month later (Time 2).
Confirmatory factor analyses corroborated the four-factor (social, enhancement, conformity, and coping motives) and five-factor (each item double loading on general motives and a specific motives factor) measurement structures, but the latter rendered stronger fit indices. Structural equation models revealed that lower social motives, higher enhancement motives, and higher coping motives prospectively contributed to alcohol use. Furthermore, lower social motives, higher conformity motives, higher coping motives, and greater alcohol use contributed to alcohol problems.
The same set of paths emerged as significantly predictive in both models, but general motives additionally explained alcohol use and problems in the five-factor model. The incremental contribution of general motives (beyond the specific motives) on alcohol intake and detrimental consequences supports the predictive validity of the drinking reasons paradigm embodied by the inclusion of a global factor.</description><subject>Adaptation, Psychological</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Adults</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Alcohol</subject><subject>Alcohol Drinking - psychology</subject><subject>Alcohol use</subject><subject>Alcoholic beverages</subject><subject>Alcohols</subject><subject>Bifactor analysis</subject><subject>Confirmatory factor analysis</subject><subject>Conformity</subject><subject>Coping</subject><subject>Drinking</subject><subject>Drinking behavior</subject><subject>Drinking motives</subject><subject>Factor Analysis, Statistical</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Five factor model</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Predictive validity</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Social Behavior</subject><subject>Structural equation modeling</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0376-8716</issn><issn>1879-0046</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUU1v1DAQtRCIbgt_AVniUg4J48Rx4gsSXVFAqsSld8txxlsvSbzYzkr9D_xovN1u-bhgH-yx37w3M48QyqBkwMT7bTmEZaNHM-CurIC1JcgSWPWMrFjXygKAi-dkBXUriq5l4oycx7iFvISEl-SsksChq5oV-bn2004HN29oukO6Czg4k9we6V6PbnDpnnr78GX9EgqrTfKB6nmgNoNO8WXvjrd3dEIdl4ATzonGFBaTchRPJENW-n4Qm_xBJNIfC8bk_DxrF_AVeWH1GPH143lBbq8_3a6_FDffPn9df7wpTANtKixvpK2gMcgFdlIOrO1Fg7wGzk2vhWi4rNoaa8GllIBS49BYy7sKdZ-fL8iHI-1u6SccTC416FHtgpt0uFdeO_X3z-zu1MbvVSO6WlZdJrh8JAj-oQE1uWhwHPWMfomKyabKO1uRoW__gW7zHOfcXUZ1AJLzWmRUd0SZ4GMMaJ-KYaAOjqut-u24OjiuQKrseE5982czT4knizPg6gjAPNG9w6CicTibbHRAk9Tg3f9VfgGeW8YX</recordid><startdate>20171201</startdate><enddate>20171201</enddate><creator>Lac, Andrew</creator><creator>Donaldson, Candice D.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171201</creationdate><title>Comparing the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor (bifactor) measurement structures of the drinking motives questionnaire</title><author>Lac, Andrew ; Donaldson, Candice D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-f459f205ce46e899d17b65e43044cba66549273e3649990e9aed5ff482eab3e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adaptation, Psychological</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Adults</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Alcohol</topic><topic>Alcohol Drinking - psychology</topic><topic>Alcohol use</topic><topic>Alcoholic beverages</topic><topic>Alcohols</topic><topic>Bifactor analysis</topic><topic>Confirmatory factor analysis</topic><topic>Conformity</topic><topic>Coping</topic><topic>Drinking</topic><topic>Drinking behavior</topic><topic>Drinking motives</topic><topic>Factor Analysis, Statistical</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Five factor model</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Predictive validity</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Social Behavior</topic><topic>Structural equation modeling</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lac, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donaldson, Candice D.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Drug and alcohol dependence</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lac, Andrew</au><au>Donaldson, Candice D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor (bifactor) measurement structures of the drinking motives questionnaire</atitle><jtitle>Drug and alcohol dependence</jtitle><addtitle>Drug Alcohol Depend</addtitle><date>2017-12-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>181</volume><spage>108</spage><epage>115</epage><pages>108-115</pages><issn>0376-8716</issn><eissn>1879-0046</eissn><abstract>•The five-factor (bifactor) was superior to the four-factor model in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).•The same set of motive factors was longitudinally predictive in both models.•General motives also explained usage and problems in the bifactor model.•The incremental predictive validity of general motives was supported.
The Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ-R) is the most widely administered instrument to assess reasons for consuming alcohol and is conventionally premised on a four-factor structure. Recent research instead reveals that a bifactor measurement model of five motive factors (one general and four specific) represents a superior psychometric embodiment of the scale. The current study evaluated and compared the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor models of drinking motives in longitudinally explaining alcohol use and problems.
Adult participants (N=413; age range=18–79 years) completed measures of drinking motives (Time 1) and alcohol use and problems one month later (Time 2).
Confirmatory factor analyses corroborated the four-factor (social, enhancement, conformity, and coping motives) and five-factor (each item double loading on general motives and a specific motives factor) measurement structures, but the latter rendered stronger fit indices. Structural equation models revealed that lower social motives, higher enhancement motives, and higher coping motives prospectively contributed to alcohol use. Furthermore, lower social motives, higher conformity motives, higher coping motives, and greater alcohol use contributed to alcohol problems.
The same set of paths emerged as significantly predictive in both models, but general motives additionally explained alcohol use and problems in the five-factor model. The incremental contribution of general motives (beyond the specific motives) on alcohol intake and detrimental consequences supports the predictive validity of the drinking reasons paradigm embodied by the inclusion of a global factor.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>29040825</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.012</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0376-8716 |
| ispartof | Drug and alcohol dependence, 2017-12, Vol.181, p.108-115 |
| issn | 0376-8716 1879-0046 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5683928 |
| source | MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Adaptation, Psychological Adolescent Adult Adults Aged Alcohol Alcohol Drinking - psychology Alcohol use Alcoholic beverages Alcohols Bifactor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis Conformity Coping Drinking Drinking behavior Drinking motives Factor Analysis, Statistical Female Five factor model Humans Male Mathematical models Measurement Middle Aged Motivation Predictive validity Predictive Value of Tests Psychometrics Questionnaires Reproducibility of Results Social Behavior Structural equation modeling Surveys and Questionnaires - standards Young Adult |
| title | Comparing the predictive validity of the four-factor and five-factor (bifactor) measurement structures of the drinking motives questionnaire |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T04%3A01%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20the%20predictive%20validity%20of%20the%20four-factor%20and%20five-factor%20(bifactor)%20measurement%20structures%20of%20the%20drinking%20motives%20questionnaire&rft.jtitle=Drug%20and%20alcohol%20dependence&rft.au=Lac,%20Andrew&rft.date=2017-12-01&rft.volume=181&rft.spage=108&rft.epage=115&rft.pages=108-115&rft.issn=0376-8716&rft.eissn=1879-0046&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.012&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1952525187%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1980094436&rft_id=info:pmid/29040825&rft_els_id=S0376871617304945&rfr_iscdi=true |