Cited by 3Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesCoffee research and impactsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychometric validation of the Anticipated Effects of Alcohol Mixed with Energy Drinks Scale.

Open access

Abstract

Young people are increasingly consuming alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmEDs). As coingestion of these beverages results in greater adverse consequences than from drinking alcohol alone, we need to understand what factors contribute to and deter coingestion. Existing studies in this area have not utilized a theoretically based or empirically validated measure of outcome expectancies for drinking AmEDs. Our study modified Morean, Corbin, and Treat's (2012) Anticipated Effects of Alcohol Scale to assess the expected effects of drinking AmEDs. We evaluated the factor structure and concurrent validity of the Anticipated Effects of Alcohol Mixed with Energy Drinks (AEAMEDS) among 549 university students, aged 18-25, who had a lifetime history of consuming alcohol (231 had consumed AmEDs in the past 90 days). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis supported a 4-factor structure. Consistent with hypotheses, stronger high arousal/positive expectancies and weaker low arousal/negative expectancies were associated with greater AmED use. At the bivariate level, stronger low arousal/positive expectancies were associated with greater quantities of AmED use, but this relationship disappeared when taking into account other outcome expectancies. Moreover, students expected low arousal/positive expectancies to be less intense when consuming AmEDs than alcohol alone, but ratings for all other AmED expectancies were equivalent to consuming alcohol alone. These findings contribute to our…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pas0000451

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Norberg, M. M., Newins, A. R., Mills, L., & Ham, L. S.
Affiliations
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2017-12
Volume
29
Issue
12
Pages
1505-1516
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2593882662
Cited by
3
References
52
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Coffee research and impacts
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
outcome expectations, psychometric validation, factor structure, university students, risk and protective factors
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Alcoholic Beverages, Arousal, Australia, Female, Humans, Male, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, Anticipation, Psychological, Energy Drinks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review