The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring quantity and frequency of drinking in a general population survey: a comparison of five indices.
Abstract
This article compares five indices of alcohol consumption in a general population survey conducted in 1985 in the Netherlands. Self-reports of consumption were obtained with a prospective diary, a retrospective 7-day recall method, and three summary measures, such as a quantity-frequency index. The coverage of sales data appeared highest for the diary (67%), which suggests a higher validity. Special attention was given to comparisons of quantity and frequency of drinking between the diary, on the one hand, and the weekly recall and summary measures, on the other. It was found that underreporting, relative to the diary reports, was generally higher in the frequency than in the quantity domain. This result, together with the finding from longitudinal studies that intraindividual variation is also higher for drinking frequency, leads to the conclusion that forgetting is a potent source of undercoverage in surveys and to the hypothesis that large differences in overall drinking pattern between populations (e.g., in regularity of drinking) may account for the large differences in coverage rates of sales data. Furthermore, the subjectively assessed probability of drinking by means of a "usual" frequency question appeared a poor predictor of (diary) drinking frequency for respondents reporting a low or moderate frequency. For subjects claiming a high "usual" drinking frequency, a reasonable correspondence between diary and summary measures was found. This mitigates the fear often expressed that heavy drinkers particularly underreport their consumption.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Effects of Time and Memory Factors on Response in Surveys
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1973) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1973.10481428 · Cited by 471
Cited by
Sensitive questions in surveys.
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859 · Cited by 3,057
Gmel, G., & Rehm, J. (2004) · Contemporary Drug Problems · doi:10.1177/009145090403100304 · Cited by 466
Internet and Gaming Addiction: A Systematic Literature Review of Neuroimaging Studies
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci2030347 · Cited by 437
Roerecke, M., & Rehm, J. (2010) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwp451 · Cited by 307
Alcohol Intake Assessment: The Sober Facts
Feunekes, G. I. J., van 't Veer, P., van Staveren, W. A., & Kok, F. J. (1999) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009909 · Cited by 285
Metadata
- Authors
- Lemmens, P., Tan, E. S., & Knibbe, R. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Studies on Alcohol
- Publisher
- Alcohol Research Documentation, Inc.
- Published
- 1992-09
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 476-486
- ISSN
- 0096-882X (ISSN-L)
- 1934-2683
- OpenAlex
- W2123947035
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring quantity and frequency of drinking in a general population survey: a comparison of five indices. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.15288/jsa.1992.53.476
- The paper
- Lemmens, P., Tan, E. S., & Knibbe, R. A. (1992). Measuring quantity and frequency of drinking in a general population survey: a comparison of five indices. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.1992.53.476
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.