Evidence Hub

Concurrent validity of the Alcohol Purchase Task for measuring the reinforcing efficacy of alcohol: an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Víctor Martínez Loredo, Alba González‐Roz, Roberto Secades‐Villa, José Ramón Fernández Hermida, James M. MacKillop

Addiction, 2020

18 participants · 76 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background and aims An early meta‐analysis testing the concurrent validity of the Alcohol Purchase Task (APT), a measure of alcohol's relative reinforcing value, reported mixed associations, but predated a large number of studies. This systematic review and meta‐analysis sought to: (1) estimate the relationships between trait‐based alcohol demand indices from the APT and multiple alcohol indicators, (2) test several moderators and (3) analyze small study effects. Methods A meta‐analysis of 50 cross‐sectional studies in four databases ( n = 18 466, females = 43.32%). Sex, year of publication, number of APT prices and index transformations (logarithmic, square root or none) were considered as moderators. Small study effects were examined by using the Begg–Mazumdar, Egger's and Duval & Tweedie's trim‐and‐fill tests. Alcohol indicators were quantity of alcohol use, number of heavy drinking episodes, alcohol‐related problems and hazardous drinking. APT indices were intensity (i.e. consumption at zero cost), elasticity (i.e. sensitivity to increases in costs), O max (i.e. maximum expenditure), P max (i.e. price associated to O max ) and breakpoint (i.e. price at which consumption ceases). Results All alcohol demand indices were significantly associated with all alcohol‐related outcomes ( r = 0.132–0.494), except P max , which was significantly associated with alcohol‐related problems only ( r = 0.064) . The greatest associations were evinced between intensity in relation…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 18 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free