INTRODUCTION

The motivational model of drinking proposes that an individual’s reasons for drinking are most important in the initiation and maintenance of drinking behavior. “Drinking motives” refer to the basic psychological motivations or reasons for using alcohol (1). Drinking motives, one of the cognitive-motivational predictors of alcohol use, are defined as the final decision whether to drink or not to drink and therefore the most proximal factor for engaging in drinking (1-4). In other words, drinking motives are the final pathway to alcohol use, i.e. the gateway through which more distal influences, such as personality characteristics, are mediated (5-7). However, drinking motives depend on past reinforcement from drinking and might also be used as justification for a certain drinking style (2,4).

Drinking motives are considered more proximal predictors of drinking behavior than alcohol expectancies because expectancies are anticipated consequences of alcohol consumption whereas motives are reasons why an individual consumes alcohol (5). According to Cronin (6), reasons for drinking were better predictors of alcohol use and alcohol-related problems than alcohol outcome expectancies among university students. Also drinking motives have been found to mediate the relationship between alcohol expectancies and drinking in a clinical sample (8).

Early models of drinking motives consisted of two (social and coping) (9) or three (social, enhancement and coping) (10) factors. More recently, inspired by Cox and Klinger’s (2) theoretical structure for classifying alcohol-use motives, Cooper (1) posited that a four-factor model might better describe alcohol-use motives, particularly among adolescents. In this four-factor model, motives are categorized according to two dimensions: type of reinforcement (positive or negative) and source of reinforcement (external or internal). The external motives include positive-reinforcement “social” (i.e., drinking to make social occasions more fun or enjoyable) and negative-reinforcement “conformity” (i.e., to fit in with admired group; avoid peer rejection; in response to social pressures) motives. The internal, or emotional alcohol-use motives include positive-reinforcement “enhancement” (i.e., drinking to induce, increase, or maintain a positive mood) and negative-reinforcement “coping” (i.e., to cope with, or to relieve negative emotional states, including sadness or anxiety) motives. Conceptually, social and enhancement drinking motives suggest that alcohol consumption is positively reinforcing, such that individuals choose to drink in order to socialize or increase positive mood. Alternatively, it is thought that coping and conformity motives reflect negatively reinforcing motives for drinking, provoking decisions to use alcohol as a means to avoid negative emotions or social rejection.

The theoretical structure of the operational model is supported in different age groups, among boys and girls, and in English and non-English samples (1,11). Similarly, MacLean and Lecci (12), examining the DMQ-R in a sample of undergraduates, found that the four-factor model fit the data well and provided a better fit compared to alternative models, including a three-factor model that constrained the external motives onto one factor. Results of previous studies replicated the four-dimensional structure of the DMQ-R in a national representative sample from Switzerland (11) and Hungary (13).

Finally, a cross-cultural study data from Switzerland, Canada, and the United States indicate that the DMQ-R is a valid and reliable instrument to assess drinking motives across cultures (14). There are some studies that evaluated important differences across countries in terms of mean levels of endorsement of different drinking motives (15,16). Nagoshi et al. (15), for example, showed that American college students were more likely to drink for “celebratory” reasons (i.e., enhancement and social motives combined) than were Japanese students. Gire (16) found that American respondents score higher on coping motives and lower on social motives than Nigerian participants. Similarly, using Cooper’s (1) four-factor DMQ-R, Theakston et al. (17) showed that Canadian college students of Asian descent were less likely to drink for enhancement motives and more likely to drink for conformity motives than their non-Asian counterparts.

The concept of drinking motives is based on the assumption that people drink in order to attain certain valued outcomes (1,2). It also assumes that drinking behavior is motivated by different needs or serves different functions, and that specific drinking motives are associated with a unique pattern of precursors and consequences. The four drinking motives have unique associations with alcohol use behavior. Social motives appear to be related to nonproblematic “social drinking”, in which there may be slight increases in drinking quantity, but not alcohol-related problems (1,18). Both enhancement and coping motives are related to heavier drinking and alcohol-related problems, although coping motives continue to be related to alcohol-related problems when controlling for usual alcohol use (1,10). Conformity motives appear to be positively related to alcohol-related problems, but have a small negative correlation with heavy drinking (1).

It was suggested in previous studies that evaluating drinking motivations to be helpful in adolescents and young adults preventing from developing alcohol use disorders. Evaluating drinking motivations may also help clinicians when planning treatment of alcohol dependency, thus suggesting the importance of drinking motives. In the aim of this study, the reliability and validity and factorial structure of the Turkish translation of the DMQ-R in adult male alcohol dependent inpatients were determined.

METHODS

Participants

The study was conducted in Bakirkoy State Hospital for Psychiatric and Neurological Diseases, Alcohol and Drug Research, Treatment and Training Center (AMATEM) in Istanbul, between January 2008 and January 2009. AMATEM is a specialized center for substance use disorders with 84 inpatient beds, and accepts patients from all over Turkey. The Ethical Committee of the hospital approved the study. Patients’ written informed consents were obtained after the study protocol was thoroughly explained.

One hundred eighty consecutively admitted alcohol-dependent inpatients without history of any other substance abuse were considered for participation in the study. All participants fitted in the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence. Excluding criteria were illiteracy, mental retardation or cognitive impairment and comorbid psychotic disorder. Five patients were excluded due to illiteracy and three patients due to cognitive deficits. Nine of the patients refused to participate in the study and 8 patients were excluded because they left some parts of the scales unfilled, did not give back their forms or left the treatment program prematurely, i.e. before filling in the forms. A total of 155 alcohol-dependent inpatients participated in the study. Interviews with the study group were conducted after detoxification period, i.e. 4-6 weeks after the last day of alcohol use.

Procedure

The original DMQ-R was independently translated from English into Turkish by two experts of alcoholism. A consensus was reached on a common draft by these experts. This Turkish version was back translated into English by an independent translator. The final Turkish DMQ-R was then first administered to 155 patients, then readministered after 24 hrs to 136 (87.7%) of these 155 patients in a test–retest procedure to assess retest reliability. Although these were alcohol dependent patients at the end of their inpatient treatment, nineteen (12.3%) of these patients could not be re-evaluated because 6 of them dropped out from the study before administering the scale a second time, 4 of them refused to fill in the scale for the second time and the investigator missed to interview 9 patients.

Assessment instruments

All patients were assessed by using a semi-structured socio-demographic form. The diagnosis of alcohol dependence was based on the clinical examination, a screening interview based on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-I), (19) Turkish version, (20) conducted by a trained interviewer (CE).

Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ-R)

Drinking motives were measured by the Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ-R) (1), which is a 20-item questionnaire that assesses four categories of drinking motives (social, coping, enhancement, and conformity). Participants were instructed to consider all the times they had drunk alcohol and to indicate on how many occasions they had drunk for each given motive. Each motive is measured by 5 items that ask how often the respondent drinks for the given reason. Items are rated on a relative frequency scale ranging from ‘Never’ (coded as 0) to ‘Almost always’ (coded as 5). The exact Turkish wording of all items is given at the end of the study.

Obsessive–Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS)

Obsessive–Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS) (21,22), is a standardized self-report measure of certain cognitive and behavioral aspects of craving. Patients rate 14 items regarding thoughts and behaviors related to drinking on a 5-6 point Likert-type scale. Along with a total score, the instrument yields 2 subscale scores which measure obsessive thoughts about alcohol and compulsive drinking urges and behaviors. OCDS is a very effective and useful questionnaire during trials for the treatment of patients with alcohol problems, while also proving to be significantly related to the severity of alcoholism (22-24). The Turkish version of the OCDS is a reliable and valid instrument for evaluation craving in alcohol dependent inpatients (25).

Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test

The MAST was used to assess the severity of dependence (26). It was developed as a rapid and effective screening for lifetime alcohol-related problems and alcoholism for a variety of populations. The MAST consists of 25 brief true-false items that are self-administered in approximately 10 minutes. Scoring is accomplished after reverse scoring 4 of the 25 items and assigning weighted scores. These weighed scores are then summed; the sum represents a total score reflecting severity of alcohol-related problems. Turkish version of the MAST is valid and reliable for screening severity of dependence in both alcohol and drug dependent patients (27). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.74 in the present study.

Symptom Checklist-Revised (SCL-90-R)

Psychopathologic symptoms were assessed with widely used 90-item Symptom Checklist-Revised (SCL-90-R), a self rating inventory with 9 clinical scales for somatization, obsession and compulsion, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism (28). The total score and the global severity index (GSI) were considered as a measure of overall psychopathology. The SCL-90-R is a reliable and valid measure of psychopathology and is widely used in psychosomatic researches. In the present study, the Turkish version of the SCL-90-R was used (29). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.98 in the present study.

Statistical Analysis

SPSS statistical package version 15.0 for Windows was used for all analyses. Categorical variables were compared by chi-square test. Student t test was used to compare the groups on continuous variables. Factor analysis for DMQ-R items was performed. Correlation analyses (Pearson, bivariate) between the DMQ-R items and their subscales, test- retest, DMQ-R subscales and amount of alcohol used per day, MAST and OCDS were performed. Predictors of amount of alcohol used in a day, craving, and severity of alcohol related problems were evaluated using stepwise linear regression analysis when four types of drinking motives were taken as independent variables. For all statistical analysis, p values were two-tailed and differences were considered significant at p<0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 155 consecutive alcohol-dependent male inpatients were included in the statistical analyses. The mean age of the participants was 44.34 (SD = 9.37, range = 26-66). One hundred two (65.8%) subjects were married, whereas 29 (18.7%) were divorced and 24 (15.5%) were single. Twenty (12.9%) subjects were employed, 38 (25.2%) subjects were part-time workers, 68 (43.9%) subjects were unemployed and 28 (18.1%) were retired. Overall, they had 9.4 years of education (SD = 3.7) in average (Table 1).

The Corrected Item-Total Correlations ranged between 0.45 and 0.72 (Table 2). In the present study, the results from the corrected item-total correlation analysis demonstrate that DMQ-R is a scale consisting of 20 items assessing the same phenomenon, drinking motives.

Four factor solution was found for the scale in the factor analysis. Items from enhancement motives (item 3), coping motives (item 9) and social motives (item 17) fitted in conformity motives. Also an item (item 8) from coping motives fitted in enhancement motives. Nevertheless, when these 4 items were considered in their original factor structure, statistical values were acceptable. Thus we decided to use the same factorial structure as in the original scale. The Turkish version of the scale with 20 item solution was found to be compatible with the original scale. In alcohol dependents, the internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.794 for “Conformity” scale, 0.849 for “Social” scale, 0.843 for “Coping” and 0.789 for “Enhancement” (Table 3).

For each of the items, the corrected item-total correlation values were between 0.652 and 0.848 (p<0.001) (Table 4). The test–retest correlations was 0.602 for “Conformity” scale, 0.549 for “Social” scale, 0.657 for “Coping” and 0.637 for “Enhancement”. Four subscales of the DMQ-R, total score of the OCDS and the MAST were correlated significantly in the degree of p<0.001 (Table 5).

All of the patients in present study could be considered as heavy drinkers since they were treatment seeking population with alcohol dependency diagnosis. Most of the previous studies where the DMQ-R used were conducted among adolescent populations and the mean number of alcohol drinks per day were lower in these studies than the present one. Because the mean number of alcohol drinks per day was 17.48 in the present study, we decided to divide this population as those who drink less than and more than 16 drinks per day. Also, all the four drinking motives (enhancement: t=-3.36, p=0.001; coping motives: t=-3.11, p=0.002; conformity: t=-2.59, p=0.011; social: t=-3.70, p<0.001) were higher among those who drink more than 16 drinks a day than those drink less than 16 drinks a day. Nevertheless, among four motives, coping motives were the only one that predicted the amount of drinks per day (B=0.437, SE=0.121, Beta=0.281, t=3.616, p<0.001, F=13.08, df=1, 153, p<0.001, Adjusted R2= 0.073). Conformity motives were the only one that predicted alcohol related problems (B=0.522, SE=0.125, Beta=0.320, t=4.183, p<0.001, F=17.50, df=1, 153, p<0.001, Adjusted R2= 0.097). Conformity motives (B=0.033, SE=0.011, Beta=0.288, t=3.03, p=0.003) and coping motives (B=0.024, SE=0.012, Beta=0.190, t=2.00, p=0.047) the severity of psychopathology measured with GSI of SCL-90 (F=17.70, df=2, 152, p<0.001, Adjusted R2= 0.178). We also evaluated which motives to predict craving; coping motives (B=0.600, SE=0.172, Beta=0.319, t=3.50, p=0.001) and enhancement motives predicted craving (B=0.353, SE=0.166, Beta=0.193, t=2.12, p=0.036) (F=20.79, df=2, 152, p<0.001, Adjusted R2= 0.204).

Coping motives predicted obsessive craving (B=0.350, SE=0.073, Beta=0.363, t=4.813, p<0.001, F=23.165, df=1, 153, p<0.001, Adjusted R2= 0.126), whereas coping motives (B=0.331, SE=0.104, Beta=0.293, t=3.196, p=0.002) and enhancement motives predicted compulsive craving (B=0.226, SE=0.100, Beta=0.207, t=2.254, p=0.026) (F=19.39, df=2, 152, p<0.001, Adjusted R2= 0.193).

CONCLUSION

Main finding of this study is that the Turkish version of the DMQ-R is compatible with original scale and it could be used as a reliable and valid instrument for alcohol dependent inpatients. The internal consistency coefficient ranged between 0.79 and 0.85, the corrected item-total correlation values ranged between 0.65 and 0.85 and test–retest correlations ranged between 0.55 and 0.66 for each of four subscales.

Four factor solution was found for the scale. In factor analysis, items from enhancement motives (item 3), from coping motives (item 9) and from social motives (item 17) fitted in conformity motives. Also an item from coping motives (item 8) fitted in enhancement motives. When the original scale is translated into different languages and cultures, this may negatively effect internal consistency, validity and reliability (30). After translating DMQ-R in to Turkish, some of the statements such as in 3rd item “to get high”, “to cheer up, when in a bad mood” and in 17th item “to be sociable” might cause difficulty in understanding and interpretation of these items in Turkish population. Also the scale was used in adolescents or young adults, including both males and females, among general populations earlier and as far as we know, this is the first study conducted among treatment seeking male alcohol dependent inpatients. Nevertheless, since the values for these items are acceptable when they are considered in their original factors, we decided to use these items in their original factors. Indeed, internal consistency coefficients for each subscale were high. Also for each of the items, the corrected item-subscale of that item and the item-total correlation values were high. Moderate test–retest correlations were found for all the subscales.

Four subscales of the DMQ-R and total score of the MAST were correlated. Also all the four drinking motives were correlated mildly with the amount of drinks per day and were higher among those who drink more than 16 drinks a day. All the patients in the present study can be considered as heavy drinkers since they are treatment seeking population with alcohol dependency diagnosis. In contrast, as most young people drink for social facilitation, improvement of social gatherings, or to get in a party mood, social motives are associated with relatively light, non-problematic drinking among American adolescents (1,4,31,32). In our study sample, although social motives might have important effect on the patients’ alcohol use when they started to drink, since they are diagnosed as alcohol dependent at present, least important motives might be social ones. Although social motives were related with amount of alcohol used, alcohol related problems and craving, it was the least correlated one among other motives and did not predict these outcome variables. Enhancement and coping (i.e., internal) motives have been found to be particularly associated with heavy drinking (4). Moreover, conformity and coping (i.e., negative reinforcement) motives are particularly associated with alcohol-related problems, even alter accounting for typical alcohol use (33). Findings of the present study were consistent with these. Particularly coping motives predicted the amount of drinks per day, whereas conformity motives predicted alcohol related problems measured with MAST.

Coping motives and conformity motives are related with both anxiety sensitivity (i.e., the tendency to fear anxiety-related sensations) (34,35) and anxiety- related traits (35,36). Similarly, high neuroticism, a construct correlated with anxiety, is related to coping motives (32,37) and conformity motives (37). Since conformity drinkers among adolescents drink only when they are motivated by the presence of drinking adolescents, they are supposed to have lower drinking levels than otherwise motivated drinkers (11). This might be different in alcohol dependents since they are surrounded by only individuals with alcohol use disorders. Indeed, in the present study, coping motives and conformity motives predicted severity of psychopathology and conformity motives predicted alcohol related problems.

Craving severity was predicted by coping and enhancement motives (i.e., internal), which are related to heavier drinking and alcohol-related problems (1,10). According to the three-patway model of craving three etiological pathways are thought to exist based on the motivating factors underlying the desire to drink. The first of these, “reward” craving, involves those people who consume because of a desire for the positive effects of alcohol (reward drinker). This is consistent with enhancement motives. The second pathway involves those people who consume to relieve tension or arousal, labeled “relief” craving (relief drinker). This is consistent with coping motives. Finally, the third pathway, obsessive craving, involves those who are incapable of controlling intrusive thoughts about drinking, including the amount of time spent in an effort to resist alcohol-related thoughts (38). This finding is important because even deciding which treatment should be used for patients depend on this, i.e. the “relief drinker/craver” may respond to acamprosate whereas the “reward drinker/craver” is mainly associated with response to naltrexone (39). Coping motives predicted the obsessive craving (cognitive aspect of craving), whereas coping and enhancement motives predicted compulsive craving (behavioral aspect of craving). Coping motives are beliefs regarding the use of alcohol as a mean to cope with negative affect and psychological distress (self-medication) (5,40,41). In these studies, coping motives were found to act as a mediator between psychological distress and alcohol use (42). Thus, those alcohol dependents who believe that alcohol is a useful way to cope with negative feelings such as craving are at greatest risk for alcohol use instead of adaptive coping with craving.

Our findings must be understood in the light of several limitations. First, patients included in this study were all male and the study group was restricted to a treatment population. Therefore, it is not possible to generalize the findings to female substance dependent patients and non-treatment groups. A second limitation was that although subjects were not assessed during withdrawal, patients might still have some cognitive problems to evaluate themselves correctly at the time of the interview. A third limitation was the use of self-report instruments only and not using reliable anxiety and depression scales for correcting the influence of residual anxiety and depressive symptoms. Finally, DMQ-R is a scale that measures the severity of four drinking motives without using the total score. Also there is no other scale, at least in Turkish, that measure similar concept as DMQ-R. Thus, it was not possible to conduct further analysis such as ROC and use stronger methods for validity analysis. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, results which were obtained in this study suggest that the Turkish version of the DMQ-R could be used as reliable and valid tool in alcohol dependent inpatients.

REFERENCES

1. Cooper ML. Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychol Assess 1994; 6:117-128.

2. Cox WM, Klinger E. A motivational model of alcohol use. J Abnorm Psychol 1988; 97:168–180.

3. Carpenter KM, Hasin DS. Reasons for drinking alcohol: relationships with DSM-IV alcohol diagnoses and alcohol consumption in a community sample. Psychol Addict Behav 1998; 12:168–184.

4. Kuntsche E, Knibbe R, Gmel G, Engels R. Why do young people drink? A review of drinking motives. Clin Psychol Rev 2005; 25:841-861.

5. Cooper ML, Frone MR, Russell M, Mudar P. Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: a motivational model of alcohol use. J Pers Soc Psychol 1995; 69:990-1005.

6. Cronin C. Reasons for drinking versus outcome expectancies in the prediction of college student drinking. Subst Use Misuse 1997; 32:1287-1311.

7. Catanzaro SJ, Laurent J. Perceived family support, negative mood regulation expectancies, coping, and adolescent alcohol use: evidence of mediation and moderation effects. Addict Behav 2004; 29:1779–1797.

8. Galen LW, Henderson MJ, Coovert MD. Alcohol expectancies and motives in a substance abusing male treatment sample. Drug Alcohol Depend 2001; 62:205-214.

9. Farber PD, Khavari KA, Douglass FM. A factor analytic study of reasons for drinking: empirical validation of positive and negative reinforecement dimensions. J Consult Clin Psychol 1980; 48:780-781.

10. Cooper ML, Russell M, Skinner JB, Frone MR, Mudar P. Stress and alcohol use: moderating effects of gender, coping, and alcohol expectancies. J Abnorm Psychol 1992; 101:139-152.

11. Kuntsche E, Knibbe R, Gmel G, Engels R. Replication and validation of the Drinking Motive Questionnaire Revised (DMQ-R, Cooper, 1994) among adolescents in Switzerland. Eur Addict Res 2006; 12:161-168.

12. MacLean MG, Lecci L. A comparison of models of drinking motives in a university sample. Psychol Addict Behav 2000; 14:83-87.

13. Urbán R, Kökönyei G, Demetrovics Z. Alcohol outcome expectancies and drinking motives mediate the association between sensation seeking and alcohol use among adolescents. Addict Behav 2008; 33:1344-1352.

14. Kuntsche E, Stewart SH, Cooper ML. How stable is the motive-alcohol use link? A cross-national validation of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire Revised among adolescents from Switzerland, Canada, and the United States. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2008; 69:388-396.

15. Nagoshi CT, Nakata T, Sasano K, Wood MD. Alcohol norms, expectancies, and reasons for drinking and alcohol use in a U.S. versus a Japanese college sample. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1994; 18:671-678.

16. Gire JT. A cross-national study of motives for drinking alcohol. Subst Use Misuse 2002; 37:215-223.

17. Theakston JA, Stewart SH, Dawson MY, Knowlden-Loewen SAB, Lehman DR. Big-Five personality domains predict drinking motives. Pers Individ Dif 2004; 37: 971-984.

18. Kassel JD, Jackson SI, Unrod M. Generalized expectancies for negative mood regulation and problem drinking among college students. J Stud Alcohol 2000; 61:332-340.

19. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JBW. Stuructured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I), Clinical Version. Washington D.C. and London: American Psychiatric Press Inc., 1997.

20. Çorapçıoğlu A, Aydemir O, Yıldız M, Esen A, Köroglu E. DSM-IV Eksen I Bozuklukları (SCID-I) için Yapılandırılmış Klinik Görüşme, Klinik Versiyon. Ankara: Hekimler Yayın Birliği, 1999.

21. Anton RF, Moak DH, Latham P. The obsessive compulsive drinking scale: A self-rated instrument for the quantification of thoughts about alcohol and drinking behavior. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1995; 19:92–99.

22. Anton RF, Moak DH, Latham P. The obsessive compulsive drinking scale: A new method of assessing outcome in alcoholism treatment studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996; 53:225–231.

23. Anton RF. Obsessive–compulsive aspects of craving: Development of the obsessive compulsive drinking scale. Addiction 2000; 95 (Suppl.2):211-217.

24. Moak DH, Anton RF, Latham PK. Further validation of the Obsessive-Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS). Relationship to alcoholism severity. Am J Addict 1998; 7:14-23.

25. Evren C, Celik S, Evren B, Aksoy R. Validation study of the Turkish version of the Obsessive–Compulsive Drinking Scale in male alcohol dependent inpatients. Düşünen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences (In press).

26. Gibbs LE. Validity and reliability of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: A review. Drug Alcohol Depend 1985; 12:279-285.

27. Coskunol H, Bagdiken I, Sorias S, Saygili R. Michigan Alkolizm Tarama Testinin Geçerliliği. Ege Tıp Dergisi 1995; 34:15-18.

28. Derogatis LR. SCL-90: Administration, Scoring and Procedure Manual-II for the revised version, Tawson, Clinical Psychometric Research, 1983.

29. Dag I. Belirti tarama listesinin (SCL-90-R) üniversite öğrencileri için güvenirliği ve geçerliği. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 1991; 2:5-12.

30. Figlie NB, Dunn J, Laranjeira R. Motivation for change in alcohol dependent outpatients from Brazil. Addict Behav 2005; 30:159-165.

31. Simons J, Correia CJ, Carey KB. A comparison of motives for marijuana and alcohol use among experienced users. Addict Behav 2000; 25:153-160.

32. Stewart SH, Samoluk SB, Conrod PJ, Pihl RO, Dongier M. Psychometric evaluation of the short form inventory of drinking situations (IDS-42) in a community-recruited sample of substance-abusing women. J Subst Abuse 2000; 11:305-321.

33. Kuntsche E, Knibbe R, Engels R, Gmel G. Bullying and fighting among adolescents-do drinking motives and alcohol use matter? Addict Behav 2007; 32:3131-3135.

34. Stewart SH, Zeitlin SB. Anxiety sensitivity and alcohol use motives. J Anxiety Disord 1995; 9:229-240.

35. Comeau N, Stewart SH, Loba P. The relations of trait anxiety, anxiety sensitivity, and sensation seeking to adolescents’ motivations for alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use. Addict Behav 2001; 26:803-825.

36. Stewart SH, Zvolensky MJ, Eifert GH. The relations of anxiety sensitivity, experiential avoidance, and alexithymic coping to young adults’ motivations for drinking. Behav Modif 2002; 26:274-296.

37. Stewart SH, Devine H. Relations between personality and drinking motives in young adults. Pers Individ Dif 2000; 29:495-511.

38. Verheul R, Van Den Brink W, Geerlings P. A three-pathway psychobiological model of craving for alcohol. Alcohol Alcohol 1999; 34:197–222.

39. Mann K, Kiefer F, Smolka M, Gann H, Wellek S, Heinz A; PREDICT Study Research Team. Searching for responders to acamprosate and naltrexone in alcoholism treatment: rationale and design of the PREDICT study. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2009; 33:674-683.

40. Stewart SH, Pihl RO, Conrod PJ, Dongier M. Functional associations among trauma, PTSD, and substance-related disorders. Addict Behav 1998; 23:797-812.

41. Kaysen D, Dillworth TM, Simpson T, Waldrop A, Larimer ME, Resick PA. Domestic violence and alcohol use: trauma-related symptoms and motives for drinking. Addict Behav 2007; 32:1272-1283.

42. Grayson CE, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Motives to drink as mediators between childhood sexual assault and alcohol problems in adult women. J Trauma Stress 2005; 18:137-145.