ARG has several datasets available to the public for secondary analysis. Please review the descriptions below for more detailed information. If you have a general inquiry, please contact us at email@example.com.
National Alcohol Surveys | Alcohol’s Harms to Others |Developing a New Scale of Treatment Readiness | Epidemiology of Drinking and Disorders in Border vs. Non-Border Contexts | Making Alcoholics Anonymous Easier (MAAEZ) | Trajectories Neighborhood Study | What is Recovery?
National Alcohol Surveys
ARG and its Center have conducted a series of National Alcohol Surveys (NAS) of the adult (age 18 and older) US population at approximately 5-year intervals since the 1960s with considerable standardization of measurement methods since 1979 (the 6th NAS or N6). Although not unique in conducting repeated surveys including alcohol questions, the NAS has the longest time frame with commensurate, detailed alcohol use pattern and problem measures, which now extends over 35 years covered by 8 surveys (N6 TO N13), with the most recent survey conducted during 2014 and early 2015.
NAS datasets and codebooks for N6 through N12 (2010) are available from ARG. Requests for N13 data will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as analyses using this survey are ongoing under various current grants to ARG Scientists. For more information, please contact Study Director Dr. Kate Karriker-Jaffe.
National 13, 2014-2015 (N13)
7,071 Random Digit Dial (RDD) nationally representative Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI, of landline (n=4,109) and cellular (n=2,962) phones) of adults aged 18+ in 50 states (plus Washington, DC), with oversamples of Black non-Hispanic (total n = 1,763) and Hispanic (total n = 1,623) groups (with interviews in Spanish for those requesting/needing this). Sample contains 5,634 complete cases and 991 partially-complete cases (defined as those who completed demographics, alcohol consumption patterns, alcohol problems, and alcohol treatment items).
These N13 data are currently being analyzed under aims in the National Alcohol Research Center (P50 AA005595). Use by or collaborations with other researchers would be based on discussions with the Center PI (William Kerr) and under data use agreements developed with Project Co-Directors, Dr. Katherine Karriker-Jaffe & Thomas Greenfield.
National 12, 2009-2010 (N12)
7,969 Random Digit Dial (RDD) nationally representative Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI, of landline (n=6,855) and cellular (n=1,114) phones) of adults aged 18+ in 50 states (plus Washington, DC), with oversamples of Black non-Hispanic (total n = 1,595) and Hispanic (total n = 1,453) groups (with interviews in Spanish for those requesting/needing this), and including a low-population state oversample (minimum state n = 40). Sample contains 6,394 complete and 1,575 partially complete interviews. These N12 data are currently being analyzed under aims in the National Alcohol Research Center (P50 AA005595). Use by or collaborations with other researchers would be based on discussions with the Center PI (Thomas Greenfield) and under data use agreements.
N12 Landline Questionnaire | N12 Cell Phone Questionnaire | N12 Item Matrix
National 11, 2005 (N11)
6,919 Random Digit Dial (RDD) nationally representative Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI of landline phones only) of adults aged 18+ in 50 states (plus Washington DC), with oversamples of Black non-Hispanic (total n=1,054) and Hispanic (total n=1,610) groups (with interviews in Spanish for those requesting/needing this), and including a low-population state oversample (minimum state n = 40).
National 10, 2000 (N10)
7,612 Random Digit Dial (RDD) nationally representative Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI of landline phones only) of adults aged 18+ in 50 states (plus Washington DC), with oversamples of Black non-Hispanic (total n = 1,341) and Hispanic (total n=869) groups (with interviews in Spanish for those requesting/needing this) and including a 13 low-population state oversample (n = 341; minimum state n = 50).
National 9, 1995 (N9)
4,925 in-person interviews of adults aged 18+, a multi-stage, clustered, survey taken from the 48 contiguous US states (plus Washington DC), on drinking practices and problems, with oversamples of black non-Hispanic (total n = 1,644) and Hispanic (total n = 1,626) groups (with interviews in Spanish for those requesting/needing this).
National 8 Follow-up Survey, 1992-1993 (N8YF)
A follow-up of the youth portion of N8. 91% of previous respondents (n=1027) were re-interviewed. In addition, 261 family members of teens (12-17) interviewed as part of the N8 main sample were also re-interviewed. Fieldwork was conducted for ARG by Temple University Institute of Survey Research (ISR).
National 7 Follow-up Study, 1992 (N7F)(N7FP)
2,247 interviews with a subsample of whites (n=804), Blacks (n=737), and Hispanics (n=706) first interviewed in 1984, plus 583 additional interviews with a sample of 177 white, 189 black and 217 Hispanic youth, ages 18-25. Fieldwork was conducted for ARG by Temple University Institute of Survey Research (ISR).
National 7 Follow-up Tracing Study, 1990
Short questionnaire collected by mail, phone or personal interview from 2,199 respondents to National 7 (1984) survey being traced for follow-up.
National 8, 1990 (N8M)
2,058 interviews on drinking practices and problems and on alcohol and sexuality with a new nationwide sample aged 18+, and 1,110 interviews with a supplementary youth sample aged 12-30. Fieldwork was conducted for ARG by Temple University Institute of Survey Research (ISR).
National 7, 1984 (N7)
5,221 interviews on drinking practices and problems with a new nationwide sample aged 18+. (1,941 Blacks, 1,453 Hispanics, and 1,821 others.). Fieldwork was conducted for ARG by Temple University Institute of Survey Research (ISR).
National 6, 1979 (N6)
1,772 interviews on drinking practices and problems with a new nationwide sample aged 18+.
National 5, 1974 (N5)
901 reinterviews with National II respondents.
National 4, 1973 (N4)
725 reinterviews with National III respondents.
National 3, 1969 (N3)
978 interviews within a new probability sample of U.S. men aged 21-59; completed late 1969.
National 2, 1967 (N2)
1,359 reinterviews with subsample of respondents initially interviewed in 1964-1965 national survey. Conducted March through October 1967.
National 1, 1964/65 (N1)
2,746 interviews with probability sample of adults representative of adults household population of the U.S., exclusive of Hawaii and Alaska. Conducted in late 1964 and early 1965.
2015 National Alcohol’s Harm to Others Survey (NAHTOS)
The 2015 NAHTOS (R01AA022791, M-PI T. Greenfield and K. Karriker-Jaffe) is a telephone survey that used the same sampling strategy as N13, collecting data from 2,591 cases (2,440 complete interviews) to assess types, sources and severity of alcohol’s harm to others (1,763 landline and 1,945 cellular phone cases). Fieldwork was completed in the Spring of 2015. The survey instrument contains indicators of alcohol and other drug use, mental health (anxiety and depression) and perceptions of the neighborhood/community context, including social cohesion, crime and disorder. Added to these are extensive assessments of harms from others’ drinking (intimate partners/family members/friends and strangers), with some items also assessed on N13.
Developing a New Scale of Treatment Readiness
This scale development study aimed to develop a new scale of treatment readiness based on Ajzen’s (2002) theory of planned behavior. The study conducted cross-sectional interviews (N=200) of a random sample of new clients aged 18+ at a large, public, outpatient substance abuse treatment facility in Contra Costa County. Half the sample was randomly selected for a retest of the main treatment readiness scale 2 weeks following baselines. Data were analyzed to validate the treatment readiness scale and explore the impact of reporting biases on the measurement of alcohol outcomes and treatment readiness.
Baseline measures included a new, comprehensive scale of treatment-related attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and intention based on Ajzen (2002); various treatment readiness/motivation measures, including the URICA (McConnaughy et al., 1989), TREAT (Freyer et al., 2004), Treatment Motivation Questionnaire/TMQ (Ryan et al., 1995), and Perceived Coercion Questionnaire/PCQ (Klag et al., 2006); the Alcoholics Anonymous Intention Measures/AAIM (Zemore et al., 2009); Ballard’s 11-item short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale (Ballard, 1992); the Addiction Severity Index/ASI for Alcohol, Drug, and Psychiatric domains (McClellan et al., 1980); and demographic and clinical variables. The retest included only the main treatment readiness scale. Treatment discharge status and length of stay were collected from program records.
This study was funded by NIAAA, #R21 AA016578 with data collected 2009-2010.
Epidemiology of Drinking and Disorders in Border vs. Non-Border Contexts
This was a parallel cross-sectional study of respondents in Texas and in Mexico, using face-to-face household interviews of probability samples living in three sister cities and one off border city on each side. Aims of the study were to describe alcohol and drug use patterns and alcohol use disorders, test a conceptual model explaining the effects of border variables on alcohol and drug use and analyze the impact of cross-border mobility alcohol and drug use. Multivariate modeling and path analysis were used to examine study hypotheses.
Data collected: 2011-2013
Sample Size and Response Rate:
- 2,336 U.S. respondents – 84% cooperation rate; 53% response rate
- 2,460 Mexican respondents – 71% cooperation rate; 63% response rate
Core measures include:
Alcohol consumption, Graduated Frequencies and Knupfer Series (National Alcohol Survey, 2005); Alcohol use disorders and problems (National Alcohol Survey, 2005); Drug use (Encuestas Locales de Adicciones, 2005); SES; Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) (Zimet, et al., 1988); Personal violent victimization (Walker, et al., 2000/2001); Exposure to neighborhood violence/crime (Hunter, et al., 2003); Perceived neighborhood safety (Ruston and Akinrodoye, 2002); Interpersonal violence (Scott, et al., 1999; Sorenson, et al., 1987); Childhood physical and sexual abuse (Wilsnack, et al., 1997); Multidimensional Acculturative Stress Inventory (MASI) (Rodriquez, et al., 2002); Important People and Activities interview (IPA) (Longabaugh, et al., 1998; Zywiak, et al., 2002); Perceived availability of alcohol and drugs; Perceived enforcement of drinking- and drug-related laws (Holder, et al., 2000; Treno and Holder, 1997); Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D8) (Radloff, 1977; Roberts, 1980); Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) (Beck, et al., 1988); Motives for drinking and drug use Cooper’s (1994); Perceived norms regarding drinking and drug use (Baer et al., 1991); Descriptive and injunctive drug norms (Marsiglia, et al., 2004); Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II (Cuellar, et al., 1995); Racial discrimination (Ren et al., 1999); Migration history and cross-border mobility (Encuesta Nacional de Adicciones 2007-2008)
Funded by: NIAAA Grant 1 RO1 AA0183654
Making Alcoholics Anonymous Easier (MAAEZ)
Most treatment programs recommend clients attend 12-step groups, but many drop out posttreatment. The effectiveness of Making AA Easier (MAAEZ), a manual-guided intervention designed to help clients connect with individuals encountered in AA, was tested using an “Off/On” design. MAAEZ effectiveness was determined by comparing abstinence rates of participants recruited during On and Off conditions using logistic regression, and by studying the effect of the number of MAAEZ sessions attended using multiple regression. The mechanisms of action responsible for the MAAEZ effect were studied using mediation and multiple mediation analyses. The application of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to 12-step involvement also was studied, which involved the development of an AA Involvement Measure (AAIM) consisting of indices based on TPB; analyses included internal reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the AAIM indices, Cronbach’s alpha for each index, and whether the AAIM predicted 12-step involvement and hence substance use outcomes.
Data collected: July 3, 2005-May 5, 2006
Sample size and response rates: Baseline n=508, 82% participation rate; 6- & 12-mo. follow-ups 75%-76%, n=380 and 384 respectively
Core measures include: Baseline surveys included standard demographics, religiosity, current alcohol and drug diagnoses (DIS), ASI alcohol, drug and psychiatric problem severity, number of heavy drinkers in social networks, prior treatment utilization, and lifetime and past-year 12-step meeting attendance and involvement, Six- and 12-month surveys involved a subset of these measures. During-treatment measures were based on billing records and the number of MAAEZ sessions attended.
Funded by: NIAAA R01 AA 14688
For more information, contact: Meenakshi Sabina Subbaraman, PhD.
Trajectories Neighborhood Study
Using data from an existing longitudinal study of problem and dependent drinkers supplemented with new historical information on the neighborhood environment, the key goal of this project is to develop and test a socioecological model of relapse and recovery from alcohol problems. Aims center on describing how neighborhood, social network and individual factors relate to relapse and recovery from alcohol problems and dependence over time. The longitudinal study spans 7 years for the treatment sample and 11 years for the community sample.
Prior analyses of the longitudinal respondent data examined topics including trajectories of drinking and of AA attendance over time, the role of social networks in drinking outcomes after treatment and factors contributing to treatment entry. Data are appropriate for multilevel, longitudinal and spatial modeling.
Measures include: detailed alcohol and drug consumption, alcohol-related consequences, the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), use of community services (AOD treatment, psychiatric, medical, criminal justice), Social Network Assessment (SNA), AA Affiliation Scale, and demographics including health insurance status.
Note: Because the study is ongoing, students wishing to use study data should give the Principal Investigator:
- A concept paper that includes a provisional title, overview of the paper, and proposed co-authors (if applicable),
- A Data Request Form that lists the questionnaire items and constructed variables needed and describes how the data will be securely stored, and
- A signed Data Use Agreement.
Data are available for the following samples:
- 7 years (5 waves) data from problem/dependent drinkers recruited from treatment programs in 1 Northern CA county (N=926) from 1995-2001
- 11 years (7 waves) data from a random-digit dial (RDD), computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) with problem/dependent drinkers from the same county (N=672) from 1995-2006
- Contextual data from California (locations and characteristics of >60,000 alcohol outlets and US Census characteristics at tract level), for 6 CA counties (locations and characteristics of >750 alcohol and drug treatment programs, alcohol outlet locations, and US Census data), or for 4 CA counties (locations and characteristics of >1000 AA meeting sites, AOD treatment availability, alcohol outlets, and US Census data), spanning 1994-2010; these contextual data may be analyzed alone or in conjunction with respondent interview data
- NIAAA-funded R01AA020328 to K.J. Karriker-Jaffe
- NIAAA-funded R01AA09750 to C.M. Weisner and K.L. Delucchi, P50AA005595 to C.M. Weisner, and R01AA015927 to C.M. Weisner, which supported the longitudinal interview study
- NIAAA-funded P60AA06282 to P.J. Gruenewald, which provided funding for the longitudinal information on California alcohol outlets
Screening and Brief Intervention in the ED among Mexican-origin Young Adults
A randomized controlled clinical trial of brief motivational intervention (BMI) was conducted in an emergency room in El Paso, TX. Patients were recruited into three arms of the study: screened only, assessed, intervention, and followed at 3 and 12 months. Aims of the study were to: 1) examine the effectiveness of brief intervention among Mexican-origin young adults (aged 18-30) using a motivational intervention delivered by Health Promotion Advocates, called promotores, relative to standard care with and without assessment, on a reduction in drinking (number of drinking days, number of drinks per drinking day and maximum number of drinks per day), heavy drinking (number of 5+ (males)/4+ (females) days) and alcohol-related problems (alcohol dependence and consequences related to drinking); and, 2) identify variables related to effectiveness of the intervention and which predict successful treatment outcome (gender, injury status, drinking prior to the event, risk taking/sensation seeking). Random effects modeling was used to analyzed the difference in change from baseline to 12-month follow-up in the intervention compared to the assessed condition.
Data collected: 2010-2012.
Sample size and response rate:
- 3176 ER patients
- 3- month follow-up rates: assessment condition 76% (n=237); intervention condition 72% (n=223)
- 12-month follow-up rates: screened condition 72% (n=56); assessed condition 78% (n=243); intervention condition 75% (n=231)
Core measures include:
- Breathalyzer reading on ER admission
- ER core: reported drinking within six hours prior to the event, feeling drunk at the time of the event, causal attribution of the event to drinking (Cherpitel, 1989)
- Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS4) (Cherpitel, 2000)
- Short Inventory of Problems (SIPs+6) (Miller et al., 1995)
- Readiness and stage of change (Prochaska and Di Clemenmte, 1992)
- Risk taking/impulsivity and sensation seeking (Cherpitel, 1993) Timeline Followback (Sobell and Sobell, 1992)
Funded by: NIAAA Grant 1 RO1 AA018119
What is Recovery?
As recovery increasingly guides addiction services and policy, definitions of recovery continue to lack specificity, hindering measure development and research. The goal of this study was to move the addictions field beyond broad definitions, by empirically identifying the domains and specific elements of recovery as experienced by persons in recovery from diverse pathways. In Phase 1, 167 recovery elements were developed through qualitative work followed by an iterative reduction process that resulted in 47 items. In phase 2, the 47-item Internet-based survey was completed by 9,341 individuals who self-identified as being in recovery, recovered, in medication-assisted recovery, or as having had a problem with alcohol or drugs (but no longer do). Respondents were recruited via extensive outreach with treatment and recovery organizations, electronic media, and self-help groups. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using split-half samples, followed by sensitivity analyses for key sample groupings. In Phase 3, the elements of the recovery definition were re-administered 1 to 2 years post-baseline in order to study the stability of the definition.
- Phase 1, August 2010-January 2011
- Phage 2, July 15-October 31, 2012
- Phase 3, November 6, 2013-May 30, 2014
Sample size and response rates: Phase 1 n=238, Phase 2 n=9,341;n o denominator for calculating response rates since recruitment included media ads. Phase 3 n-1,237, cooperation rate=36%
Core measures include: The core measures pertain to how individuals in recovery actually define recovery. Recovery definitions have to do with abstinence in recovery, spirituality in recovery, social networks in recovery, helping and contributing to society in recovery, handling negative feelings in recovery, reacting to life’s ups and downs in a more balanced way, taking care of physical and mental health more than before, improved self-esteem, being honest with one-s self, taking responsibility, being able to enjoy life without drinking or using drugs like before, being someone people can count on, and recovery as a process of growth and development. Survey also included demographics, problem severity prior to recovery, involvement in 12-step groups, non-12-step groups and addiction treatment, and length of time in recovery.
Funded by: NIAAA 1R01 AA 017954-01A1