BackgroundSeveral field studies have used fuel-cell breathalysers (FCB) to investigate the prevalence of alcohol intoxication. However, there is a lack of evidence evaluating the psychometric properties of these breathalysers outside of the forensic disciplines.MethodsThe current research describes four studies designed that assess the reliability and validity of portable platinum FCBs for research on alcohol intoxication. Utilising the Alcolizer LE5 breathalyser and, to a lesser degree, the Lifeloc FC-20 and the Lion Intoxilyzer 8000, each study sampled patrons frequenting popular night-time entertainment districts with varying levels of alcohol intoxication.ResultsStudy one and two found excellent test-retest reliability and inter-instrument reliability for FCBs. Study three and four provided evidence to support the convergent validity of the two FCBs (the LE5 with the FC20), and with an evidential breathalyser (i.e., the Lion Intoxilyzer 8000; EB).DiscussionA 93–97% agreement rate between breathalyser readings was found across the four studies. Portable FCB are recommended as a reliable and valid instrument for research designs requiring quick alcohol intoxication estimations in large populations. Strategies to enhance reliable and valid readings are provided for field researchers.

Background: Throughout this investigation we sought to determine whether Ion Mobility Spectrometry (IMS) and Ion Trap mobility Spectrometry (ITMS) could provide a practical alternative in field-based research, where affordable drug screening is needed for comprehensive and on-going investigation.Methods: We conducted two studies and assessed three different research protocols to determine the most viable approach. In Protocol A we focused exclusively on harvesting analytes off breathalyser tubes and analysed these in a laboratory using an ion scanner (500DT Smith Detection Ion Scanner). In Protocol B we harvested analytes off a breathalyser tube and business card that had been handled by participants. Samples collected were again analysed in laboratory using various ion scanners (500DT Smith Detection; Hardened Mobile Trace; Biosens 600). In the second study (Protocol C), we harvested samples directly off participants in Queensland’s Nigh-Time Entertainment Districts and completed the analysis on-site and in-real time using the Itemizer 3.Findings: All samples analyzed off-site in Study 1 were found to be inconclusive. As such, Protocols A and B were not feasible for on-going drug screening and monitoring. Conversely, the results of Study 2 Protocol C demonstrated that harvesting samples directly off participants on-site and analysing these in-real time to be the preferred method. Our findings in Protocol C also show that the Itemizer3 was better at identifying those who did not use drugs from those who did. Looking at the incidence rates of admitted drug use in Studies 1 and 2, we find that simply having an objective measure present (irrespective of whether it is confirmational or not) likely resulted in us obtaining more truthful responses from participants about their use of drugs. Conclusions: In effect, our results demonstrate that there is practical utility in using ITMS to screen for drugs inside NEDs.

No abstract

No abstract

Field researchers often use categorical systems to record primary preloading motivations, while survey researchers use continuous systems to examine preloading motivation ratings. We tested the psychometric properties of the two systems for measuring preloading motivations. Six hundred and eight-one undergraduate students and social media recruited participants (178 males; 503 females) completed an online survey pertaining to their last preloading experience. We measured preloading motivations by the categorical and continuous systems, general drinking motivations, estimations of preloaded standard drinks and harm. Measurements of preloading motivations by categorical (primary motivation) and continuous systems (motivation ratings) were concordant. The continuous system of preloading motivations held mix concurrence with general drinking motivations, implying conceptual differences between the two constructs. ‘Enhancement-based’ preloading motivations had strong relationships with estimations of preloaded standard drinks, while general drinking motivations for ‘coping’ were strong correlates of harm. Preloading motivations can be measured through either categorical or continuous systems. Implications for future psychometric measurement development is discussed.