Packing cannabis, pouring alcohol: Validating a free-pack assessment among college students using cannabis.

Mian, Maha N.; Altman, Brianna R.; Morrissey, Chase; Ueno, Luna F.; Dalal, Dev K.; Earleywine, Mitchell

doi:10.1037/adb0000718

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Daily quantity of cannabis reported on MR and TLFB did not significantly predict quantity reported on EMA surveys that same day. Compared to alcohol, it is possible that cannabis quantities may be more difficult for participants to estimate, leading to more error in retrospection (Mian et al, 2021; Prince et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement between momentary and retrospective reports of cannabis use and alcohol use: Comparison of ecological momentary assessment and timeline followback indices.

Freeman¹,

Haney²,

Griffin³

et al. 2023

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study compares three methods of cannabis and of alcohol use assessment in a sample of regular cannabis users: (a) ecological momentary assessment (EMA) repeated momentary surveys aggregated to the daily level, (b) EMA morning reports (MR) where participants reported on their total use from the previous day, and (c) retrospective timeline followback (TLFB) interviews covering the same period of time as the EMA portion of the study. We assessed the overall correspondence between these methods in terms of cannabis and alcohol use occasions and also investigated predictors of agreement between methods. Method: Forty-nine individuals aged 18-50 (M age = 24.49, 49% female, 84% White) who reported regular cannabis use completed a 14-day EMA study. At the end of the EMA period, participants returned to the laboratory to complete a TLFB (administered via computer) corresponding to the same dates of the EMA period. Results: Daily aggregated EMA and TLFB reports showed a low to modest agreement for both alcohol and cannabis use. Overall, agreement between EMA and MR was better than agreement between EMA and TLFB, likely because less retrospection is required when only reporting on behavior from the previous day. Quantity and frequency of use differentially predicted agreement across reporting methods when assessing alcohol compared to cannabis. When reporting cannabis use, but not alcohol use, individuals who used more demonstrated higher agreement between EMA and TLFB. Conclusions: Results suggest that retrospective reporting methods assessing alcohol and cannabis should not be considered a direct "substitute" for momentary or daily assessments. Public Health Significance StatementThis study highlights the importance of differentiating between in-the-moment and retrospective reports of alcohol and cannabis use.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement between momentary and retrospective reports of cannabis use and alcohol use: Comparison of ecological momentary assessment and timeline followback indices.

Freeman¹,

Haney²,

Griffin³

et al. 2023

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most studies examining the prevalence of college student drinking (Bergen-Cico & Kilmer, 2010;White & Hingson, 2013), as well as the effectiveness of interventions (Hennessy et al, 2019), rely exclusively on college students' self-reports of the number of standard drinks they consumed. Given that self-report is fraught with problems of reliability and validity (Kohn et al, 2017;Mian et al, 2021), at the very least, the free-pour of a standard serving (i.e., knowledge assessment; Schultz et al, 2017) ought to be used to corroborate college students' self-reports.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies examining the prevalence of college student drinking (Bergen‐Cico & Kilmer, 2010; White & Hingson, 2013), as well as the effectiveness of interventions (Hennessy et al., 2019), rely exclusively on college students' self‐reports of the number of standard drinks they consumed. Given that self‐report is fraught with problems of reliability and validity (Kohn et al., 2017; Mian et al., 2021), at the very least, the free‐pour of a standard serving (i.e., knowledge assessment; Schultz et al., 2017) ought to be used to corroborate college students' self‐reports. Another type of free‐pour assessment, the typical drink assessment (Schultz et al., 2017), could be used to assess the amount students typically consume (Kaskutas & Graves., 2000), which could then be compared to standard servings for assessment and teaching purposes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral skills training to teach college students to free‐pour standard servings of alcohol

Strickland

Kohn

2022

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

College student members of Greek Letter Organizations (GLOs) report high levels of alcohol consumption, which is associated with adverse academic and health consequences. Those who report lower consumption also report counting their drinks, which requires the ability to identify and pour standard servings of alcohol, skills college students generally lack. Behavioral skills training (BST) has been used to teach students to pour standard servings of beer. However, little is known about whether BST is effective when used in a small‐group format or with other alcohol types, and whether skills generalize across time and novel cups. We used a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design to address these gaps. After receiving small group BST, all participants poured beer accurately, most poured accurately at follow‐up, and about half poured accurately into a novel cup. After receiving individual BST, participants' pours of liquor were variable and most required additional training.

show abstract

“…Higher and lower potency was described using an alcohol analogy (e.g., Bacardi is high potency; beer is low potency) and presented as 'cannabis (that) differs in potency in that it is of higher/lower potency than what you have previously used'. The method aimed to conceptually replicate the Roll a Joint paradigm [8]. The potency manipulation was counterbalanced to control for ordering effects.…”

Section: Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found that self‐reported estimations of cannabis amount were 200% greater than the actual quantity of cannabis flower and tobacco rolled into spliffs [7]. Prince et al [4] and Mian et al [8] also found low accuracy estimates of cone and joint quantities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How much cannabis is used in a joint in Australia? An experimental investigation into use by potency and frequency

Dawson,

Stjepanovic,

Lorenzetti

et al. 2023

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionCannabis use is highly prevalent in Australia, yet current survey metrics measure tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) exposure with limited accuracy. Often survey items measure cannabis quantity by assuming specific modes of use (i.e., ‘how many joints do you use?’), which fail to capture variations in cannabis use and the diverse modes of use (e.g., joints, cones, spliffs). This study investigated how much cannabis is used in these modes of administration in an Australian sample.MethodsParticipants (N = 31, Mage = 25.77; 51% university students) completed the Roll a Joint Paradigm in which they rolled joints, spliffs and packed cones as they would typically, using oregano as ‘cannabis.’ Participants then prepared each again but with cannabis of higher or lower potency.ResultsThe amount of cannabis used across different modes of administration was variable: joints (range 0.10–1.25 g), spliffs (range 0.12–1.21 g) and cones (range 0.03–0.41 g). Participants who used cannabis daily rolled three times the amount of cannabis into a joint.Discussion and ConclusionsThe amount of cannabis used in common modes of administration may be highly variable. Daily use may be associated using larger quantities of cannabis. Titration attempts based on potency were not proportional or consistent across modes of administration. The results indicate people may adjust the quantity of cannabis based on perceived potency, however, not proportional to THC concentration. Inconsistency in the amount of cannabis used based on potency and within different modes of administration may represent a problem for self‐report metrics which ask participants to report cannabis use in joints.

show abstract

Packing cannabis, pouring alcohol: Validating a free-pack assessment among college students using cannabis.

Cited by 7 publications

References 51 publications

Agreement between momentary and retrospective reports of cannabis use and alcohol use: Comparison of ecological momentary assessment and timeline followback indices.

Agreement between momentary and retrospective reports of cannabis use and alcohol use: Comparison of ecological momentary assessment and timeline followback indices.

Behavioral skills training to teach college students to free‐pour standard servings of alcohol

How much cannabis is used in a joint in Australia? An experimental investigation into use by potency and frequency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About