Premium
The Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment Negative Emotionality Domain Among Treatment‐Seekers with Alcohol Use Disorder: Construct Validity and Measurement Invariance
Author(s) -
Votaw Victoria R.,
Pearson Matthew R.,
Stein Elena,
Witkiewitz Katie
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
alcoholism: clinical and experimental research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.267
H-Index - 153
eISSN - 1530-0277
pISSN - 0145-6008
DOI - 10.1111/acer.14283
Subject(s) - emotionality , construct validity , measurement invariance , psychology , construct (python library) , clinical psychology , addiction , alcohol , psychometrics , domain (mathematical analysis) , developmental psychology , psychiatry , confirmatory factor analysis , structural equation modeling , statistics , mathematics , computer science , biochemistry , chemistry , mathematical analysis , programming language
Background The Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment (ANA), a framework for measuring heterogeneity in alcohol use disorder (AUD), focuses on 3 domains that reflect neurobiological dysfunction in addiction and correspond to the cycles of addiction: executive function, incentive salience, and negative emotionality. Kwako and colleagues (Am J Psychiatry 176:744, 2019) validated a 3‐factor model of the ANA with neuropsychological and self‐report indicators among treatment‐seekers and non–treatment‐seekers with and without AUD. The present analysis replicated and extended these findings in a treatment‐seeking sample, focusing on the negative emotionality domain. Methods Participants ( n = 563; 58.8% male; mean age = 34.3) were part of a multisite prospective study of individuals entering AUD treatment. We examined the factor structure of the negative emotionality domain at the baseline, 6‐month follow‐up, and 12‐month follow‐up assessments. The Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, State‐Trait Anger Expression Inventory‐Trait Anger Subscale, and 3 Drinker Inventory of Consequences items assessing negative affective consequences were indicators in the model. Results Results indicated that a 1‐factor model was an excellent fit at all assessments and that the negative emotionality domain was time and gender invariant. Furthermore, negative emotionality was associated with drinking patterns and reasons for alcohol use (i.e., drinking because of negative emotions and urges/withdrawal) at all assessments. Conclusions This analysis provides evidence for the construct validity and measurement invariance of the ANA negative emotionality domain among AUD treatment‐seekers. Future studies are needed to evaluate prospective associations between negative emotionality and specific treatment modalities, and whether individuals with greater negative emotionality are more likely to respond to treatment that targets drinking to relieve negative affective states.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom