They reported that in 1998 the number of alcohol related deaths was 1,440 and in 2005 it was 1,825. They further reported that the number of college students who reported driving under the influence rose from 26.5% to 29%, and that problem drinking rose from 42% to 45%.
-->
Of the comments posted in response to that press release, I appreciate the critical thinking of Rick and others who remarked about the complexity of the issue. We tend to latch on to the first simplistic solution to problems, thus many (certainly not all, though) of our efforts on campuses are grounded in incomplete representations of the problem and don’t succeed as much as we would like them to.
I especially appreciate Rick’s caution to us not to sound the alarms at this data. To add to that caution, the NIAAA studies have been challenged on many levels, as have studies of college student drinking in general due to inconsistent criterion references. See Hanson (2007). “Government’s ‘Alcohol Information’”, retrieved on 6/15/09 from http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1088530194.html, and Heck & Williams (1995). Criterion variability in problem drinking research on college students. Journal of Substance Abuse, 7(4), 437-447.
Using NIAAA’s data on alcohol deaths in relation to U.S. Department of Education’s data on postsecondary enrollment, , the percentage of alcohol related deaths in 1995 (1440) was .000101% of the 14,262,000 students enrolled in postsecondary institutions. In 2005, that number was .000104% (1825) of the 17,487,000 students enrolled in postsecondary education. See National Center for Education Statistics (2008). Digest of Education Statistics, 2007 (NCES 2008-022). A .000004% increase is trivial and most certainly not statistically significant.
In this way, the NIAAA report misleads us to think that the rise in number is indeed an increase of substance, and an alarming one at that, when in reality it is not. It is simply a spurious statistic, a large increase in total postsecondary enrollment corresponding simultaneously to a large increase in total number of alcohol related deaths. I find other misleading descriptions and language in other NIAAA reports of theirs, too.
Additionally, even after evidence that inconsistent and ill-communicated criterion in problem drinking research places all of it in question, the press release does not reveal the specific studies this data is drawn from or their definition(s) of problematic drinking. Similarly, the press release does not identify the criterion for driving under the influence.
Did the respondents actually respond “yes” to a question such as “I drove while under the influence…” and if so, what is each respondents criterion for driving under the influence? Or are the researchers interpreting from a response such as “I drove after having X drinks…” as driving under the influence? If so, what if that number is 1 and the respondent is a male athlete of 240 lbs? What if that respondent is a malnourished female of 100 lbs.? The effect of 1 drink can vary widely, and the researchers give no indication of how they are calculating the data to draw the conclusion they do. I looked at the NIH website and could not readily find any study that seemed to inform this particular press release. Thus, I find even more reason to be cautious about the inferences I draw from this report.
No comments:
Post a Comment