Assignment of Alcoholic Beverages in the Munich Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI): an Online Survey Among German Students and Non-students

  • Sören Kuitunen-PaulEmail author
  • Paula T. Kuitunen
  • Firdeus Kadrić
  • Dirk W. Lachenmeier
  • Jasmin Čolić
  • Lieselotte Leonhardt
  • Christoph Scheffel
Original Article


The objective of this study is to investigate whether the materials presented during alcohol consumption assessment sufficiently aid interviewees in categorizing the beverages they consumed during their lifetime. In the cross-sectional “AF-CIDI” online survey, N = 162 adult drinkers (61% female, 40% non-students) aged 27 ± 8.2 years assigned beverages names to one of ten categories of the Munich Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI) supplementary list. Eighty percent of these 4465 laymen beverage assignments were correctly classified in accordance with expert assignments. Assignment correctness was associated with confidence, and, to a smaller degree, exposure, prevalence, utility of examples, and age group. Alcohol by volume (ABV) estimates based on subjective classifications differed 2.7 points on average from CIDI-based ABVs, which in turn differed 3.6 points on average from real ABVs measured with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Beverages with low lifetime prevalences (≤ 25%) were frequently misclassified. This understudied response bias might be part of the well-known underreporting phenomenon.


Alcohol by volume Alcoholic beverages Beverage categorization Standardized assessment Subjective bias 



We thank Torsten Tille for technical support and survey programming, Dr. Michael Höfler, Dominik Muhs, and Max Jakob for statistical support, as well as Anja Tritt and Lara Seefeld for help during recruitment and piloting. We owe thanks to Dr. Lars Pieper and Prof. Dr. Hans-Ulrich Wittchen for their supervision and their help to acquire funding and ethical approval.

Author Contributions

SKP designed the study. SKP, FK, and PTK wrote the study protocol and created the measures and the beverage list. PTK was responsible for sampling and advertisement. SKP and CS prepared the dataset. DWL provided data on real ABVs. CS, LL, SKP, and JC conducted the analyses. SKP, DWL, JC, LL, and CS contributed to the interpretation of the results. SKP wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors critically revised and approved the finally submitted version of the manuscript.


This work was supported by the TU Dresden, Faculty of Psychology under Grant “Anschubfinanzierung” as of 19.09.2016. Analyses were partly supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Research group FOR1617 under grant WI 709/10-2, and the Technische Universität Dresden through a grant in the DAAD ipid4all program to SKP.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All procedures were approved by the local ethics committee (EK450102016) and follow the Declaration of Helsinki and the recommendations for web-based surveys (Kramer et al. 2014). This study is registered as a clinical trial ( identifier NCT03097354).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11469_2019_59_MOESM1_ESM.docx (60 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 60 kb)


  1. Babor, T. F., John, C., Higgins-Biddle, J. C., John, B., Saunders, J. B., & Monteiro, M. G. (2001). AUDIT. The alcohol use disorders identification test. Guidelines for use in primary care (2nd ed.). Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  2. Bush, K., Kivlahan, D. R., McDonell, M. B., Fihn, S. D., Bradley, K. A., & Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project. (1998). The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C) - an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(16), 1789–1795. Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Davis, C. G., Thake, J., & Vilhena, N. (2010). Social desirability biases in self-reported alcohol consumption and harms. Addictive Behaviors, 35(4), 302–311. Scholar
  5. Del Boca, F. K., & Darkes, J. (2003). The validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption: state of the science and challenges for research. Addiction, 98(Suppl 2), 1–12.Google Scholar
  6. Garbusow, M., Schad, D. J., Sommer, C., Junger, E., Sebold, M., Friedel, E., et al. (2014). Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer in alcohol dependence: a pilot study. Neuropsychobiology, 70(2), 111–121. Scholar
  7. Gmel, G., Graham, K., Kuendig, H., & Kuntsche, S. (2006). Measuring alcohol consumption--should the ‘graduated frequency’ approach become the norm in survey research? Addiction, 101(1), 16–30. Scholar
  8. Gmel, G., & Rehm, J. (2004). Measuring alcohol consumption. Contemporary Drug Problems, 31(467–540), 467–540.Google Scholar
  9. Greenfield, T. K., & Kerr, W. C. (2008). Alcohol measurement methodology in epidemiology: recent advances and opportunities. Addiction, 103(7), 1082–1099. Scholar
  10. IfD Allensbach. (n.d.). Ranking der meistgekauften bzw. meistkonsumierten Getränke in der Bevölkerung in Deutschland in den Jahren 2016 bis 2017 [Ranking of the top-selling and most-consumed beverages in Germany between 2016 and 2017]. Retrieved 27.11.2017
  11. Kerr, W. C., & Stockwell, T. (2012). Understanding standard drinks and drinking guidelines. Drug and Alcohol Review, 31(2), 200–205. Scholar
  12. Knappe, S., Runge, J., Beesdo, K., Jacobi, F., & Wittchen, H.-U. (2008). Diagnostik psychischer Störungen: “Gold”- oder “Blech”-Standard? [Diagnosing Mental Disorders: Gold or Tin Standard?]. Psychotherapie, Psychchosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 58(2), 72–75. Scholar
  13. Kramer, J., Rubin, A., Coster, W., Helmuth, E., Hermos, J., Rosenbloom, D., et al. (2014). Strategies to address participant misrepresentation for eligibility in Web-based research. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 23(1), 120–129. Scholar
  14. Kuitunen-Paul, S., Rehm, J., Lachenmeier, D. W., Kadrić, F., Kuitunen, P. T., Wittchen, H.-U., & Manthey, J. (2017). Assessment of alcoholic standard drinks using the Munich composite international diagnostic interview (M-CIDI): An evaluation and subsequent revision. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 26(3), e1563. Scholar
  15. Lachenmeier, D. W. (2007). Rapid quality control of spirit drinks and beer using multivariate data analysis of Fourier transform infrared spectra. Food Chemistry, 101(2), 825–832. Scholar
  16. Lachner, G., Wittchen, H.-U., Perkonigg, A., Holly, A., Schuster, P., Wunderlich, U., et al. (1998). Structure, content and reliability of the Munich Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI) substance use sections. European Addiction Research, 4(1–2), 28–41. Scholar
  17. Livingston, M., & Callinan, S. (2015). Underreporting in alcohol surveys: whose drinking is underestimated? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76(1), 158–164. Scholar
  18. McGee, A., Boreham, R., & Blenkinsop, S. (2005). Ensuring accurate estimates of the prevalence of taking drugs among young people (11–15 year olds). Paper presented at the Research on Drugs and Drug Policy from a European Perspective. Selected readings from the 15th International Conference of the European Society for Social Drug Research (ESSD), Lengerich, Germany.Google Scholar
  19. Meyer, C., Rumpf, H. J., Hapke, U., & John, U. (2000). The Composite International Diagnostic Interview: feasibility and necessity of editing and interviewer training in general population surveys. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 9(1), 32–42. Scholar
  20. Ogeil, R. P., Room, R., Matthews, S., & Lloyd, B. (2015). Alcohol and burden of disease in Australia: the challenge in assessing consumption. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39(2), 121–123. Scholar
  21. Rist, F., Scheuren, B., Demmel, R., Hagen, J., & Aulhorn, I. (2003). Der Münsteraner Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-G-M). . In A. Glöckner-Rist, F. Rist, & H. Küfner (Eds.), Elektronisches Handbuch zu Erhebungsinstrumenten im Suchtbereich (EHES) Version 3,00. Mannheim: Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen.Google Scholar
  22. Shield, K., Parry, C., & Rehm, J. (2013). Chronic diseases and conditions related to alcohol use. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 35(2), 155–173.Google Scholar
  23. Sobell, L. C., & Sobell, M. B. (1992). Timeline follow-back: a technique for assessing self-reported ethanol consumption. In R. Z. Litten & J. P. Allen (Eds.), Measuring alcohol consumption: psychosocial and biological methods (pp. 41–72). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.Google Scholar
  24. Stockwell, T., Zhao, J., & Macdonald, S. (2014). Who under-reports their alcohol consumption in telephone surveys and by how much? An application of the ‘yesterday method’ in a national Canadian substance use survey. Addiction, 109(10), 1657–1666. Scholar
  25. Urban, D., & Mayerl, J. (2008). Regressionsanalyse: Theorie, Technik und Anwendung (3., überarbeitete und erweiterte ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  26. Wittchen, H.-U., & Pfister, H. (1997). DIA-X-Interviews: Manual Für Screening-Verfahren Und Interview; Interviewheft Längsschnittuntersuchung (DIA-X-Lifetime); Ergänzungsheft (DIA-X-Lifetime); Interviewheft Querschnittuntersuchung (DIA-X-12 Monate); Ergänzungsheft (DIA-X-12 Monate); PC-Programm Zur Durchführung des Interviews (Längs- Und Querschnittuntersuchung); Auswertungsprogramm. Frankfurt: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  27. World Health Organization. (2014). Global status report on alcohol and health 2014, appendix 1: alcohol consumption. Retrieved from
  28. World Health Organization. (2018). Global status report on alcohol and health 2018. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Clinical Psychology and PsychotherapyTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of PsychologyTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  3. 3.Klinik für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und –psychotherapieSächsisches Krankenhaus ArnsdorfArnsdorfGermany
  4. 4.Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt (CVUA) KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  5. 5.Technische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations