Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The drug effects questionnaire: psychometric support across three drug types

  • Original Investigation
  • Published:
Psychopharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rationale

The Drug Effects Questionnaire (DEQ) is widely used in studies of acute subjective response (SR) to a variety of substances, but the format of the DEQ varies widely across studies, and details of its psychometric properties are lacking. Thus, the field would benefit from demonstrating the reliability and validity of the DEQ for use across multiple substances.

Objective

The current study evaluated the psychometric properties of several variations of DEQ items, which assessed the extent to which participants (1) feel any substance effect(s), (2) feel high, (3) like the effects, (4) dislike the effects, and (5) want more of the substance using 100-mm visual analog scales.

Methods

DEQ data from three placebo-controlled studies were analyzed to examine SR to amphetamine, nicotine, and alcohol. We evaluated the internal structure of the DEQ for use with each substance as well as relationships between scale items, measures of similar constructs, and substance-related behaviors.

Results

Results provided preliminary psychometric support for items assessing each DEQ construct (feel, high, dislike, like, and more).

Conclusions

Based on the study results, we identify several common limitations of extant variants of the DEQ and recommend an improved version of the measure. The simplicity and brevity of the DEQ combined with its promising psychometric properties support its use in future SR research across a variety of substances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For amphetamine and nicotine, the absolute peak values for high, like, dislike, and more were computed (e.g., the time point at which like was strongest). For alcohol, all DEQ items corresponded to the peak blood alcohol level. Correlations between the value of each item at peak feel and its respective peak value (e.g., the value of like at peak feel versus the value of like at peak like) were strong, ranging from 0.83 to 0.98 across all substances and doses (mean correlation for amphetamine = 0.95; for nicotine = 0.91).

References

  • Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (2000) The adaptive control of the false discovery rate in multiple hypotheses testing. J Behav Educ Statist 25:60–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank MD, Kleykamp BA, Jennings JM, Eissenberg T (2007) Caffeine’s influence on nicotine’s effects in nonsmokers. J Health Behav 31(5):473–483. doi:10.5555/ajhb.2007.31.5.473

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole-Harding S, de Wit H (1992) Self-administration of pentobarbital in light and moderate alcohol drinkers. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 43:563–569

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Comer SD, Sullivan MA, Walker EA (2005a) Comparison of intravenous buprenorphine and methadone self-administration by recently detoxified heroin-dependent individuals. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 315:1320–1330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Comer SD, Walker EA, Collins ED (2005b) Buprenorphine/naloxone reduces the reinforcing and subjective effects of heroin in heroin-dependent volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 181:664–675

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cox LS, Tiffany ST, Christen AG (2001) Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (QSU-brief) in laboratory and clinical settings. Nicotine Tob Res 3:7–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Wit H, Phillips TJ (2012) Do initial responses to drugs predict future use or abuse? Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:1565–1576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dlugos AM, Hamidovic A, Hodgkinson C, Shen PH, Goldman D, Palmer AA, de Wit H (2011) OPRM1 gene variants modulate amphetamine-induced euphoria in humans. Genes Brain Behav 10:199–209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evans SM, Bisaga A (2009) Acute interaction of baclofen in combination with alcohol in heavy social drinkers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 33:19–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evans SM, Levin FR (2002) The effects of alprazolam and buspirone in light and moderate female social drinkers. Behav Pharmacol 13:427–439

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evans SM, Levin FR, Fischman MW (2000) Increased sensitivity to alprazolam in females with a paternal history of alcoholism. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 150:150–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fischman MW, Foltin RW (1991) Utility of subjective-effects measurements in assessing abuse liability of drugs in humans. Br J Addict 86:1563–1570

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fischman MW, Schuster CR, Hatano Y (1983) A comparison of the subjective and cardiovascular effects of cocaine and lidocaine in humans. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 18:123–127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Folstein MF, Luria R (1973) Reliability, validity, and clinical application of the Visual Analogue Mood Scale. Psychol Med 3:479–486

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser HF, Van Horn GD, Martin WR, Wolbach AB, Isbell H (1961) Methods for evaluating addiction liability. (A) “Attitude” of opiate addicts toward opiate-like drugs. (B) a short-term “direct” addiction test. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 133:371–387

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamidovic A, Childs E, Conrad M, King A, de Wit H (2010) Stress-induced changes in mood and cortisol release predict mood effects of amphetamine. Drug Alcohol Depend 109:175–180

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton CM, Strader LC, Pratt JG, Maiese D, Hendershot T, Kwok RK, Hammond JA, Huggins W, Jackman D, Pan H, Nettles DS, Beaty TH, Farrer LA, Kraft P, Marazita ML, Ordovas JM, Pato CN, Spitz MR, Wagener D, Williams M, Junkins HA, Harlan WR, Ramos EM, Haines J (2011) The PhenX Toolkit: get the most from your measures. Am J Epidemiol 174:253–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harris DS, Baggott M, Mendelson JH, Mendelson JE, Jones RT (2002) Subjective and hormonal effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in humans. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 162:396–405

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BA, Roache JD, Ait-Daoud N, Wallace C, Wells L, Dawes M, Wang Y (2005) Effects of isradipine, a dihydropyridine-class calcium-channel antagonist, on d-methamphetamine’s subjective and reinforcing effects. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 8:203–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1989) LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago, IL

  • King AC, de Wit H, McNamara PJ, Cao D (2011) Rewarding, stimulant, and sedative alcohol responses and relationship to future binge drinking. Arch Gen Psychiatry 68:389–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt A, Sher KJ, Bartholow BD (2009) The language of intoxication: preliminary investigations. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 33:448–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin WR, Sloan JW, Sapira JD, Jasinski DR (1971) Physiologic, subjective, and behavioral effects of amphetamine, methamphetamine, ephedrine, phenmetrazine, and methylphenidate in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 12:245–258

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin CS, Earleywine M, Musty RE, Perrine MW, Swift RM (1993) Development and validation of the biphasic alcohol effects scale. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 17:140–146

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF (1971) Profile of mood states. San Diego, Educational and Industrial Testing Service

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino AJ (2006) Applied multivariate research: design and interpretation. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén LK, Muthén, BO (1998–2008) Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA

  • Phan KL, Angstadt M, Golden J, Onyewuenyi I, Popovska A, de Wit H (2008) Cannabinoid modulation of amygdala reactivity to social signals of threat in humans. J Neurosci 28:2313–2319

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reed SC, Levin FR, Evans SM (2012) Alcohol increases impulsivity and abuse liability in heavy drinking women. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 20:454–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR et al (1993) Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption: II. Addiction 88:791–804

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sobell LC, Sobell MB (2003) Alcohol consumption measures. In: Allen P, Wilson VB (eds) Assessing alcohol problems: a guide for clinicians and researchers, 2nd edn. MD7 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda, pp 75–99

  • Sofuoglu M, Herman AI, Nadim H, Jatlow P (2012) Rapid nicotine clearance is associated with greater reward and heart rate increases from intravenous nicotine. Neuropsychopharmacology 37:1509–1516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toll BA, Katulak NA, McKee SA (2006) Investigating the factor structure of the Questionnaire on Smoking Urges-Brief (QSU-Brief). Addict Behav 31:1231–1239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wachtel SR, de Wit H (2000) Naltrexone does not block the subjective effects of oral delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in humans. Drug Alcohol Depend 59:251–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Webster LR, Johnson FK, Stauffer J, Setnik B, Ciric S (2011) Impact of intravenous naltrexone on intravenous morphine-induced high, drug liking, and euphoric effects in experienced, nondependent male opioid users. Drugs R D 11:259–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Webster LR, Bath B, Medve RA, Marmon T, Stoddard GJ (2012) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the abuse potential of different formulations of oral oxycodone. Pain Med 13:790–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • White TL, Justice AJ, de Wit H (2002) Differential subjective effects of D-amphetamine by gender, hormone levels and menstrual cycle phase. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 73:729–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zacny JP, Jun JM (2010) Lack of sex differences to the subjective effects of nitrous oxide in healthy volunteers. Drug Alcohol Depend 112:251–254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by (AK) R01-AA013746; (de Wit) DA02812; (Rueger) NIAAA Research Supplement to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research, R01-AA013746-S1; (Sofuoglu) The Veterans Administration Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse grant K02-DA-021304.

Conflict of interest

Dr. de Wit has received research support from Unilever for a study unrelated to this manuscript. Dr. Sofuoglu serves as an expert witness on behalf of Pfizer in lawsuits related to varenicline.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, Connecticut Mental Health Center, Office S-229, 34 Park Street, New Haven, CT, 06519, USA

    Meghan E. Morean, Mehmet Sofuoglu & Stephanie S. O’Malley

  2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC3077, Chicago, IL, 6063, USA

    Harriet de Wit, Andrea C. King & Sandra Y. Rueger

  3. Department of Psychology, Wheaton College, Billy Graham Center, 501 College Ave, Wheaton, IL, 60187, USA

    Sandra Y. Rueger

Authors
  1. Meghan E. Morean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harriet de Wit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea C. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mehmet Sofuoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sandra Y. Rueger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stephanie S. O’Malley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meghan E. Morean.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morean, M.E., de Wit, H., King, A.C. et al. The drug effects questionnaire: psychometric support across three drug types. Psychopharmacology 227, 177–192 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-012-2954-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-012-2954-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation