A Psychometric Evaluation of the Approach and Avoidance of Alcohol Questionnaire (AAAQ) in Alcohol Dependent Outpatients

  • Audrey A. Klein
  • Paul R. Stasiewicz
  • James R. Koutsky
  • Clara M. Bradizza
  • Scott F. Coffey


The Approach and Avoidance of Alcohol Questionnaire (AAAQ; McEvoy et al. in Addiction 99:482–497, 2004) was administered to a clinical sample of 138 alcohol dependent men and women. An exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the AAAQ factor structure and a confirmatory analysis run on a second administration of the AAAQ. Convergent validity was examined by conducting an alcohol cue reactivity test and by administering the Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB), a retrospective calendar method for assessing alcohol consumption, and several measures of alcohol-related problems. The factor analysis supported a two-factor solution representing approach and avoidance dimensions. Regressions predicting measures of alcohol cue reactivity, alcohol consumption, and other alcohol-related constructs with the AAAQ provide support for its convergent validity. The results suggest that alcohol craving may be viewed as a multi-dimensional construct that includes both approach and avoidance inclinations which may vary depending on the population under examination.


Alcohol Assessment Craving Cue reactivity Validity 



This research was supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant AA12033 awarded to Paul R. Stasiewicz. We wish to thank Joseph Saeva, Robert Whitney, and the staff of the Erie County Medical Center Downtown Clinic. We also wish to thank Kellie Smith-Hoerter, Alexis Hazard, and Dennis Dickman for their efforts on the project.


  1. Anton, R. F. (1999). What is craving? Models and implications for treatment. Alcohol Research and Health, 23, 165–173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, A. T., Brown, G. K., & Steer, R. A. (1996). Beck depression inventory-II (BDI-II). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 57, 289–300.Google Scholar
  4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernstein, I. H., & Teng, G. (1989). Factoring items and factoring scales are different: Spurious evidence for multidimensionality due to item categorization. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blouin, A. G., Perez, E. L., & Blouin, J. H. (1988). Computerized administration of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Psychiatry Research, 23, 335–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breiner, M. J., Stritzke, W. G., & Lang, A. R. (1999). Approaching avoidance: A step essential to the understanding of craving. Alcohol Research & Health, 23, 197–206.Google Scholar
  8. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 132–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Coffey, S. F., Saladin, M. E., Libet, J. M., Drobes, D. J., & Dansky, B. S. (1999). Differential urge and salivary responsivity to alcohol cues in alcohol-dependent patients: A comparison of traditional and stringent classification approaches. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 7, 464–472.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, B. N., & Brandon, T. H. (2002). Effects of extinction context and retrieval cues on alcohol cue reactivity among nonalcoholic drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 390–397.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erdman, H. P., Klein, M. H., Greist, J. H., Skare, S. S., Husted, J. J., Robins, L. N., et al. (1992). A comparison of two computer-administered versions of the NIMH diagnostic interview schedule. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 26, 85–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2000). Unrestricted versus restricted factor analysis of multidimensional test items: Some aspects of the problem and some suggestions. Psicológica, 21, 301–323.Google Scholar
  13. Franken, I. H. A., De Haan, H. A., Van Der Meer, C. W., Haffmans, P. M. J., & Hendriks, V. M. (1999). Cue reactivity and effects of cue exposure in abstinent post-treatment drug users. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 16, 81–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrica, 30, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kozlowski, L. T., Mann, R. E., Wilkinson, D. A., & Poulos, C. X. (1989). “Cravings” are ambiguous: Ask about urges or desires. Addictive Behaviors, 14, 443–445.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kozlowski, L. T., Pilliterri, J. L., Sweeney, C. T., Whitfield, K. E., & Graham, J. W. (1996). Asking questions about urges or cravings for cigarettes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 10, 248–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kozlowski, L. T., & Wilkinson, D. A. (1987). Use and misuse of the concept of craving by alcohol, tobacco, and drug researchers. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 31–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leigh, B. C., & Stacy, A. (1993). Alcohol outcome expectancies: Scale construction and predictive utility in higher order confirmatory models. Psychological Assessment, 5, 216–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levitan, R. D., Blouin, A. G., Navarro, J. R., & Hill, J. (1991). Validity of the computerized DIS for diagnosing psychiatric inpatients. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 728–731.Google Scholar
  21. McEvoy, P. M., Stritzke, W. G., French, D. J., Lang, A. R., & Ketterman, R. L. (2004). Comparison of three models of alcohol craving in young adults: A cross-validation. Addiction, 99, 482–497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, W. R., & Tonigan, J. S. (1996). Assessing drinkers’ motivation for change: The Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES). Psychiatry and Addictive Behavior, 10, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, W. R., Tonigan, J. S., & Longabaugh, R. (1995). The drinker inventory of consequences (DrInC): An instrument for assessing adverse consequences of alcohol abuse. NIAAA Project MATCH Monograph Series, vol. 4. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  25. Monti, P. M., Binkoff, J. A., Abrams, D. B., Zwick, W. R., Nirenberg, T. D., & Liepman, M. R. (1987). Reactivity of alcoholics and nonalcoholics to drinking cues. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 122–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396–402.Google Scholar
  27. Robins, L., Cotter, L., Bucholz, K., & Compton, W. (1995). Diagnostic Interview Schedule for DSM-IV. St. Louis, MO: Washington University School of Medicine.Google Scholar
  28. Rohsenow, D. J., Monti, P. M., Rubonis, A. V., Sirota, A. D., Niaura, R. S., Colby, S., et al. (1994). Cue reactivity as a predictor of drinking among male alcoholics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 620–626.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sayette, M. A., Shiffman, S., Tiffany, S. T., Niaura, R. S., Martin, C. S., & Shadel, W. G. (2000). The measurement of drug craving. Addiction, 95(Supplement 2), 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sinha, R., Fuse, T., Aubin, L.-R., & O’Malley, S. S. (2000). Psychological stress, drug-related cues and cocaine craving. Psychopharmacology, 152, 140–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Skinner, H. A., & Allen, B. A. (1982). Alcohol dependence syndrome: Measurement and validation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 199–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith-Hoerter, K., Stasiewicz, P. R., & Bradizza, C. M. (2004). Subjective reactions to alcohol cue exposure: A qualitative analysis of patients’ self-reports. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 402–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sobell, L. C., & Sobell, M. B. (1992). Timeline followback: A technique for assessing self-reported alcohol consumption. In J. Allen & R. Z. Litten (Eds.), Measuring alcohol consumption: Psychosocial and biological methods (pp. 41–72), Totowa, NJ: Humana.Google Scholar
  34. Stasiewicz, P. R., Gulliver, S. B., Bradizza, C. M., Torrisi, R., Rohsenow, D. J., & Monti, P. M. (1997). Exposure to negative emotional cues and alcohol cue reactivity with alcoholics: A preliminary investigation. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1143–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stasiewicz, P. R., & Maisto, S. A. (1993). Two-factor avoidance theory: The role of negative affect in the maintenance of substance use and substance use disorder. Behavior Therapy, 24, 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stritzke, W. G., Breiner, M. J., Curtin, J. J., & Lang, A. R. (2004). Assessment of substance cue reactivity: Advances in reliability, specificity, and validity. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 148–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tiffany, S. T., & Conklin, C. A. (2000). A cognitive processing model of alcohol craving and compulsive alcohol use. Addiction, 95(Supplement 2), 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Prooijen, J. W., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 777–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Audrey A. Klein
    • 1
  • Paul R. Stasiewicz
    • 1
  • James R. Koutsky
    • 1
  • Clara M. Bradizza
    • 1
  • Scott F. Coffey
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Institute on AddictionsUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry and Human BehaviorUniversity of Mississippi Medical CenterJacksonUSA

Personalised recommendations