Alcohol and Alcoholism Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.

312316, 2012
Advance Access Publication 25 January 2012

doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agr172

TREATMENT
Assessing Self-Efficacy to Reduce Ones Drinking: Further Evaluation of the Alcohol Reduction
Strategies-Current Confidence Questionnaire
Shane W. Kraus*, Harold Rosenberg, Erin E. Bonar, Erica Hoffmann, Elizabeth Kryszak, Kathleen M. Young,
Lisham Ashrafioun and Erin E. Bannon
Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA
*Corresponding author: Tel.: +1-419-372-7255, Fax: +1-419-372-6013; E-mail: swkraus@bgsu.edu
(Received 11 November 2011; accepted 28 December 2011)
Abstract Aims: To evaluate the psychometric properties of a previously published questionnaire designed to assess young drinkers self-efficacy to employ 31 cognitive-behavioral alcohol reduction strategies. Methods: Undergraduates (n = 353) recruited from
a large Midwestern university completed the previously published Alcohol Reduction Strategies-Current Confidence questionnaire
(and other measures) for a self-selected heavy drinking setting. Results: Item loadings from a principal components analysis, a high
internal consistency reliability coefficient, and a moderate mean inter-item correlation suggested that all 31 items comprised a single
scale. Correlations of questionnaire scores with selected aspects of drinking history and personality provided support for criterion
and discriminant validity, respectively. Women reported higher current confidence to use these strategies than did men, but current
confidence did not vary as a function of recent binge status. Conclusion: Given this further demonstration of its psychometric qualities, this questionnaire holds promise as a clinical tool to identify clients who lack confidence in their ability to employ cognitivebehavioral coping strategies to reduce their drinking.

INTRODUCTION
Although there are multiple benefits of young people
employing alcohol-reduction strategies to reduce the quantity, frequency and speed of their drinking, many university
students do not use such strategies consistently to moderate
their drinking (Benton et al., 2004; Martens et al., 2007b).
Students may not employ alcohol-reduction strategies if they
perceive it as socially unacceptable to do so or if they seek
the experience of intense intoxication that follows rapid consumption of large amounts of alcohol. Another reason these
strategies may not be employed is that some young people
have limited self-efficacy or self-confidence that they could
utilize specific drinking self-control strategies in certain
situations (Ray et al., 2009).
Several research teams have published self-efficacy questionnaires designed to assess drinkers confidence to abstain or
moderate their drinking in different contexts (Annis and
Graham, 1988; DiClemente et al., 1994; OHare, 2001;
Sitharthan et al., 2003; Oei et al., 2005; Young et al., 2007),
and other investigators have published questionnaires that
measure past use of specific drinking-reduction and harmreduction skills (e.g. Martens et al., 2007a; Sugarman and
Carey, 2007). However, none of these instruments were
designed to assess self-efficacy to employ specific strategies to
restrain ones drinking. Therefore, Bonar et al. (2011) developed the Alcohol Reduction Strategies-Current Confidence
questionnaire (ARS-CC), a self-administered instrument that
asks respondents to rate their confidence to utilize each of 31
cognitive-behavioral alcohol reduction strategies [e.g. Avoid
adding more alcohol to a drink you have not finished, Set
down your drink between each sip, Avoid drinking in rounds
(e.g. taking turns buying drinks for a group)] in drinkerselected or clinician-specified drinking contexts.
Bonar et al.s evaluation of the ARS-CC found that undergraduates reported higher mean self-efficacy when they imagined drinking in their own dorm/apartment than when drinking
in bars or at parties; women had higher mean self-efficacy scores

than men; and drinkers who engaged in three or more binge episodes in the previous 2 weeks had lower mean self-efficacy
scores than those who reported fewer episodes in the same time
period. In addition, the ARS-CC had excellent internal consistency reliability, a moderate mean inter-item correlation and good
1-week test-retest reliability. Also, ARS-CC scores correlated
significantly with several measures of drinking history.
As a follow-up to this initial investigation by Bonar et al.
(2011), we designed the present study to evaluate further the
psychometric properties of the ARS-CC when administered
to a different sample of binge-drinking university students.
Specifically, we evaluated its factor structure and internal
consistency reliability, its criterion validity with several
aspects of drinking history (e.g. quantity/frequency, consequences), and its discriminant validity with sensation
seeking, alcohol outcome expectancies and self-efficacy to
achieve non-drinking health outcomes. Finally, because
ones reported self-efficacy to employ drinking self-control
skills could be influenced by social desirability bias, we also
evaluated the association of ARS-CC scores with measures
of impression management and self-deception.

METHODS
Procedure and participants
Upon receiving approval for the replication study from our
institutional review board, students were recruited from
introductory and upper-level psychology courses at a large
public Midwestern university (enrollment ~20,000 students).
Potential participants were invited to click a web link in
the recruitment notice that opened an informed consent
page followed by the questionnaires described below. To be
eligible for inclusion in the database, respondents had to be
between 18 and 29 years of age and to have reported consuming at least five drinks (if male) or at least four drinks
(if female) on at least one occasion in the previous month.

The Author 2012. Medical Council on Alcohol and Oxford University Press. All rights reserved

Alcohol reduction strategies

Table 1. Demographic and drinking history characteristics of sample (n = 353)
Characteristics

Mean (SD) or percentage

Age (years)
Sensation seeking
BIDR subscales
Self-deception
Impression management
Health Self-Efficacy Scale (without alcohol item)
Ethnicity
White/European
Black/African-American
Other/unreported
Years at university
First year
Second year
Third year
Fourth year and above
Residence
On campus
Off campus
Employed
No
Yes, part-time
College major
Arts and Sciences
Health
Education
Other/undeclared/missing
Age first consumed alcohol
Typical number of standard drinks/drinking day
AUDIT totala
S-RAPI totalb
Alcohol expectanciesc
Positive
Negative
Age of first intoxication
1113
1417
18
19 and over
Typical number drinking days per week
Less than one day
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 or more days
Typical alcoholic beverage
Only beer
Only wine
Only hard liquor
Combination of above alcohol
Number of binge episodes in past 2 weeks
None
12 times
34 times
56 times
7 or more times
Ease of abstinence in next month
Very easy
Somewhat easy
Somewhat difficult
Very difficult
Perceived control over one's drinking
Completely under control
Somewhat under control
Somewhat out of control
Completely out of control
Percentage of friends who drink
None
~25%
~50%

20.3 (1.4)
3.3 (0.8)

Table 1. Continued
Characteristics
~75%
100% or almost all

5.2 (3.4)
4.8 (3.1)
6.8 (2.1)

313

Mean (SD) or percentage

39
48

Some totals do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

a
AUDIT scores range from 0 to 40; scores 8 indicate hazardous drinking.
b
S-RAPI scores range from 0 to 64.
c
As measured with Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol questionnaire; scores
range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

80%
12
8

Participants who completed the materials received research

credit points.
We recruited 358 undergraduates who met these criteria.
We excluded from further analysis those four students who
selected more than one preferred 5+/4+ location and the one
student who reported the heaviest consumption in a unique
setting (i.e. parents home). Of the remaining 353 participants, 188 engaged in 5+/4+ binge episodes most often at a
house/fraternity/sorority party, 90 did so most often in their
own dorm room or own apartment, and 75 did so most often
in a bar/club/restaurant. Frequency counts revealed that 62%
of participants were female, and 80% indicated their ethnicity was White/European American, both of which are consistent with the proportions of women and Caucasian
students enrolled at this university. Other demographic and
drinking characteristics are reported in Table 1.

25
23
23
29
47
53
48
50
48
26
16
10
15.5 (2.5)
6.8 (4.0)
11.0 (5.8)
11.3 (9.2)

Measures
Alcohol Reduction Strategies-Current Confidence
This computer-based questionnaire asked each respondent to
rate his/her current confidence to employ each of 31 different
drinking-reduction self-control skills [see Table 2 for a list of
strategies and means (SDs) for this sample] while drinking
in the specific location where he/she reported most often
consuming 5+/4+ drinks in a row. Because situational specificity theory proposes that behavior often varies across contexts, we asked participants to identify the one situation in
which they consumed 5+/4+ drinks most often and to rate
their use of the strategies in that context. Each item had the
following five response options presented without numerical
notation: not at all confident, a little confident, moderately
confident, very confident and completely confident (coded
15, respectively for statistical analyses). In addition, participants were also able to indicate if a listed strategy did not
apply to them (coded as missing data for further analyses).

2.9 (0.5)
2.5 (0.5)
5
58
25
11
4
35
38
17
6
22
3
19
56
21
36
23
14
5

Short Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index

We used the 16-item short form (Earleywine et al., 2008) of
the original 23-item Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI)
(White and Labouvie, 1989) to assess consequences of participants alcohol use over the past 3 years. To increase clarity
of phrasing, we shortened the one item that asks about
efforts to control ones drinking. Earleywine et al. (2008)
reported that the S-RAPI had good internal consistency reliability and correlated highly with the full RAPI. Cronbachs
in our sample was 0.88.

56
23
14
7
67
29
4
<1
<1
4
8
Continued

Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol

The 38-item Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol (CEOA)
questionnaire (Fromme et al., 1993) was used to assess

314

Kraus et al.
Table 2. Means (SDs) for each item on ARS-CC

Alcohol reduction strategies

1. Leave at least 15 min in between each drink
2. Keep track in your head of each drink you have
3. Keep track of each drink on your cell phone or a piece
of paper
4. Eat a meal before starting to drink
5. Avoid salty foods while drinking
6. Stay away from the refrigerator, keg or bartender where
alcohol is easily available
7. Have a non-alcoholic drink in between each alcoholic
drink
8. Start off with at least 1 non-alcoholic drink
9. Set a limit on the total number of drinks you will have
before you start drinking
10. Set a pre-determined time to stop drinking
11. Sip your drink, rather than gulp or chug
12. Avoid finishing a beer or other drink you do not want
13. Wait at least 20 min past the time you would normally
start drinking
14. Avoid adding more alcohol to a drink you have not
finished
15. Avoid starting a new drink until youve finished the
one you have
16. Avoid drinking out of oversized containers (e.g.
fishbowls, boots, giant cups)
17. Set down your drink between each sip
18. Avoid drinking in rounds (e.g. taking turns buying
drinks for a group)
19. Avoid catching up if you start drinking after others
20. Say no to offers of drinks you dont want
21. Accept a drink offer, then set it aside without drinking
it
22. Leave the place where you are drinking at a
pre-determined time
23. Avoid drinking with friends who drink excessively
24. Order a non-alcoholic drink that can pass as an
alcoholic drink
25. Bring a limited amount of spending money with you
when you go out to drink
26. Use a single shot glass to measure how much hard
liquor goes in each drink
27. Limit the amount of alcohol someone else puts in any
drink they make for you
28. Ask the person making your drinks to make them
weak
29. Put extra ice in your drink
30. Put extra non-alcoholic mixer in your drink
31. Avoid drinking straight shots of hard liquor

Mean rating
(SD)a
3.47 (1.22)
3.88 (1.12)
2.80 (1.50)
4.33 (0.96)
3.58 (1.22)
3.21 (1.27)
3.03 (1.35)
3.82 (1.29)
3.59 (1.19)
3.57 (1.17)
3.87 (1.13)
3.89 (1.16)
3.59 (1.19)
4.06 (1.06)
4.17 (1.05)
4.11 (1.06)
3.43 (1.28)
3.63 (1.14)
3.68 (1.17)
3.89 (1.13)
3.24 (1.37)
3.60 (1.18)
2.83 (1.32)
3.13 (1.45)
4.26 (0.99)
3.55 (1.27)
3.53 (1.25)
3.18 (1.42)
3.57 (1.29)
3.59 (1.34)
3.61 (1.28)

Number of respondents may vary from item to item due to occasional

missing values.
a
Rating scale ranged from 1 (not at all confident) to 5 (completely
confident).

participants positive and negative outcome expectancies of

being under the influence of alcohol. Previous research supported the internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity of the CEOA and its two main subscales
(Fromme et al., 1993; Ham et al., 2005). Cronbachs a in
our sample was 0.90 for the positive expectancies subscale
and 0.88 for the negative expectancies subscale.
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test
We used the 10-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification
Test (AUDIT) to assess whether participants engaged in
problem drinking (Saunders et al., 1993). Previous research
has supported the reliability and concurrent validity of the

AUDIT (Reinert and Allen, 2002; Selin, 2003). Cronbachs

in our sample was 0.79.
Health Self-Efficacy Scale
We included this scale to measure self-efficacy to engage
in five health-promoting activities over the next year
(Grembowski et al., 1993). Using an 11-point scale (0 = not
at all sure to 10 = very sure), participants were asked to rate
their self-efficacy to control their weight, eat less fat, exercise
regularly, not drink heavily and not smoke. Cronbachs in
our sample was 0.61.
Brief Sensation Seeking Scale
The 8-item Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (Hoyle et al.,
2002) was used to assess participants tendencies to seek out
varied and novel situations, a characteristic that has been
related to excessive drinking (Hittner and Swickert, 2006).
Cronbachs in our sample was 0.81.
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
The 40-item balanced inventory of desirable responding
(BIDR) (Paulhus, 1984, 1991) yields two subscales: selfdeception (unintentionally portraying oneself in a favorable
light) and impression management (intentionally portraying
oneself positively in order to be perceived favorably by
others). Paulhus (1991) reported the subscales demonstrated
good internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and
several aspects of validity. Cronbachs in our sample was
0.72 for the self-deception subscale and 0.69 for the impression management subscale.
Background Questionnaire
This questionnaire was developed to assess basic demographic
information and drinking history. These questions included
items to assess typical number of drinks per week, typical
number of drinks per drinking occasion, perceived ease of
abstaining in the next 30 days and level of perceived control
over ones drinking.
RESULTS
Psychometric properties of the ARS-CC
Firstly, we conducted a principal components analysis
( promax rotation). The results suggested six clusters of
items, but our examination of the eigenvalues (11.70, 2.29,
1.50, 1.35, 1.22 and 1.09) and proportions of variance
accounted for by each component (37.7, 7.4, 4.8, 4.3, 3.9
and 3.5%), led us to interpret the 31 items as comprising a
single scale. This interpretation was further supported by the
finding that 30 of the 31 items loaded most highly (loadings
ranged from 0.49 to 0.79) on the first component; furthermore, the one item (Eat a meal before starting to drink)
that loaded more highly on the second component also crossloaded on the initial component. We also evaluated the
alpha coefficient and mean inter-item correlation across all
31 items. Internal reliability was notably high ( = 0.96). As
recommended for a targeted construct (Clark and Watson,
1995) such as the one assessed by this questionnaire, the
mean inter-item correlation was moderate (average r = 0.43).

Alcohol reduction strategies

Correlations of ARS-CC scores with drinking characteristics

We also conducted Pearsons product-moment correlations to
examine the relationship between ARS-CC scores and
several measures of drinking history. Specifically, average
self-efficacy to use these drinking-reduction strategies was
significantly negatively correlated (all Ps < 0.01) with
AUDIT scores [r (352) = 0.26], S-RAPI scores [r (352) =
0.18], typical number of drinks per drinking session
[r (352) = 0.25], typical number of days drinking per week
[r (352) = 0.20], perceived difficulty of abstaining in the
next 30 days [r (352) = 0.29] and not feeling in control of
ones drinking [r (352) = 0.32]. Although this lends some
criterion validity to the ARS-CC, the modest size of these
coefficients indicates that current confidence to employ these
strategies accounted for relatively small proportions of variance in these other drinking variables.
To assess discriminant validity of the ARS-CC, we correlated scale scores with measures of non-drinking healthrelated self-efficacy, alcohol outcome expectancies and
sensation seeking. ARS-CC scores were statistically
significantly associated with self-efficacy to achieve nondrinking health outcomes [r (352) = 0.21, P < 0.01], but were
not significantly correlated with either positive outcome expectancies [r (352) = 0.07, ns], negative outcome expectancies
[r (352) = 0.10, ns] or sensation seeking [r (352) = 0.00, ns].
We interpret this pattern of weak and generally non-significant
associations as providing further support for the discriminant
validity of the ARS-CC.
Finally, because social desirability bias might lead participants to report more confidence to employ the listed alcohol
reduction strategies, we also evaluated the association of
ARS-CC scores with scores on the two subscales of the
balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR).
Self-efficacy was significantly correlated with both selfdeception [r (352) = 0.27, P < 0.01] and with impression
management [r (352) = 0.20, P < 0.01]. These analyses indicate that ones reported self-efficacy to employ these strategies is associated, albeit weakly, with these two measures
of social desirability bias.
Association of gender and binge status with ARS-CC scores
To facilitate comparison with Bonar et al. (2011), we also
conducted a 2 (gender) 3 (binge episode status: 0 episodes/
past 2 weeks; one-or-two episodes/past 2 weeks;
three-or-more episodes/past 2 weeks) between-subjects analysis of variance using average ratings across the 31 items on
the ARS-CC questionnaire as the dependent variable. There
was a significant main effect for gender, F(1, 345) = 13.91, P
< 0.001, partial 2 = 0.04, such that female drinkers (M = 3.74,
SD = 0.75) reported higher self-efficacy than male drinkers
(M = 3.37, SD = 0.85). There was neither a main effect of
episode status, nor was there a significant two-way interaction
for gender by episode status on current self-efficacy.
DISCUSSION
As a follow-up to a previous study evaluating the ARS-CC
questionnaire (Bonar et al., 2011), we recruited a new
sample of binge drinking undergraduates (n = 353) to evaluate the psychometric properties of this self-report

315

questionnaire designed to assess young peoples current confidence to employ 31 specific cognitive-behavioral alcohol
reduction strategies in a specified drinking situation.
Similarly to Bonar et al. (2011), the principal components
analysis, internal reliability analysis and mean inter-item correlation of the ARS-CC for this sample suggested that the 31
items comprise a single scale. The significant correlations
between ARS-CC scores and several measures of drinking
history, and the non-significant correlations of ARS-CC
scores with measures of sensation seeking and alcohol
outcome expectancies, provide support for criterion and discriminant validity of the measure. These findings are also
consistent with the previous study by Bonar et al. (2011)
supporting these properties of the ARS-CC.
Although this study supports several elements of reliability
and validity of this questionnaire with a new sample, we
recruited participants from the same institution as the previous
investigation of the ARS-CC. Generalizability to other campuses may be limited to the degree that students current confidence to employ specific strategies differs depending on the
accessibility of alcohol at the institution one attends, campusspecific alcohol awareness programs and the social acceptability of strategies on different campuses. In addition, depending
on the location and campus culture, students may employ
other, unlisted strategies to reduce their drinking. Therefore,
clinicians and researchers might consider adding an open-ended
question to the ARS-CC asking individuals to list personally
unique alcohol reduction strategies and to rate their confidence
to employ those skills. We also recognize that any self-report
questionnaire of this type depends on respondents willingness
and ability to be insightful and disclosive about their behavior.
Despite these limitations, this second evaluation of the
ARS-CC supports its reliability and several aspects of validity. Therefore, both researchers and clinicians might consider
using this questionnaire to assess university student drinkers
self-confidence to employ this wide range of drinking reduction strategies. For example, counselors could have clients
complete this instrument prior to an intake interview, and
during or in between counseling sessions, to monitor
changes in confidence to use these strategies to restrain their
heavy drinking. Furthermore, program evaluators could use
the ARS-CC as an outcome measure to assess the degree to
which educational interventions impact reported confidence
to employ specific drinking-reduction strategies in various
high-risk drinking situations. Lastly, we encourage additional
research to evaluate strategy-specific self-efficacy in nonstudent and clinical samples.
Funding We received no external funding to conduct this study.

REFERENCES
Annis HM, Graham JM. (1988) Situational Confidence
Questionnaire (SCQ) Users Guide. Toronto: Addiction
Research Foundation.
Benton SL, Schmidt JL, Newton FB et al. (2004) College student
protective strategies and drinking consequences. J Stud Alcohol
Drug 65:11521.
Bonar EE, Rosenberg H, Hoffmann E et al. (2011) Measuring university students self-efficacy to employ drinking self-control
strategies. Psychol Addict Behav 25:15561.
Clark LA, Watson D. (1995) Constructing validity: basic issues in
objective scale development. Psychol Assess 7:30919.

316

Kraus et al.

DiClemente CC, Carbonari JP, Montgomery RPG et al. (1994) The

alcohol abstinence self-efficacy scale. J Stud Alcohol Drug
55:1418.
Earleywine M, LaBrie JW, Pedersen ER. (2008) A brief Rutgers
Alcohol Problem Index with less potential for bias. Addict
Behav 33:124953.
Fromme K, Stroot E, Kaplan D. (1993) Comprehensive effects of
alcohol: development and psychometric assessment of a new
expectancy questionnaire. Psychol Assess 5:1926.
Grembowski D, Patrick D, Diehr P et al. (1993) Self-efficacy and
health behavior among older adults. J Health Soc Behav
34:89104.
Ham LS, Stewart SH, Norton PJ et al. (2005) Psychometric assessment of the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol Questionnaire:
comparing a brief version to the original full scale.
J Psychopath Behav Assess 27:14158.
Hittner JB, Swickert R. (2006) Sensation seeking and alcohol use: a
meta-analytic review. Addict Behav 31:1383401.
Hoyle RH, Stephenson MT, Palmgreen P et al. (2002) Reliability
and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Pers Indiv
Differ 32:40114.
Martens MP, Pederson ER, Labrie JW et al. (2007a) Measuring
alcohol-related protective behavioral strategies among college
students: further examination of the Protective Behavioral
Strategies Scale. Psych Addict Behav 21:30715.
Martens MP, Ferrier AG, Cimini MD. (2007b) Do protective behavioral strategies mediate the relationship between drinking motives and
alcohol use in college students? J Stud Alcohol Drug 68:10614.
Oei TP, Hasking PA, Young RM. (2005) Drinking refusal selfefficacy questionnaire-revised (DRSEQ-R): a new factor structure with confirmatory factor analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend
78:297307.

OHare T. (2001) The Drinking Context Scale. A confirmatory

factor analysis. J Subst Abuse Treat 20:12936.
Paulhus DL. (1984) Two-component models of socially desirable
responding. J Pers Soc Psychol 46:598609.
Paulhus DL. (1991) Measurement and control of response bias. In
Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightman LS (eds). Measures of
Personality and Social Psychology Attitudes. New York:
Academic Press, 1759.
Ray AE, Turrisi R, Abar B et al. (2009) Social-cognitive correlates
of protective drinking behaviors and alcohol-related consequences in college students. Addict Behav 34:9117.
Reinert DF, Allen JP. (2002) The Alcohol Disorders Identification
Test: a review of recent research. Alcohol Clin Exp Res
26:2729.
Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF 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 88:791804.
Selin KH. (2003) Test-retest reliability of the Alcohol Use Disorder
Identification Test in a general population sample. Alcohol Clin
Exp Res 27:142835.
Sitharthan T, Job RFS, Kavanagh DJ et al. (2003) Development
of a controlled Drinking Self-Efficacy Scale and appraising its
relation to alcohol dependence. J Clin Psych 59:35162.
Sugarman DE, Carey KB. (2007) The relationship between drinking
control strategies and college student alcohol use. Psychol
Addict Behav 21:33845.
White HR, Labouvie EW. (1989) Towards the assessment of
adolescent problem drinking. J Stud Alcohol 50:307.
Young RM, Hasking PA, Oei TP et al. (2007) Validation of the
Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire-Revised in an
Adolescent Sample (DRSEQ-RA). Addict Behav 32:8628.