NATIONAL CENTER I Series 2 

For HEALTH STATISTICS I Number 16 

PROPERV m THE 

PUBL\CATIONS
 BRANCH


f3mR\AL LKNARY


VITAL and HEALTH STATISTICS 

DATA EVALUATION AND METHODS RESEARCH 

Identifying 

Problem Drinkers 

In a Household Health Survey 

A description of field procedures and analytical 

techniques 

alcoholism, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT 

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND 

John W. Gardner 

Secretary 

developed to measure the prevalence of 

May 1966 

OF 

WELFARE Public Health Service 

Wil Iiam H. Stewart 

Surgeon General 
Public Health Service Publication No. 10()(). Series 2-No. ]6 
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

FORREST E. LINDER, PH. D., Director 

THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, Deputy Director 

OSWALD K. SAGEN, PH.D.,~~~;-rtantDirector 

WALT R. SIMMONS, M.A.,Statistical Advi~or 

ALICE M. WATERHOUSE, M.D.,Medical Advisor 

JAhIESE. KELLY, D.D.S.,Dental Advi~or 

LOUIS R. STOLCIS,M.A.,Executive Ojicer 

OFFICE OF HEALTH STATISTICSANALYSIS 

IWAO M. MORIYAMA,PH. D., Clz;.j 

DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS 

ROBERTD. GROVE,PH. D., Chief 

DIVISION OF HEALTH INTERVIEW STATISTICS 

PHILIP S. LAWRENCE,Sc. D., Chief 

DIVISION OF HEALTH RECORDS STATISTICS 

MONROEG. SIRKEN, PH. D., C’hief 

DIVISION OF HEALTH EXAMINATION STATISTICS 

ARTHURJ. MCDOWELL, Chief 

DIVIS1ON OF DATA PROCESSING 

SIDNEYBINDER, Chief 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 2-No. 16 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 66-60033 
----------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

-----------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------

---------

------------------------------------------

---------------------------------

-------------------

------------

-------------------------------

--------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS 

Introduction


Review of Previous Research


Iowa Scale of Preoccupation With Alcohol


Hypothesis of Scalability---------------J----------------------------


Validityof the ScaIe


Iowa Index of Trouble Due toDrinking


Study Desi~----------------------------------------------------------


Specifications


Sampling Procedures


Interviewer Selection and Training


Review of Field Work Experience


Results


Preoccupation Scale


Trouble Index


Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research


References


Detailed Tables


Appendix I. Quantity-Frequency Index, Iowa Scale of Definitionsof 

Alcohol, and Scalability of the Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale


Quantity-Frequency Index


Iowa Scale of Definitions of Alcohol


Scalability of the Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale


Appendix II. Definitions of Certain Terms Used in This Report


Terms Relating to Drinking Behavior


Demographic, Social, and Economic Terms


Appendix III. Letter and Questionnaire Used in Cedar Rapids Health


Survey


Page 

1 

2 

2 

3 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

7 

8 

9 

9 

11 

11 

13 

14 

35 

35 

35 

36 

38 

38 

38 

40 
------------------------ ---

-------------------

----------------------------

------------------

THIS ISA REPORT on a study to develop and evaluate interview survey techniques designed to identify p?’oblem drinkers by means of a 

household health suwey. 

It describes the construction, use, and effectiveness of various meas -

u rement scales devised by the principal investigator. 

Included is a complete appraisal of a major field test which was conducted in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. This appyaisal compyises the details of 

the collection pvocedu~es, analytical methods, and a summary and assessment of the validity of the findings. 

Discussed aye the implications of this study and sl[ggestions for additional Yesearch Yequired to imp~ove these collection techniques prioy to 

use in the Health InteYview Survey. 

SYMBOLS 

Data not available 

Category not applicable . . . 

Quantity zero -

Quantity more than O but less than 0.05---- 0.0 

Figure does not meet standards of * reliability or precision 
IDENTIFYING PROBLEM DRINKERS IN


A HOUSEHOLD HEALTH SURVEY


Harold A. Mulford, Principal Investigato~ and Ronald W. Wilson, Field Di~ector 

INTRODUCTION Although alcoholism has not been defined 

medically in terms of etiological factors or in 

This study conducted in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, terms of identifying psychological or biological 

was mainly concerned with the development of a characteristics, still we may suppose that persons 

set of questions which the Division of Health who are recognized, labeled, and treated as 

Interview Statistics of the National Center for alcoholics possess certain characteristics in comHealth Statistics could use to identify problem mon. If the label is not applied haphazardly, if 

drinkers or “alcoholics” with a reasonable degree alcoholics do share common distinguishing charof accuracy in its continuing household health acteristics, it should be possible to discover 

interview survey. The study also concerned itself these characteristics. Most definitions of alcowith the respondent’s reaction to being asked holism suggest that the distinguishing mark of 

questions about his own and other household the alcoholic is deviant drinking and related bemembers’ use of beverage alcohol in a health havior. Typical of such definitions is the World 

interview. Health Organization definition: 

Although alcoholism as a disease remains The general term “alcoholism ‘r signifies poorly understood and so ill-defined that medical 

any form of drinking which in its extent 

diagnosis varies greatly,l the fact remains that 

goes beyond the traditional and customary there are “alcoholics” in our society. Although, “dietary” use, or the ordinary compliance as yet, their number can be only guessed, it is with the social drinking customs of the whole 

known that persons who abuse alcohol are so community concerned, irrespective of the numerous and their drinking behavior so dis- etiological factors leading to such behavior 

ruptive to the social organization that society and irrespective also of the extent to which does not ignore them, Most social agencies and such etiological factors are dependent upon professionals in their regular work encounter men heredity, constitution, or acquired physio­ id women whom they label “alcoholic” and treat pathological metabolic influences. 2 

accordingly. A means of identifying the persons 

who have been so labeled (as well as those who are Keller’3 and Marconi 4 after reviewing the 

likely candidates) in a sample of the general history of conceptions of alcoholics and alcopopulation would be valuable to researchers study- holism also arrived at definitions which emphaing the epidemiology as well as the etiology of size “deviant” drinking behavior. Indeed, so 

alcoholism and would aid administrators of action far, alcoholics cannot be identified without knowlprograms designed to alleviate the alcoholism edge of their use of alcohol. Although current 

problem. definitions suggest the feasibility of identifying 

1

alcoholics through interviews which inquire almut 

beverage alcohol use, none of them specifies 

the behaviors involved. Thus, there remains 

the fundamental research question to which this 

study is addressed: Is it possible, by asking the 

respondent in a household survey sample a few 

simple questions about his own and other related 

household members’ drinking behavior, to distinguish those persons whose drinking andrelated 

behavior is a sine qua non of the “alcoholism” 

problem—i.e., persons who have been labeled 

“alcoholic” or who are likely candidates for the 

label—and to do so with reasonable accuracy? 

More particularly, the study objectives are: 

1.	 To test the validity of the Iowa Scale of 

Preoccupation With Alcohol and the Iowa 

Index of Trouble Due to Drinking. 

2. If the above indicators are found wanting, to then search for other questionnaire items that will distinguish alcoholics. 

3.	 To investigate respondent reaction to being 

asked about his drinking in a health interview survey. 

4<	 To develop new hypotheses regarding 

interviewing and other procedures for 

identifying alcoholics in a household health 

survey. 

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH 

The task of identifying the alcoholics in 

a general population sample must begin with 

only the vaguest notion of the actual nature and 

size of the target population. The work must 

necessarily proceed without an independent, unambiguous definition of the alcoholic against which 

the measures being studied can be precisely 

validated. The following operational definition is 

taken as a point of departure: 

An alcoholic is anyone who repeatedly drinks 

beverage alcohol to the extent that it adversely affects his life—his health, domestic 

relations, job performance, or relations with 

the law. 

The study also proceeds from the tenttitive 

assumption that the target population approximates 3 to 6 percent of the study population, 

i.e., Cedar Rapids adults, 21 years of age md 

over. This estimate is based on the Jellinek formula, the only means presently available for 

making prevalence estimates. It is an indirect 

measure based on deaths from cirrhosis of the 

liver. Critics have raised many questions abour 

the formula and its validity remains problematic. 5’6 In response to the critics, Jellinek reconl -

mended the use of the formula be discontinued and 

urged further search for an alternative means oi 

identifying and counting alcoholics. 7 Parenthetically, it should be noted that even if statistical 

formulas yielded valid prevalence estimates—and 

this would be very valuable—such formulas still 

would not be as useful as a procedure to identify 

individual alcoholics in a survey sample. This 

would permit the gathering of more detailed information regarding the characteristics of the alcoholic population and would open many more possibilities for future etiological and epidemiological 

studies. 

When applied to 1963 deaths from cirrhosis 

of the liver in Iowa, the Jellinek formula estimates 

that 3.1 percent of the adults of Iowa me alcoholics. Since the formula estimates are probably 

conservative (p. 265) and since Ced~r Rapids 

is an urban area, we would expect the Cedar 

Rapids rate to be higher than 3.1 percent. Thus, 

for working purposes it will be assumed th~t thu 

Cedar Rapids rate is approximately 3 to 6 percent. 

Previous work 8-11 seeking to discover the 

kind of behavior characterizing persons which 

our society recognizes as alcoholics has yielded 

two indexes: the Iowa Scale of Preoccupation 

With Alcohol and the Iowa Index of Trouble 

Due to Drinking. 

Iowa Scale of Preoccupation With Alcohol 

The genesis of the Preoccupation Scale items 

listed in chart 1 can be traced to 1945 when 178 

Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) members responded 

to a questionnaire asking them about their drinking and related behavior prior to their association 

with the Alcoholics Anonymous group and the age 

at first occurrence of such behavior. Jellinek 

analyzed these responses 12 and developed a re2 
vised questionnaire containing some 100 drinking 

Lmh:lvior items which was administered to an 

:Idditional 2,000 Alcoholics Anonymous members. 

There were indications that certain drinking belmviors tended to follow others in a time order. 13 

Later, Jackson*4’ls using Guttman’s scaling proct.dures found that 10 of Jellinek’s items posscss~’d a cumulative quality. 

Until this point, all of the work had been done 

on Alcoholics Anonymous members and persons 

who had been institutionalized— i.e., either hospitalized or jailed as alcoholics. In 1958, Mulford 

;md Millers tested the hypothesis that a portion of 

:1 sample of the general population of Iowa would 

report these kinds of drinking behavior and report them in a cumulative fashion. Pursuing the 

methods described below, the Iowa Scale of preoccupation With Alcohol was developed. 

Chatt 1. The Iowa Scolc of Proocc.poti.n With Alcohol 

C.”trlvd Itm 5,,01!! score 

AI SI.y int.xicatcd for scv.r.l d.ys at o time. 

I worry about not being able tQ got . drink when I Agree on 

[ need on.. .ny two 

I sncok drinks when no ono is looking. 

t’Onto I start drinking it is difficult for III. to stop 

11 

before I b.c.mc cnmplctcly i.toxic.tcd. 

I get intoxicated on work days. Agree . . 

.“y two 

I t.kc o drink tho first thing when I get up in the 

morning, 

~1 awoke. .oxt day not bci”g able to rwn.mber some 

of the things I had done while I was drinking. 

I tokc a fmv quick ones boforc going to a party to Agree o. 

Ill make sum [ have c...gh. any two 

/ I IIctjcct my regular IIIC.IS whc” I mn dri”ki”g. 

~ I dannt:.rs. my drinks: I toss them down pretty 

Iv I drink for tho cffoct of alcohol with little attention Agree on 

to type of bcv.r.gc or brand name. any two 

~ Liquor has loss effect on m. than it used to. 

~ Thtv+J six sto,,mcnts wrc used in the Natimml Survey conducted by the Notionol 

OIIIntVn Rcscnrch Center In 1963. 

NOTE: Contrived itcrn V incl.dcs those not “preoccupied.” 

In the 195S Iowa survey, interviews were 

conducted with 1,1 S5 persons chosen to represent 

th~$ miult population of Iowa. A description of the 

L’(I r~y development of the preoccupation Scale has 

hLtLInpukdished previously. s The 706 respondents 

who reported that they were not total abstainers 

\\JL’ ~L’ c’LIch presented with the 12 statements given 

in chart 1. (Respondents were given a total of 

16 items, including, with modified wording, all but 

1 of the 10 items which Jackson found scalable. 

However, 4 of the 16 items were not scalable and 

were discarded. ) The respondents were also given 

these instructions: 

Here is a list of statements concerning the 

use of alcoholic beverages (of all kinds). 

For each statement check whether or not you 

Pevsonaliy would make that statement about 

your own drinking. Choose the most appropriate response. 

The response alternatives were “frequently,” 

“sometimes ,“ and “never. ” The number of “frequently” responses was so small that they were 

combined with “sometimes” and either was scored 

as positive. 

Hypothesis of Scalability 

It was not surprising that 394 (56 percent) of 

the 706 drinkers rejected all 12 of the statements, 

which, on their face, are quite extreme. Guttman 

scaling procedures (a technique of scoring a list 

of statements of increasing severity in which a 

person who responds positively to a given item is 

also expected to respond positively to all statements of a lesser degree of severity) were then 

applied to the responses of all drinkers to the 12 

statements. (This and the following paragraph 

are a summary of a more detailed description 

of the scaling procedures reported in Appendix I.) 

To improve reliability and at the same time 

retain all the statements, the 12 statements were 

combined into four contrived items, each composed of three statements, as shown in chart 1. 

A response to each contrived item is considered 

positive if “yes” was answered to any two or all 

three of the single statements making up the contrived item. Altogether 158 (22 percent) of the 706 

drinkers responded favorably to one or more of 

the contrived items. A respondent is assigned a 

scale score which is the same as the number 

of the “most difficult” contrived item to which 

he responded positively, provided that he responded to the other contrived items of “less 

difficulty” in a scale fashion. 

In 1961 a replication studyl lwas made to 

test the reliability of the Preoccupation Scale. 

3 
Artother similar-sized sample (n= 1,213) of the 

adult population of Iowa was interviewed. Based 

on the responses of the total drinking population 

(715 cases compared with 706 in the original 

survey), the proportion that responded favorably 

to each item was slightly lower in the replication 

(see table 2). Considering that many of the items 

had nearly identical marginal frequencies, the 

fact that the original rank order was substantially 

maintained is evidence strongly supporting the 

stability of the scale. It is not surprising, therefore, that the 12 items were again found to possess 

a high degree of cumulativeness. The contrived 

item response frequencies of the two studies 

also compare favorably (table 3). 

Further evidence of the reliability of the 

scale has been found in the highly consistent 

results of subsequent surveys including the 1961 

survey of 235 people in a small Iowa community, 

Belle Plaine ,16 and a national survey of 1,515 

individuals in 196?J. *7 In each of the surveys the 

marginal frequencies of the individual items were 

similar, and approximately the same proportions 

fell into the different scale types (tables 2 and 3). 

Validity of the Scale 

While, as yet, evidence of the validity of the 

scale is meager, still, previous research has 

yielded certain pertinent evidence. In the absence 

of an independent definition or other valid criteria, 

it is impossible to say what scale scores, if any, 

distinguish alcoholics. It will be seen later that it 

is most reasonable to consider scale types I and II, 

and probably HI also, as alcoholics (chart 1). 

The 1958 study revealed that cutting the scale 

at midpoint and considering scale types I and II 

alcoholics yielded the rate (3 percent) of alcoholics that would be expected from the Jellinek 

formula when applied to Iowa deaths from cirrhosis of the liver. (An additional 3 percent of the 

sample scored III. ) Moreover, the sociocultural 

distribution of the I and II’s (as well as the III’s) 

was consistent with Jellinek formula estimates. 

In the 1961 replication study only 17 subjects, 

or one-half as many as in the original study, 

scored I or H, but the same proportion (3 percent) 

scored III. The sociocultural distribution of the 

17 cases was consistent with the earlier findings 

except that in the original study one-half of the 35 

alcoholics (scale types I and 11) were Catholic 

compared with only 1 out of the 17 scale types I 

and H in the replication study. In short, the scale 

has repeatedly identified a small segment (approximately 3 to 6 percent, depending on the cutting 

point used) of the population with a similar sociocultural makeup. 

In addition, it was demonstrated by both 

the original (1958) and the replication (196 1) 

study that the Preoccupation Scale scores had the 

logically expected association with three other 

measures which may be considered part of a constellation of elements which mark the extreme 

deviant drinker. These are the Iowa Scale of 

Definitions of Alcohol, which is an attitudinal 

measure of the extent to which drinkers define 

alcohol for its personal effects (see Appendix I), 

the Quantity-Frequency Index (see Appendix 1) 

of the extent of alcohol consumption, and the Iowa 

Index of Trouble Due to Drinking. 

Finally, quite consistent with the Jellinek and 

Jackson work with institutionalized alcoholics 

and AA members, it has been demonstrated that 

the Iowa Scale of Preoccupation With t\lcohol 

would identify medically diagnosed alcoholics. In a 

study of 435 alcoholics 18 who were hospitalized 

in one Minnesota and two Iowa State hospitals, it 

was found that 80 percent of these patients were 

scale types I or II, and an additional 10 percent 

received a score of III. 

In summary, previous research has demonstrated that (1) the Preoccupation Scale repeatedly 

identifies a small (approximately 3 to 6 percent, 

depending on whether scale type III, as well as 

types I and II, is considered “alcoholic”) segment 

of the population with similar sociocultural characteristics, (2) the scale has the logically expected 

association with other indicators of extreme deviant drinking, (3) the segment of the general 

population identified by the scale approximates 

Jellinek formula estimates in size and sociocultural distribution, and (4) up to 90 percent of 

hospitalized alcoholics met the scale criteria. 

There is one final bit of indirect evidence 

bearing on the validity of the scale. Although 

there is empirical evidence that hospitalized 

alcoholics and AA members manifest the behavior 

in question, it has been merely assumed throughout the research reviewed above that the public 

agrees that the kind of behavior referred to in the 

4 
Preoccupation Scale is generally labeled “alcoholic. ” In a recent study, 19this assumption survived empirical scrutiny. A study of 175 persons 

chosen to represent the adult population of a small 

Iowa community revealed that the public generally 

agrees that anyone whose drinking is described by 

the several scale items is an alcoholic and should 

do something about his drinking. The proportion 

agreeingthat these several items mark the” alcoholic varied from 75 to 97 percent—with higher 

agreement with the items toward the top of the 

scale. 

Iowa Index of Trouble Due to Drinking 

Although it has been shown that persons whom 

society has called alcoholic —institutionalized alcoholics and AA members — report the behavior 

described in the Preoccupation Scale and there 

is public agreement that such behavior deserves 

the label alcoholic, still conceivably, a significant 

number of drinkers can “get by” with this kind 

of behovior without being designated alcoholic. 

It may be that such extreme deviant drinking is 

often overlooked unless and until it affects significant areas of the drinker’s life or affects his 

:~bility to perform his usual social role. Moreover, 

certain subpopulations may be more prone than 

others to overlook such behavior. Following this 

rationale, the Iowa Index of Trouble Due to Drinking was constructed as a supplement to, or perhaps an alternative for, the Preoccupation Scale. 

Chart 2. The Iowa Index of Trouble Due to Drinking 

1.	 Has cm employer ever ffred you or thre.t.”ed to fire you if you did not 

cut down or quit drinking? Yes No 

2.	 Hos your husband (wife) ever left you or thre.tenod to leave y.. if you 

did not do something about your drinking? Yes N. 

3.	 H.s your husband (wife) or other f.mi Iy member ever .ornploined that 

you spend too much money for alcoholic beverages? Yes N. 

4.	 Hove you ever been picked up or arrested by the police for intoxication 

or other charges l“volving alcoholic beverog es? Yes No 

5. Hcis a physician ever told you that drinking was iniuring your health? Yes No 

This index has been given less study than the 

l’reoccupation Scale. Although the original 1958 

survey employed items similar to those listed 

above, the index in its present form was first 

used in the 1961 Iowa study where 7 percent 

of the drinkers (or 4 percent of all adults) reported one or more troubles. In a recent national 

survey 1710 percent of the respondents reported 

one or more of these troubles. The Trouble Index 

scores have been found highly associated with Preoccupation Scale scores in the two state surveys 

and in the national survey. Moreover, most of the 

435 hospitalized alcoholics reported these kinds 

of troubles due to drinking. Finally, we have 

demonstrated19 that there is even greater public 

agreement that these troubles mark the alcoholic 

than in the case of the preoccupation items. The 

validity of this index will also be examined in 

this study. It is suspected that it may suffer from 

too many “false-positive” cases. 

STUDY DESIGN 

Specifications 

1.	 Wherever possible, National Health Survey (NHS) study procedures will be simulated. 

2.	 A random sample of housing units in an 

urban area will be obtained. 

.3.	 The random sample will be “loaded” with 

addresses of households containing known 

alcoholics and this fact will be concealed 

from the interviewers. 

4.	 The Iowa Scale of Preoccupation With 

Alcohol and the Iowa Index of Trouble 

Due to Drinking as well as other questions 

shown by previous studies to be indicative of extreme deviant drinking will be 

incorporated into a questionnaire containing many regular health survey questions. 

5. At-home adult members of a household 

will be interviewed personally and any 

responsible adult family member may respond for members not at home. 

Sampling Procedures 

GeneYal Jlouselzold sample. —The statistical 

laboratory of Iowa State University at Ames, Iowa, 

drew a probability sample of housing units in 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa (population approximately 

93,000). The city was stratified by its 25 voting 

5 
precincts. Within each precinct, city blocks were 

selected randomly in proportion to the number of 

housing units in the precinct. The number of 

blocks drawn per precinct ranged from 3 to 14. 

A total of 150 blocks was drawn. From each block 

was drawn a cluster of housing units. Although it 

was intended that the clusters would contain four 

adjacent housing units, the actual number of housing units drawn from each block varied from two 

to eight, This variation arose from the fact that 

the 1960 census of housing was used to estimate 

the number of housing units in a block, but the 

actual number had, in some cases, changed and 

the cluster size varied accordingly. For example, 

if the census indicated 10 housing units in a particular block but field observation discovered 5 new 

ones had been added, then 6 housing units rather 

than 4 were selected from that block. 

After the sample blocks were drawn, field 

workers determined the actual number of housing 

units in the block and randomly selected a housing unit and the appropriate number of adjacent 

units. Addresses were recorded and the number 

of households at each address was checked. In 

the end, this general population sample consisted 

of 583 households. The general household sample 

was to serve a number of purposes: 

1.	 To provide one more test of the stability 

of the measures under study. 

2.	 To simulate NHS interviewing procedures 

and check public response to being asked 

about drinking behavior LM part of a 

health survey. 

3.	 To camouflage the known alcoholics from 

the interviewers. 

4.	 To discover whether items that were 

common to known alcoholics also distinguished an “unreasonable” proportion 

of the general population which would be 

indicative of many false positives. 

Known alcoholics. — In order to test the ability 

of the Preoccupation Scale, the Trouble Index, or 

other items to identif y alcoholics, it was necessary 

to include in the sample a number of’ ‘known alcoholics,” that is, persons previously identified as 

alcoholics by independent criteria. In the absence 

of an unambiguous definition, the criteria used to 

identify the “known alcoholic” population should 

approximate those by which society generally 

recognizes and labels alcoholics. Although alcoholism is now considered a medical disease and 

a major health problem, present knowledge still 

indicates that it would be futile to rely on medical 

diagnoses if tie study target population is drinkers 

whose behavior constitutes the alcoholism problem. A recent study of Iowa physicians 2“ shows 

that for every patient they diagnosed as alcoholic, 

they saw two other patients whose complaint was 

mainly attributable to excessive drinking, although 

alcoholism was not diagnosed. In another study lof 

admissions to a large general hospital, a research 

team headed by a physician reviewed the medical 

records of 3,000 patients and diagnosed more than 

twice as many of these patients to be alcoholic as did the chief admitting officer. Moreover, it has already been demonstrated that 80 

to 90 percent of hospitalized, medically diagnosed 

alcoholics meet the Preoccupation Scale criteria, 

but the concern of this study is the noni?zsfihltiottalized alcoholics. 

As a practical matter, the identification and 

labeling of a person as an alcoholic is a reaction 

to the subject’s drinking behavior by some cornbination of his family, friends, employer, and 

various community agencies and protkssiotmls 

which may or may not include a physician. Therefore, the records of several community agencies 

and the judgment of several “resource” persons 

were relied on to obtain a group of known LdCOholics. Sources included police files and pol icc 

‘ officers, court records, AA leaders, conlp:lny 

personnel managers, clergynlen, judges, :Lnd th’ 

county welfare office. In addition, two clinicians 

associated with a State hospital ond who work with 

Alcoholics in the area were consulted. 

The resource persons contdcted w~rc ~ivc’n 

an explanation of the study aims and purposvs, 

confidentiality was assured, and they were Liskul 

for names and addresses of persons in the com ­

munity whom they considered alcoholics. “rhL’Y 

were given the earlier stated opcr.ltion,~ 1 dct’i ­

nition (see “Review of Previous Research”) ofthv 

alcoholic as a guide and these instructions: “W’C 

are looking for cases that are currently activu — 

within the past year. ” ,Uthough the resource person was told, “If you list a case which does not 

fit our definition but whom you consider to lw 

an alcoholic nevertheless, please rnukc o spcwi II 
note of it, ” no such cases were reported. Efforts 

wc$r~’also made toobtain the following information 

:Ihout these “known alcoholics”: -age, sex, marital status , and occupation. It should be noted at 

this point that the Index of Trouble Due to Drinking is not entirely independent of this definition. 

This will receive further attention later. 

A mwter list of 3S1 names was compiled 

from the several sources. The list was then 

submitted to those resource persons who seemed 

most knowledgeable about the city of Cedar Rapids 

and alcoholics for their confirmation. In addition, 

the master list was checked against the police 

files for the past 2 years for records of drinking 

rclatml tirrests. The list was also checked against 

past records of the alcoholic ward at a nearby 

State mental health institute, a Veterans Administration hospital, and the State Psychopathic Hospital, all of which serve the Cedar Rapids area. 

Only persons whose name was submitted or confirmed by two or more sources were considered as 

known alcoholics for the study. 

About half of the original 381 names were 

lost for lack of confirmation by a second source. 

Usually, this was because the second source did 

not know the subject in question. Further losses 

occurred due to a variety of reasons -some lived 

outside the sampling area, some were removed 

from the list because one or more of the resource 

persons expressed the belief that the subject in 

question had been sober for some time, or that he 

was currently a member of Alcoholics Anonymous”, 

or thut he was deceased. Further losses occurred 

prior to the interview, when a check of the addrvssc’s of the known alcoholics revealed that for 

33 of them no address could be obtained. Thus, 

the final list of known alcoholics added to the 

gencr~d sample contained 120 persons living in 

11f] housing units. (During the actual interviewing 

it wus discovered that 27 of the known alcoholics no longer lived at the address given. Five 

of the addresses were vacant. ) All of these 120 

known tilcoholics had been identified or confirmed 

by at least two sources and more than half 

of them were so designated by more than 

two. 

Neighbovs Oj-alcoholics. -Since the general 

sample consisted of clusters of housing units, 

the “alcoholic addresses” would be conspicuous 

to the interviewers because they stood alone. To 

overcome this, it was decided to include the alcoholic’s neighbor in the sample. Since one of the 

known alcoholics fell into the general sample and 

one lived adjacent to a general sample address, 

it was necessary to select only 114 neighbors to 

“camouflage” the 116 alcoholics (table 1). The 

right or left neighbor of the alcoholic was selected 

randomly. This brought the total number of housing 

units in the sample to 813. The known alcoholics 

are compared with their neighbors in tables 12 

and 13. 

Interviewer Selection and Training 

A professional, experienced interviewer supervisor was employed to aid the principal investigator and field director in recruiting, training, and supervising the interviewers. Nineteen 

interviewers were recruited. They were all females, most of them housewives, ranging in age 

from 23 to 63 years. Except for two university 

students, they were residents of Cedar Rapids 

and vicinity. All but one was an experienced interviewer. 

Three 2!Lhour training sessions were held. 

At the first session, and before the nature of 

the study was revealed, each interviewer took 

the role of a respondent and completed one of 

the questionnaires she would be using in the study. 

This served to acquaint the interviewer with the 

questionnaire and to provide information about the 

interviewer for possible use in later analysis of 

the study methods. The interviewer manual was 

studied in detail at one of the sessions. 

Between the second and third training sessions, interviewers were required to conduct 

three to five practice interviews. Their experience 

and any problems they had encountered were 

reviewed in the last training session. Also, 

during the last training session the interviewers 

who had encountered difficulty in their practice 

interviews were asked to interview each other 

as a demonstration for the group. Before the 

field work began, one interviewer withdrew (her 

husband had a drinking problem), and one was 

dropped because of incompetence. Thus, 17 interviewers did the field work. 

The study was explained to the interviewers 

as a survey to investigate the connection between 

health and drinking habits of a somple of the Cedar 

7 
Rapids population. The interviewers werenottold 

that the sample was “loaded” with known alcoholics. After the first day of interviewing, some 

of them voiced suspicions that they were encountering more than the usual number of very heavy 

drinkers. However, this was not particularly disturbing to them and they were told that regardless of such suspicions they should proceed as 

though the y were dealing with an ordinary sample. 

After the field work was completed, they were 

told that the sample included a group of known 

alcoholics. 

Assignments .—Since the interviewers were 

residents of Cedar Rapids, in the interest of 

confidentiality and to avoid possible embarrassment, assignments were so made as to minimize the likelihood that interviewers would be 

interviewing a personal acquaintance. No interviewer was given assignments in her own neighborhood. Moreover, the interviewers were instructed that if they arrived at an address of 

a friend or personal acquaintance, they were to 

leave that address for another interviewer. Otherwise, assignments were made as randomly as 

possible with special care taken to distribute the 

known alcoholics among all 17 interviewers. Thus, 

each interviewer had assignments in several parts 

of the city. Interviewing was done during all parts 

of the day, and interviewers made daily reports to 

the field director and interviewer supervisor, 

turning in the completed questionnaires. The field 

work was conducted during the first 2 weeks of 

January 1964. 

Intemiewing p~ocedures. —Information was 

obtained either from or about all members of a 

household who were at least 21 years old or were 

married. Interviews were conducted in a group 

situation for all adults present at the time of 

the interview. Information on absent related 

household members was obtained from one of the 

members present (usually the spouse), hereafter referred to as a “proxy respondent. ” Interviewers returned later to interview unrelated 

absent household members. 

The questionnaire was preceded except for 

several open-ended questions concerning illnesses. The interviewer recorded the responses 

to all questions except two series of scale questions. For these scale questions, self-respondents 

were handed questionnaire insert pages containing the Preoccupation Scale and the Definitions of Alcohol Scale and recorded their own 

responses. For absent related household members, the interviewer asked these scale items 

of the member being interviewed. 

The interviews averaged about 40 minutes in 

length and ranged from 20 to 90 minutes. Interviewers were instructed to make as many 

callbacks as necessary. Where repeated refusals 

were encountered, a second, and in some cases 

a third, interviewer was sent. With few exceptions, all interview questions had been repeatedly 

used in previous studies and in addition the questionnaire was itself pretested. (See Appendix 11for 

definitions of terms used in this report and 

Appendix III for a copy of the survey questionnaire. ) 

Each day at least one of each interviewer’s 

questionnaires was validated by a phone call to 

the respondent who was again asked some of the 

key questions. In all, about 15 percent of the 

questionnaires were thus validated. Errors were 

few and there was no evidence of careless 

interviewing or falsification of answers. 

REVIEW OF FIELD WORK 

EXPERIENCE 

Both the field director and interviewer supervisor worked closely with the interviewers 

and had personal contact with them at least once 

a day. The interviewers were quite interested 

and even enthusiastic about working on this 

particular survey. Some commented that it was 

the most interesting study they had worked on. 

Interviewers reported an impression that some 

persons welcomed an opportunity to discuss their 

drinking problems. 

As in several previous surveys, prior apprehension regarding inquiries about respondent 

drinking habits proved ill-founded. AH indications 

were that the interviewing proceeded smoothly 

and that the interviewers were well received by 

the respondents. No unusual difficulties were 

encountered in interviewing either abstaining or 

drinking respondents. Even heavy drinkers and 

alcoholics were cooperative. An indication of the 

rapport between interviewers and respondents is 

evidenced by the high return rate shown in table 1. 

8 
Interestingly enough, the refusal ratewasactually 

lower among the known alcoholics. 

Initially, there were 813 addresses or households which the interviewers were instructed to 

contuct. However, despite previous checking at the 

time the sample was drawn, several of these 

addresses contained more than one household. 

Thus, when the interviewing was completed there 

was a total of 822 households at which an attempt 

was made to obtain an interview. Interviews 

were completed at 727 households, for an overall 

completion rate of S8.4 percent. However, in computing completion rates, 37 households should be 

omitted from the total, because no interview was 

tittempted or even possible. The main reason 

was vacancies; 30 housing units were vacant. 

In addition, two units were occupied by single 

persons under the age of 21 years who were 

therefore outside the bounds of the sample 

criteria, One unit was occupied by persons 

who had a regular home elsewhere, and four 

addresses referred to nonexistent units. With 

these units removed, the completion rate was 

W.6 percent. Table 1 presents the completion 

r:~tes for the total sample and the three subsdmples. 

RESULTS 

Preoccupation Scale 

Tables 2 and 3 show that the responses to 

the Preoccupation Scale by the Cedar Rapids 

general population sample are highly consistent 

with those of previous general population samples. 

The marginal frequencies of the individual items 

(table 2) are similar; and table 3 shows that, comp:mable with previous results, 2 percent of the 

Cedar Rapids general population sample received 

a score of I or H and 3 percent scored III. 

Considering that an earlier study had demonstrated that 90 percent of medically diagnosed hospitalized alcoholics scored high on the Preoccup:~tion Scale and hazarding the assumption that 

such alcoholics represent all alcoholics, it was 

thought that, in this study likewise, some 80 perCcint of the known alcoholics would score I or II and 

mother 10 percent would score III. However, this 

was not the case. Table 3 shows that only 39 perCcTIt Of our known alcoholics scored I or II and 11 

percent scored III, while another 9 percent scored 

IV. There is little hesitation to lower the cutting 

point employed in earlier Iowa surveys and 

consider scale type III’s as well as I’s and II’s 

to be alcoholics because in the Cedar Rapids 

general sample as well as in previous studies 

this would isolate as alcoholics only 5 or 6 

percent of the general population, which does not 

seem unreasonable. But to lower it still further 

and consider type IV’S as alcoholics would mean 

that 10 to 13 percent of the general population 

would fall into the “alcoholic” category, and a 

strong likelihood of false positive cases arises. 

The failure of the known alcoholics to meet the 

scale criteria to the extent that institutionalized 

alcoholics do suggests that institutionalized alcoholics are highly selected or have redefined themselves and their drinking practices. Conceivably, 

a major selective factor is the amount of interpersonal trouble encountered. It is also likely that 

institutionalization itself has helped the person see 

his drinking habits as others do. 

The stability of the scale across so many 

general population samples, its ability to identify 

hospitalized alcoholics, and the fact that it did 

distinguish one-half of the known alcoholics in the 

present study combine to justify further analysis 

seeking clues as to why the scale missed onehalf of the known alcoholics. The basic question 

raised is, “How do those who scored high differ 

from those who did not?” The answer may lie in 

one or more of these possible sources of bias: 

(1) the procedure employed to identify the known 

alcoholics, (2) the interviewers and interviewing 

procedures, (3) the fact that in some instances a 

family member (‘‘proxy”) responded for absent 

alcoholics, (4) the scale may selectively identify 

only alcoholics with certain sociocultural, behavioral, or attitudinal characteristics. These 

possibilities are considered in order. 

1.	 Little or no evident was found for indicting the sources used to identify the 

known alcoholics. It was fuund that three 

resource persons provided names of alcoholics most of whom did not meet the 

scale criteria. But, most of these names 

were of higher income persons. Presently 

it will be seen that this fact tends to relieve the three resource persons as a 

source of bias. 

9 
2. 

3. 

4. 

No evidence of interviewer bias was detected. The known alcoholics who failed 

to meet the Preoccupation Scale criteria 

were well distributed among the interviewers. Most interviewers had only from 

two to five known alcoholics in their 

assignment. Three were given between 

10 and 12. The alcoholics who failed to 

scale were well distributed among the 

interviewers; therefore no bias is attributed to interviewer variation. 

Analysis of self versus “proxy” responses 

among known alcoholics (shown in tables 

4-6) revealed that in households containing 

known alcoholics, proxies were more likely than the alcoholic himself to report 

trouble in the household and were more inclined to rate the alcoholic higher on the 

Definitions of Alcohol Scale. There was a 

slight tendency for proxies to score the 

alcoholic higher on the Preoccupation 

Scale. In the general sample, proxies 

were more likely than self to report 

heavy drinking and trouble due to drinking. However, the difference between self 

and proxy responses is not great enough 

to account for’ the failure of half the 

known alcoholics to achieve high scale 

scores. 

Tables 7 and 8 show that, as a group, 

subjects who scored high on the- Preoccupation Scale (as well as on the Trouble 

Index and the two additional indicators of 

deviant drinking) differed on certain sociocultural measures from those who 

scored low. These differences suggest that 

the scale may more successfully identify 

alcoholics in certain subpopulations than 

in others, 

The outstanding sociocultural differences between the known alcoholics who met the Preoccupation Scale criteria and those who did not 

are education and income (table 11). Thus, as 

we would expect, table 11 reveals that the scale 

more successfully identified (scale scores I-III) 

the known alcoholics with lower rather than higher 

education and income. It identified three out of 

four (74.3 percent) of the known alcoholics with 

an income less than $6,000, but only one in three 

(35.4 percent) of those with higher incomes (fig. 

1). At the same time, the scale distinguished 4.0 

percent of the general population with incomes 

under $6,000 and 5.1 percent of those with 

higher incomes. This seems reasonable in view 

of our original assumption that the target population constitutes about 3 to 6 percent of the 

general population. The scale also more successfully identifies alcoholics in the lower rather than 

the higher education categories. 

However, it is interesting to note that in the 

general population it was the highest income category that had the highest rate of preoccupation 

scores I-HI. This may be a chance variation but 

it deserves attention in future studies as does 

the variation in rates of presumed alcoholics in 

other social segments. Moreover, the rate of presumed alcoholics in the several social segments 

of the general population as measured by the Preoccupation Scale should be compared with the rates 

as measured by the Trouble Due to Drinking Index. 

G 00


C9 t 74,3


Preoccupotlon Troublo Indtx scort 

Scale score I,E,IU I or m0r9 

Figure I. Percent of known alcohol ics scoring high


on Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale (1 , I1, I11)


and Trouble Due to Drinking Index ( I or more),


by income,


10 
Trouble Index 

iLs in previous studies, the Preoccupation 

Stole scores again have the logically expected 

association with the Trouble Due to Drinking 

Index as well as with the other two indicators of 

extreme deviant drinking, the Quantity-Frequency 

Index and the Iowa Scale of Definitions of Alcohol. 

This is apparent from tables 9 and 10. Table 10 

shows that 93.2 percent of the known alcoholics 

with high Preoccupation Scale scores reported 

one or more troubles due to drinking compared 

with 3:3.3 percent of the lower scale types. The 

lower rather than the ‘higher income known alcoholics tended to report troubles as shown in table 

11, where 85.7 percent of the known alcoholics 

with incomes under $6,000 (and 45.8 percent of 

those over $6,000) reported one or more troubles 

(fig. 1). By comparison, only 6.2 percent of the 

general population with less than $6,000 and 5.1 

percent of those with higher incomes reported 

trouble. Moreover, the Trouble Index, as well as 

the Preoccupation Scale, more successfully identified the alcoholics in the lower rather than higher 

education categories. While 90.3 percent of the 

known alcoholics who were not high school gradutites reported trouble, only 38.7 percent of those 

with any college education did so. By comparison, 

7.LJ and 3.3 percent of the general population in 

the se two educational categories reported trouble 

(table 11). 

Since neither the Preoccupation Scale nor the 

Index of Trouble Due to Drinking was entirely 

adequate to the task of distinguishing alcoholics, 

it was decided to employ a general regression 

analysis to examine responses to all drinking 

questions asked in the interview in order to learn 

which of them most successfully discriminate between the known alcoholics and the general sample. 

A split-half procedure was used, in which the 

somple was randomly divided into two groups. 

Findings from the analysis of the first half were 

then compared for consistency with the results 

for the remaining half of the sample. II-Iview of 

the educational and income differences already 

revealed, these two factors were controlled. In 

essence, this regression analysis treated the 

general sample and the known alcoholics as one 

population and then sought to discover the smallest 

number of questions or items which would dis ­

tinguish the largest proportion of the known alcoholics. 

In all, 47 separate questionnaire items were 

used in the regression analysis. This included the 

Preoccupation Scale scores, total scores on the 

Trouble Index, Definition Scale scores, and Quantity-Frequency Index scores. Also included were 

the individual items that constitute the Preoccupation Scale, the Trouble Index, and the 

Definition Scale plus several other questions. 

Although the regression analysis failed to reveal 

any new set of items which was more discriminating than either the Preoccupation Scale 

scores or the Trouble Index scores, seven items 

were found to be especially discriminating. That 

is, these items consistently were most discriminating across the split-half groupings and the 

different education and income categories. Six of 

the seven items were from the Preoccupation 

Scale, while the seventh one, which seemed to 

have the highest discriminating power, was from 

the Trouble Index. This was the item asking about 

trouble with police. The other six most discriminating items were “I get intoxicated on work days ,“ 

“I worry about not being able to get a drink when 

I need one, ” “ I stay intoxicated for several days 

at a time, ‘‘ “Once I start drinking, it is difficult 

for me to stop before I become completely intoxicated, ” ‘‘I drink steadily for several days at 

a time, ” and “Without realizing what I am doing, 

I end up drinking more than I had planned to. ” 

The main value derived from the regression 

analysis was that it tended to confirm the results 

of earlier analysis, showing first, the superior 

ability of the Preoccupation Scale and the Trouble 

Index to distinguish alcoholics, and secondly, that 

both of these measures more successfully identify alcoholics in the lower rather than higher 

educational and income categories. 

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 

This investigation of the feasibility of asking 

respondents in a household health survey about 

their drinking behavior with the end in view that 

problem drinkers or alcoholics might be distinguished confirms several findings of earlier 

studies as follows. Members of the general 

11

population will discuss their drinking behavior 

with interviewers and apparently they are not 

offended or even disturbed by inquiries about 

even the most extreme deviant drinking. Again, 

as in several previous surveys, virtually the 

same proportion of the general population sample 

received Preoccupation Scale scores of I, II, 

or III, and the marginal frequencies of individual items were very similar. And once more 

the Preoccupation Scale scores had essentially the 

same association with three other indexes of extreme deviant drinking— the Trouble Due to 

Drinking Index, the Quantity-Frequency Index, and 

the Definitions of Alcohol Scale. 

The findings of the present study that both 

the Preoccupation Scale and the Trouble Index 

identify three out of four lower socioeconomic 

status known alcoholics and one out of three of 

those with more income and education is encouraging—especially in view of the findings that 

neither measure identifies an “unreasonable” 

proportion of the general population. Of course, 

the degree of precision to be demanded of a 

measure is a matter of judgment and ultimately 

turns upon the question of practical utility. Although much more work is needed to discover 

items that will identify upper socioeconomic 

status alcoholics and efforts should be made to 

find items that will identify an even higher 

proportion of those in the lower socioeconomic 

status category. still it is concluded that this study 

has approached a useful degree of accuracy in 

the identification of lower socioeconomic status 

alcoholics. 

In short, while the identification of alcoholics by survey procedures appears feasible, more 

work is needed. Matters deserving attention in 

future studies include: 

1.	 The concepts alcoholic and alcoholism remain ill-defined. Future research to develop procedures for identifying alcoholics should give careful attention to jhe 

character of the target population. 

2.	 The problem of false negative and false 

positive cases deserves further attention. 

3. Although this is not the preferred state 

of affairs, we should not overlook the 

possibility that the Preoccupation Scale 

(or another set of questions) might yield 

useful, accurate prevalence estimates yet 

be inadequate for identifying individual 

alcoholics. Conceivably, a set of questions might reliably identify a segment of 

the population which may or may not be 

composed of alcoholics but which would 

closely approximate the size of the alcoholic population and would therefore yield 

accurate estimates of the prevalence of 

alcoholics. 

4.	 Finally, any measure that is developed in 

one local area should be tested in other 

areas of the country. 

12 
REFERENCES


1 

Blwre, H. T., Overton, W. F., and Chafetz, M. E.: Social 

factors in the diagnosis of alcoholism. Q. J?. Stud. AlcohoZ 24 

(4):64(3-66:3, Dec. 1963. 

~ 

Export Committee on Mental Health: Report on the First 

St~tx,vion of the Alcoholism Subcommittee. World Hlth. Org. 

Techn. Rep.i3er. No. 4.2. Geneva, Switzerland, 1951. 

%eller, M.: Definition of alcoholism. Q.Jt .Stud.Atcohol 

~1(1):1~~.I;3;3, Mar. 1960. 

%wconi, J. T.: The concept of alcoholism. Q.J7 .Stud. 

.llrwho/ 20::16-%35, 1959. 

‘iSecly, J. R.: Estimating the prevalence of alcoholism, a 

criticul unulysis of the Jellinek formula. Q .J2.Stud.Alcohot 

20:24 &2fi4, 1959. 

6 

Brenner, B,: Estimating the prevalence of alcoholism, 

toward u modification of the Jellinek formula. Q.Jt .Stud.AZroh(d 20: WHj-260, 1959. 

7 

,Jellinek, E. M: Estimating the prevalence of alcoholism, 

modi ficrl vuluesin the Jellinek formula and an alternative approvch. Q.,J1 ,Stud.Alcohol 20:261-269, 1959. 

%ulford, H. A,, and hiiIIer, D. E.: Drinking in Iowa. IV. 

Prcwwcupution with alcohol and definitions of alcohol, heavy 

drinking und trouble due to drinking. Q.J1 .Stud.AZcohol 21(2): 

27!?-:!)1, June 1960. 

!3 

Mrdford, H, A., and Miller, D. E.: Drinking in Iowa. V. 

Drinking and alcoholic drinking. Q.Jt .Stud.Alcoho2 21(3):483-

499, Sept. 1960, 

10 

Mulford, H. A., and Miller, D. E.: An index of alcoholic 

drinking behavior related to the meanings of alcohol. Journal 

of Health and ffurnan Behavior 11(1):26-31, spring 1961. 

11

hlulford, H. A,, and hiiller, D. E.: Preoccupation with 

alcohol und definitions of alcohol, a replication study of two 

cumulative scales. Q. Jl.Strrd.-4lcohol 24(4):682-696, Dec. 

196:1. 

10 

,Jellinek, E. hf.: Phases in the drinking histmry of alcoholics, anulysis of a survey conducted by the official organ 

of Alcoholics Anonymous. Q. JZ, Stud. Alcoho J 7:1-88, 1946. 

1:3,Jollinek, E. h!.: Phases of alcohol addiction. Q.J1 .Stuo?, 

Alcohol 13:673-684, 1952. 

14 

Jackson, J., K.: The definition and measurement of alcoholism, H-technique scales of preoccupation with alcohol 

and psychological involvement. Q. Jl.Stud.Alcohol 18:240-

~6~, 19~7. 

15 

Jockson, J. K.: H-technique scales of preoccupation 

with alcohol und of psychological involvement, time order of 

symptoms, Q. Jl.Stud.Alcohol 18:451-467, 1957. 

16Mulford, H. A.: A Survey of Drinking Practices in Belle 

Plaine, loroa, 1961. Unpublished data, State University of 

Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 

17Mulford, H. A.: Drinking and deviant drinking, U. S. A., 

1963. Q.Jl.Stud.Alcohol 25(4):634-650, Dec. 1964. 

18Mulford, H. A.: A Study of 435 Hospitalized Alcoholic.e. 

Unpublished data, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 

19Ivfulford, H. A.: Public conceptions of the drinking and 

related behavior distinguishing the alcoholic, in W. Erbe and 

R. W. Wilson, eds., The Individual in the Modem Community: 

A Report on the Newton Study. Iowa City, Iowa. State University of Iowa Press, 1965. 

20!1L u1ford, H. A.: Alcoholics, alcoholism and Iowa physicians. J.lou,a.St.med. Soc. LIV(11):623-628, Nov. 1964. 

21Mulford, H. A., and Miller, D. E.: Drinking in Iowa. II. 

The extent of drinking and selected sociocultural categories. 

Q. Jl.Stud.Alcohol 21(1):26-39, Mar. 1960. 

22 Straus, R., and Bacon, S. D.: Drinking in College. New 

Haven, Corm. Yale University Press, 1953. 

23Maxwell, M. A.: A quantity-frequency analysis of drinking behavior in the State of Washington. NW.Sci. 32:57-67, 

1958. 

24hlulford, H. A., and Miller, D. E.: Drinking in Iowa. I. 

%ciocultural distribution of drinkers, with a methodological 

model for sampling evaluation and interpretation of findings. 

Q .J1.Stud.Alcohol 20(4):70+726, Dec. 1959. 

25Mulford, H. A., and Miller, D. E.: Drinking in I cwa. HI. 

A scale of definitions of alcohol related to drinking behavior. 

Q .J1.Stud.Alcohol 21(2):267-278, June 1960. 

26 Mulford, H. A.; Toward an Instrument to Identify and 

Measure the Self, Significant Others, and Alcohol in the 

Symbolic Environment, an Empirical Study. Doctoral disser tation, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 1955. 

27hfulford, H. A., and hiiller, D. E.: Drinking behavior 

related to definitions of alcohol, a report of research in prrgress. Am. SocioZ. R. 24(3):385-389, June 1959. 

28Stouffer, S. A., and others: Measurement and Prediction, 

Vol. IV of Studies in Social Psychology in Wodd War II. 

Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1950. 

29 Edwards, A.: Techniques of Attitude Scale (construction. New York. Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957. 

30Stouffer, S. A., and others: A tecbniq ue for improving 

cumulative scales, Ch. 17, in M. W. Riley and others, Sociological Studies in Scale Analysis. New Brunswick, N.J. Rutgers University Press, 1954. 

000 

13 
Table 1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.


9.


10. 

11. 

12.


13.


DETAILED TABLES 

Number and percent distribution of households contacted by interview completion


rate, according to type of subsample: Cedar Rapids Health Survey, 1964----------


Percent of positive responses to Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale statements: a


comparison of several samples---------------------------------------------------


Percent receiving Preoccupation With Alcohol contrived-item scale scores: a com­


parison of several samples------------------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of general sample and of known alcoholic sample


according to self and proxy respondents by the Gallup drinking question: Cedar


Rapids, January l964------------------------------------------------------------


Number ofgeneral sample drinkers and known alcoholic self and proxy respondents,


by selected drinking characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964----------------


Percent distribution of general sample drinkers and known alcoholic respondents,


according to self and proxy response by selected drinking characteristics: Cedar


Rapids, January l964------------------------------------------------------------


Number of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, by Preoccupation With


Alcohol Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, Quantity-Frequency Index, and Def­


initions of Alcohol Scale scores, and selected sociocultural characteristics:


Cedar Rapids, January l964------------------------------------------------------


Percent distribution of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, accord­


ing to Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale,Trouble Due to Drinking Index, Quantity-


Frequency Index, and Definitions of Alcohol Scale scores by selected socio­


cultural characteristics% with the Bureau of the Census distribution of socio­


cultural characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964----------------------------


Number of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, by Preoccupation With


Alcohol Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, QuantiCy-Frequency Index, and


Definitions of Alcohol Scale scores, and selected drinking characteristics:


Cedar Rapids, January l964------------------------------------------------------


Percent distribution of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, accord­


ing to Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index,


Quantity-Frequency Index, and Definitions of Alcohol Scale scores by selected


drinking characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964----------------------------


Percent distribution of general sample and known alcoholic respondents accord­


ing to scores on the Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale, Trouble Due to Drink­


ing Index, Quantity-Frequency Index, and Definitions of Alcohol Scale, by se­


lected sociocultural characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964----------------


Number and percent distribution of matched known alcoholics and their neighbors


(matched on sex and on age within 20 years) and the general sample by selected


sociocultural characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964-----------------------


Number and percent distribution of matched known alcoholics and their neighbors


(matched on sex and on age within 20 years) and the general sample by selected


drinking characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964----------------------------


Page


15


16


18


20


20


21


22


24


26


28


30


32


33


14

---------

---------------------

----------------------

---------------------

---------

---------------------

----------------------

---------------------

--------------------

---------

---------------

T.]ble 1, Number and percent distribution of households contacted by interview completion rate,


according to type of subsample: Cedar Rapids Health Survey, 1964


Households contacted and Neighbors of


interview completion rate Total sample alcoholics


Number of households


Total contactedl 785 5671 111[ 107 

I I 

Completed interviews----------- 727 524 2106 97 

Uncompleted interviews--------- 58 43 5 10 

Vacation 20 16 2 

Refusal 30 23 2 : 

Not home 6 3 3 

Other------------------------ 2 1 1 

Percent distribution 

Total contactedl -1 100.OI 100.OI 

I I 

100.0 

Completed interviews----------- 92.6 92.4 ~95.51 90.7 

Uncompleted interviews--------- 7.4 7.6 4“5 9.3 

Vacation 2.5 1.8 

Refusal ::? 1.8 ::; 

Not home ::: 0.5 2.8 

Other------------------------ 0.3 0.2 0.; 

Originally in sample, but 

remcved after field work Number of households 

Total 37 25 5 7


I 

Vacant------------------------- 30 19 5 6 

Under 21 years (single)-------- 2 2 

Regular home elsewhere 1 1 

Nonexistent unit 4 4 

‘Does not include 37 househo [s drawn in original sample, but later excluded from the comple­


tion rates for various reasons. Had these 37 cases been included the total completion rate would


hav~ been 88.4 percent instead of 92.6 percent.


-This figure includes 22 households (19.8 percent) where interviews were conducted, but the


known alcoholic was no longer a household member. This left 84 households containing a total of


88 known alcoholics.


15

-----------------

--------------------------------

--------------------------------------

--------------

Table 2. Percent of positive responses to Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale statements: a compar­


ison of several samples


General population samples (drinkers only)


Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale I I I
 (in scale order) Belle NORC Na- Cedar
 Iowa, Iowa, Plaine, tional, Ra~~~:,
 1958 1961
 1961 1963


1. 

2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.


9.


I stay intoxicated for several days at a time--


1 worry about not being able to get a drink


when I need one-------------------------------


I sneak drinks when no one is looking----------


Once I start drinking it is difficult for me to


stop before I become completely intoxicated---


1 get intoxicated on work days


I take a drink the first thing when I get up


in the morning


I awaken next day not being able to remember


some of the things I had done while I was


drinking


I take a few quick ones before going to a
 party to make sure I have enough


I neglect my regular meals when I am drinking--


10. 1 don’t nurse my drinks; I toss them down


pretty fast-----------------------------------


11. I drink for the effect of alcohol with little


attention to type of beverage or brand name--


12. Liquor has less effect on me than it used to-­

N= 

+Less than 1 percent.


16


Percent


3 1 1 1 +


3 2 2 ... 1


3 2 1 ... 2


6 3 3 6 3


6 2 1 ... 3


7 3 3 ... 2


10 8 5 10 6


11 8 10 ... 7


14 11 9 13 10


20 17 19 21 14


22 19 18 ... 15


24 25 28 21 21


706 715 116 1,068 753

-----------------

--------------------------------

-------------------------------------

--------------

Table 2. Percent of positive responses to Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale statements: a compar­


ison of several samples—Con.


mown alcoholics Exdrinkers,


Cedar Rapids


Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale


(in scale order) Drinkers Cedar Hospi- General alco-


Known 

only, Rapids, talized, sample, Cedar
 holics,
 1964 1961 1964
 Rapids 1964


Percent


1. I stay intoxicated for severs: days at a time-- 19 2E 67 9 73 

2. 1 worry about not being able to get a drink 

when I need one------------------------------- 19 26 64 13 60 

3. I sneak drinks when no one is looking---------- 21 26 64 11 53 

4. Once I start drinking it is difficult for me to 

stop before I become completely intoxicated--- 38 44 79 20 80 

5. 1 get intoxicated on work days 34 39 72 13 60 

6. I take a drink the first thing when I get up 

in the morning 22 28 74 9 60 

i’.I awaken next day not being able to remember 

some of the things I had done while I was drinking 44 50 79 22 80 

8. I talcea few quick ones before going to a 

party to make sure I have enough 29 34 68 20 60 

9. I neglect my regular meals when I am drinking-- 53 58 89 26 80 

10. I don’t nurse my drinks; I toss them down 

pretty fast---------------------------------- 48 53 85 20 80 

11. I drink for the effect of alcohol with little 

attention to type of beverage or brand name-- 38 44 63 24 73 

12. Liquor has less effect on me than it used to-- 47 48 67 22 57 

N= 73 88 435 46 15 

17

1 

Table 3. Perceiitreceiving Preoccupation With Alcohol contrived-item scale scores: a comparison


of several samples


General population samples


Contrived-


Preoccupation llithAlcohol Scale item


(in scale order) scale Belle NORC Na- Cedar


score Iowa, Iowa, Plaine, tional, Rapids,
 1958 1961 1961 19631 1964


I 

Percent


1.	 1 stay intoxicated for several days at a time. 1 

2. 1[ worry about not being able to get a I----- 1 + + 1 

drink when I need one. 

3. 1[ sneak drinks when no one is looking.


4. ()nce I start drinking it is difficult 

for me to stop before I become 

completely intoxicated. 3 

II---- 2 1 + 1 

5. [ get intoxicated on work days.


6.	 [ take a drink the first thing when I


get up in the morning.


7.	 t awaken next day not being able to


remember some of the things I had done


while I was drinking. 3


8. 1 take a few quick ones before going to III--- 3 3 2 3 

a party to make sure I have enough. 

9.	 I neglect my regular meals when I am


drinking. 3


10.	 I don’t nurse my drinks; I toss them 

down pretty fast. 8 

11. I drink for the effect of alcohol with 

little attention to type of beverage or IV---- 7 8 7 7


brand name.


12. Liquor has less effect on me than it 

used to. I 8 

Not preoccupied--..-----------------.-----v----- 45 47 38 45 60 

N= 1, 185a 1,213a 235a l,515a l,029a 

18

Table 3. Percent receiving Preoccupation With Alcohol contrived-item scale scores: a comparison


of several samples-Con.


Known alcoholics Drinkers versus exdrinkers


COn­


trived- Cedar Rapids Cedar Rapids
 Preoccupation lJithAlcohol item
 Scale (in scale order) scale Cedar Hospi- general sample known alcoholics


Rapids, talized,
 score
 1964 1961 Ex- Ex-
 Drinkers drinkers Drinkers drinkers


Percent


1.	 I stay intoxicated for sev­ eral days at a time. 

2. I worry about not being 

able to get a drink when I I---- 30 64 1 1 21 73 

need one. 

3. I sneak drinks when no one


is looking.


4. Once I start drinking it is


difficult for me to stop


before I become com­


pletely intoxicated.


5. I get intoxicated on work II--- 9 16 1 10 7 

days. 

6. I take a drink the first


7. I 

able 

thing 

morning. 

awaken 

to 

when 

next 

remember 

I 

day 

get 

not 

up 

some 

in 

being


of


the 1

the things I had done


while I was drinking.


8. I take a few quick ones be- 111-. 11 10 4 14


fore going to a party to


make sure I have enough.


9. I neglect my regular meals


when I am drinking.


10. I don’t nurse my drinks; I


:~~; them down pretty


-.


11. I drink for the effect of 

alcohol with little IV--- 9 5 10 11 attention to type of


beverage or brand name.


12. Liquor has less effect on


me than it used to.


Not preoccupied --------------v---- 39 4 88 7 42 20


N= 88d 435d 735b 73b 15c


‘NORC 6 item scale.


}Less than 1 percent.


NOTE: a=total sample


b=drinkers


c=exdrinkers


d=drinkers and exdrinkers


19

------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

------------

--------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

------------

------------

------------

----------------------------------------------

------------

------------

Table 4. Number and percent distribution of general sample and of known alcoholic sample according to self 

and proxy respondents by the Gallup drinking question: Cedar Rapids, January 1964 

General sample Known alcoholic


Gallup question


Total Self Proxy Total SeIf Proxy


Number of persons


Total 1,029 ~ 662 367 88 41 47


Drinker 7;: 483 270 73 33 40 

Exdrinker 21 15 8 7 Abstainer 230 1;: 76 

Percent distribution


Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Drinker 73.2 73.0 73.6 83.0 80,5 85.1


Exdrinker 3.8 17.0 19.5 14.9
 Abstainer 2;:2 23.3 2::;


Table 5. Number of general sample drinkers and known alcoholic self and proxy respondents, by selected


drinking characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964


General sample drinkers I Known alcoholics 

Drinking characteristic 

Tota 1 Self Proxy Total Self Proxy


Total


Quantity-Frequency Index


Low—O, 1, 3------------------------------------


High—2, 4, 5-----------------------------------


Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Trouble Due to Drinking Index


None


One or more


Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale


Low—IV, V--------------------------------------


High—I, 11: III--------------------------------


Not aacertamed, don’t know, refused


Definitions of Alcohol Scale


Low—III, IV, V---------------------------------


High—I, II-------------------------------------
 Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Household difficulties


during paat year


No 

Yea---------------------------------------------

Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Drink too much


No----------------------------------------------

Yes---------------------------------------------

Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Alcoholism (from card A list)


Yes---------------------------------------------

I 1


Number of persons


753 483 270 88 41 47


557 380 1.77 

190 102 88 :; E ;: 6 1 5 6 6 

694 460 234 32 15


55 21 34 56 26 ;:


4 2 2


698 454 244 42 22 20


46 24 22 44 19 25


9 5 4 2 2


597 390 207 48 27 21


140 86 54 38 14 24


16 7 9 2 2


740 47: 263 61 34 27


13 7 27 7 20


.


696 453 243 ;: 23 28


50 27 23 18 18


7 3 4 1 1


3 1 2 20 9 11 

20

------------------------------

-------------------------------

- - - - - --- - -----------------------------

------- - ------------------------------

--------------------------------------

Table 6. Percent distribution of general sample drinkers and known alcoholic respondents, accord.


ing to self and proxy response by selected drinking characteristics: cedar Rapids, January 1964


General sample drinkers Known alcoholics


Drinking characteristic


Total Self Proxy Total Self Proxy


Percent distribution


Total 100. ( 100 .( — 100.I 100.( 100.( 100.0 — 

Quantity-Frequency Index 

Low—O, 1, 3---------------------------- 74.( 78.7 65.( 37.! 43.: 31.9 

High— 2, 4, 5--------------------------- 25.; 21.1 32.( 55.; 56.1 55.3 

Not ascertained, don’t know, refused---- 0.[ 0.2 1.! 6.f 12.8 

Trouble Due to Drinking Index


None ------------------------------------ 92.1 95.2 86.: 36.L 36.( 36.2 

1 cm more 7.: 4.3 12.( 63.6 63.[ 63.8 

Not ascertained, don’t know, refused---- 0.5 0.4 0.; 

PreoccuDation With Alcohol Scale 

Low—IV, V------------------------------ 92.7 94.0 90.L 47.1 53.> 42.6 

High—I, II, III------------------------ 6.1 5.0 8.1 50.0 46.: 53.2 

Not ascertained, don’t know, refused---- 1.2 1.0 1.: 2.3 4.3 

Definitions of Alcohol Scale


Low—III, IV, V------------------------- 79.3 80.7 76.7 54.5 65.9 44.7


High— 1, II----------------------------- 18.6 17.8 20.C 43.2 34.1 51.1


NOC ascertained, don’t know, refused---- 2.1 1.4 3.3 2.3 4.3


Household difficulties


during past year


No 98.3 98.8 97.4 69.3 82.9 57.4 

Yeb 1.7 1.2 2.6 30.7 17.1 42.6 

Not ascertained, don’t know, refused----

Drink too much


No 92.4 93.8 90.0 58.0 56.1 59.6 

Yes------------------------------------- 6.6 5.6 8.5 40.9 43.9 38.3 

Not ascertained, don’t know, refused---- 0.9 0.6 1.5 1.1 2.1 

Alcoholism (from card A list) 

Yes------------------------------------- 0.4 0.2 0.7 22.7 22.0 23.4 

21

---------------------

----------------------------

--------------------------

---------------------

---------------------

---------------------

--------------------- ---------------

------------------------

-------------------

------------------------- --------- ----------

------------

--------------------

----------

------------------------

----------------

------------------------

------------------------

------------------------

-------------------

----------------------- -------------------------

---------------------------

----------------------------

------------------------

Table 7. Number of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, by Preoccupation With Alcohol


Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, Quantity-Frequency Indeq and Definitions of Alcohol Scale


scores, and selected sociocultural characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964


i Cedar Rapids Survey Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale


General


Sociocultural characteristic General sample 

Known sample tiown alcoholics


alco­


holics 

Total Drinkers High High Low l----i only
 1, II, III I, II, III IV, V

Number of persons


1 Total 1,029 753 88 46 44 

—
Sex


2 Male 488 390 38 40


3 Female 541 363 ;; 8 4


Age
 —


4 20-29 years 198 160 14 

5 30-39 years 212 185 1; 9 

6 40-49 years L72 136 30 10 

50-59 years 181 128 31 8 16 

?360 years and over 263 141 13 5 5 

9 Not ascertained, don’t know, 

refused 3 3 

Marital status 

10 Never married 

11 Married 8!: 6% 6; 3: 3? 

12 Other ..........- 126 73 20 5 11 

Education


13 Less than high school----------- 220 133 16 11 9 

14 Some high school---------------- 146 109 15 12 

15 High school graduate 414 323 26 17 1; 

Some college 118 92 14 3 

:; College graduate, plus 123 93 17 3 

18 Not ascertained, don’t know, 

refused 8 3 

Income (household) 

19 Under $4,000--------------------

20 $4,000-$5,999-------------------

201 

200 

118 

142 ;; 1: 

21 $6,000-$7,499-------------------

22 $7,500-$9,999-------------------

151 

211 

110 

175 

9 1!? 

23 $10,000-$14,999----------------- 157 123 2; 5 8 

24 $15,000 and over 73 63 10 6 1 

25 Not ascertained, don’t lcnow, 

refused 36 22 5 1 

Religion


26 Catholic 232 187 21 15 11 

27 Lutheran 126 104 9 7 7 

28 Congregational, Episcopal, 

Presbyterian 224 173 22 6 

29 Methodist 206 141 12 7 

30 Baptist 53 27 9 2 

31 Other Protestant(not specified)- 2 

32 Other 1:; ;; 7 6 

33 None 49 35 5 3 

34 Not ascertained, don’t know, 

refused 2 2 1 1 — —


22

Table 7. Number of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, by Preoccupation With Alcohol


Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, @uantity-Frequency Inde~ and Definitions of Alcohol Scale
 scores, and selected sociocultural characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964—Con.


. 

Trouble Due to Drinking Index Quantity-Frequency Index Definitions of Alcohol Scale 

General Known alcoholics sample 

General Known alcoholics sample 

General frown alcoholics sample 

High High Low High High Low High High Low 

1 or more 1 or more none 2, 4, 5 2, 4, 5 0, 1, 3 I, 11 I, II III, IV, V 

Number of persons


55 I 56 I 321 1901 49 I 33 I 140 I 38 I 48 1 

I I I I I I I I 

45 54 125 42 25 86 33 38 2


10 2 H 65 7 8 54 5 10 3


31 1 

1? 1: 5 2; \ ; 33 ; 12 17 13 43 21 7 32 1; 16 

12 21 10 19 16 14 13 17 

6 7 6 6 6 6 ;; 4 9 

1 2 9 

16 21 0 

4:	 32 2: 164 3i 22 106 3; 3; 

5 17 3 10 15 4 13 6 13 ; 

16 22 8 6 24 10 6 M 12 ; 7 221 8 6 

18 16 10 :; 19 z 59 10 15 

6 6 24 8 4 23 4 10 

2 : 13 24 7 10 12 6 11


8


1: 17 19 11 7 24 10 8 9 

13 33 13 2 25 10 0 

4 5 22 5 i 1:	 < :[ 4 3 4 

4 10 38 9 11 2; ; 16 

3 2 20 6 4 10 3 7 

4 2 2 1 2 2 5


12 14 51 13 6 33 9 11 6 

9 8 27 7 1 20 6 3 7 

8 43 12 10 35 15 8


1: 8 30 21 ; 9


2 7 : 2 4 6 0


2 : 2 1
 ; 19 ; ‘i 19 ; 2 . : 4 7 2 2 6 2 3 

1 1 1 

23

----------------

-----------------------

---------------------

----------------

----------------

-------------------

--------------

--------------------

---------------

-----

-------------------

-------------------

-----------------

----------------------

-------------------

Table 8. Percent distribution of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, according to


Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, Quantity-Frequency Index, and


Definitions of Alcohol Scale scores by selected sociocultural characteristics, with the Bureau


of the Census distribution of sociocultural characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964


Cedar Rapids Survey Preoccupation With Alcohol Scal~


Cedar
 Genera 1
 Sociocultural Lapids Known alcoholics


characteristic :ensus, sample


1960 N%,:


1 Total 

I Sex 

2 Male


3 Female


Age


4 20-29 years----------------
 5 30-39 years


6 40-49 veals


7 50-59 ~ears----------------


8 60 years and over----------


9 Not ascertaine~don’t know


refused


Marital status


10 Never married


11 Married


12 Other----------------------


Education


13 Less than high achool------


14 Some high school-----------
 15 High school graduate-------


16 Some college


17 College graduate, plus


18 Not ascertaine~ don’t know,


refused


I Income (household)


19 Under $4,000---------------


20 $4,000-$5,999--------------


21 $6,000-$7,499--------------


22 $7,500-$9,999--------------


23 $10,000-$14,999------------


24 $15,000 and over-----------


25 Not ascertained don’t know.


refused
 I 

Religion


26 Catholic------------------


27 Lutheran------------------


28 Congregational, Episcopal,


Presbyterian-------------


29 Methodist


30 Baptist-------------------


31 Other Protestant


(not specified)----------


32 Other---------------------


33 None


34 Not aacertaine~don’t know


refused


holics Drinkers Tota 1 1only 

Percent distribution


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.C 

47.2 47.4 51.8 83.0 82.6 90.9 73.8


52.8 52.6 48.2 17.0 17.4 9.1 26.2


18.2 19.2 21.2 30.4 

19.4 20.6 24.6 1::: 19.6 1;:; 14.; 

19.2 16.7 18.1 34.1 21.7 34.1 33.3 

15.8 17.6 17.0 35.2 17.4 36.4 33.3 

27.4 25.6 18.7 14.8 10.9 11.4 19.0 

0.3 0.4 

15.2 4.5


7;:: 7;:: 8;:! 7:;; 73.9 70.5 7:;!


14.9 12.2 9.7 22.7 10.9 25.0 19.0


26.8 21.4 17.7 18.2 23.9 20.5 16.7 

18.3 14.2 14.5 17.0 26.1 20.5 11.9 

32.4 40.2 42.9 29.5 37.0 34.1 23.8 

11.8 11.5 12.2 15.9 6.5 15.9 16.7 

10.4 12.0 12.4 19.3 6.5 9.1 31.0 

0.8 0.4 

18.4 19.5 .s5.7 20.5 13.0 27.3 14.3 

21.6 19.4 18.9 19.3 21.7 31.8 

20.5 14.7 14.6 10.2 17.4 9.1 l;:; 

21.6 20.5 23.2 23.9 

12.6 15.3 16.3 2%: 10.9 1%; 31:; 

5.3 7.1 8.4 11.4 13.C 2.3 21.4 

3.5 2.9 5.7 2.3 7.L 

... 22.5 24.8 23.9 32.6 25.C 21.4 

... 12.2 13.8 10.2 15.2 15.$ 4.8 

... 

... 

21.8 

20.0 

23.0 

18.7 

25.0 

13.6 

13.0 

15.2 

9,1

15.$ 

42.9 

11.9 

... 5.2 3.6 10.2 4.3 15.$ 4.8 

... 2.4 

... 1::: ;:; ;:: 13.; 

... 4.8 4.6 5.7 6.5 ::: 

.,. 0.2 0.3 1.1 2.3 

24

Table 8. Percent distribution of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, according to


Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, Quantity-Frequency Index, and


Definitions of Alcohol Scale scores by selected sociocultural characteristics, with the Bureau


of the Census distribution of sociocultural characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964—Con.


Trouble Due to Drinking Index


Genera1 Known alcoholics
 sample


High High Low


1 or more 1 or more none


Quantity-Frequency Index


Genera 1
 Known alcoholics
 sample


High High Low


2, 4, 5 2, 4, 5 0, 1, 3


Percent distribution


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.O 100.0


81.8 96.4 59.4 65.8 85.7 75.8 

18.2 3.6 40.6 34.2 14.3 24.2 

I 

16.4 

27.3 1+:: 9.i 

26.8 

36.3 1::! 18.; 

21.8 30.4 40.6 22.6 42.9 21.2 

21.8 37.5 31.3 10.0 32.7 42.4 

10.9 12.5 18.8 3.2 12.2 18.2 

*O . . L.O 1.1 

.9.1 .
 5.4 3.1 8.4 9.1
 81.8 64.3 87.5 86.3 69.4 78.8
 9.1 30.4 9.4 5.? 30.6 12.1


29.1 28.6 11.6 16.3 18.2 

23.6 21.4 16.3 14.3 21.2 

32.7 28.6 3?:: 46.8 38.8 18.2 

10.9 14.3 18.8 12.6 16.3 12.1 

3.6 7.1 40.6 12.6 14.3 30.3 

-1 I 

16.4 

29.1 

30.4 

23.2 12; 10.0 

17.4 

22.4 

26.5 

21.2 

6.1 

14.5 

27.3 

12.5 12; 19.5 

21.6 

8.2 15.2 

9.1 

7*3 1?:: 37.5 20.0 1::: 33.3 

5.5 3.6 25.0 10.5 12.2 12.1 

7.1 3.1 1.1 4.1 3.0 

21.8 25.0 21.9 26.8 26.5 18.2 

16.4 14.3 3.1 14.2 14.3 3.0 

16.4 14.3 43.8 22.6 24.5 30.3 

18.2 14.3 12.5 15.8 14.3 15.2 

3.6 12.5 6.3 4.7 8.2 12.1 

3.6 

2:; 

2.1 

10.0 ::! J:? 

1::; 3.1 3.7 4.1 6.1 

1.8 2.0 

Definitions of Alcohol Scale


Genera 1
 Known alcoholics
 sample


High High Low


I, 11 I, II 111, IV, V


x 

22.1


23.6 1;:: 12.:


22.9 34.2 33.:


13.6 34.2 35.[


17.9 10.5 18.7


.
 15.0


75.7 72;; 6$;


9.3 15.8 27.1


17.1 26.3 12.5 

15.7 21.1 12.5 

42.1 26.3 31.2 

16.4 10.5 20.8 

8.6 15.8 22.9 

-1 I 

17.1 26.3 16.7 

17.9 26.3 14:6 

15.7 13.2 

26.4 ::; 

15.7 1<:; 33.3 

7.1 7.9 14.6 

5.3 4.2 

23.6 23.7 22.9 

14.3 15.8 6.2 

25.0 18.4 31.2 

15.0 13.2 14.6 

2.9 15.8 6.2 

1.4 

13.6 

4.3 ;:: 

2.1


25

---------------------

------------------------- -----------------------

-----------------------

-------------------------------

- - - -- - - - - --

-------------------------

---------------------

--------

------------------------

---------------

-------------------

-----------

----------------

--------------------

-----------------------

------ ------

-- - ---

-----------------------

Table 9. Number of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, by Preoccupation With Alcohol


Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, Quantity-Frequency Indeq and Definitions of Alcohol Scale
 scores, and selected drinking characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964


Cedar Rapids Survey Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale


General


Drinking characteristic General sample 

Known sample mown alcoholics


alco-


Total Drinkers holics High High Low


only 1, II, 111 I, II, III IV, V


Number of persons 

1 Total 1,029 753 88 46 44 42 

Gallup question 

2 drinker 753 753 73 46 32 39 

?xdrinker 15 12 3 

: Abstainer 2;: -

preoccupation With Alcohol Scale 

5 [ 6 6 26 6 26 

6 [1------------------------------

: 

[11-----------------------------

[v------------------------------

3; 3; 1: 3; 18 

i 

J---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 18;; 6;; 3: 34 

1:	 ~;~f~~~rtained, don’t know,
 ----------.------------- 9 9 2 I


Trouble Due to Drinking Index


11 )------ 1970 694 32 25 3 28


12 .----------------------- 31 31 14 6 3 11 

Is 2------------------------------- 14 14 6 1 

14 3---------- 5 5 1; ! 12 

15 $------------------------------- 2 2 12 2 . 10 ; 

16 5------------------------ 3 3 11 “ 2 10 

17 Not ascertained, don’t know, 

refused 4 4 

1[ Household difficulties 

during past year 13 13 27 5 25 1 

Quantity-Frequency Index 

lg O “Abstainer’’ 1285 9 2 2 

2( 1 Light-infrequent--r 304 304 3 i 2 i 

21 2 Flvderate or heavy-~nfrequent--

L-----,-­


2: 3 L=ght-frequent 2X 2:: 2: 1: : 2:
 -
 2: 4 Moderate or heavy-frequent--- 66 66 7 7 4 3


2/ 5 Moderate or heavy-very


frequent - 72 72 37 18 25 12


2! Not ascertained, don’t knov,


refused - 6 6 6 3 4 1


Heavy drinking


2( 3-4 drinks on one occasion 309 309 40 42 26


2: 7-8 drinks on one occasion 56 56 i: 22 31 8


Definitions of Alcohol Scale 

2[ I---------------------..-------- 58 58 27 15 21 6 

2! 11----------------------------- - 82 11 11 6 

3( 111---------------------------- - 172 1?; 24 14 1: 

3: IV----------------------------- - 198 13 6 ; 9


3: v ---- ---. - -----------.--- - 1“:;: 227 11 5 6 

3: Not ascertained, don’t know,


refused - 16 16 2


3, Alcoholism (from card A list)--- 3 3 20 2 18 1


3 Drink too much ----------------- - 50 50 36 20 27 8
I


This figure includes the 230 abstainers who were not asked this question and the 46 exdrinkers


who were asked the question, but for purposes of this analysis were treated as abstainers.


26

Table 9. Number of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, by Preoccupation With Alcohol


Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, Quantity-Frequency Inde~and Definitions of Alcohol Scale


scores, and selected drinking characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964—Con.


Trouble Due to Drinking Index Quantity-Frequency Index Definitions of Alcohol Scale


General
 Known alcoholics
 sample


High High Low


1 or more 1 or more none


General Known alcoholics General wown alcoholics
 sample sample


High High Low High High Low 

2, 4, 5 2, 4, 5 0, 1, 3 I, II I, II III, IV, V 

Number of persons


55 56 32 190 49 33 140 38 48


55 44 29 190 38 30 140 29 42


. 12 3 11 3 9 6


6 24 2 5 21 3 4 19 

6 8 5 2 6 2 : 

9 i 1: 16 6 4 

1; 5 : 2 25 3 

24 9 2; 12: 13 20 89 8 22 

1 1 1 1 

32 161 15 16 118 7 24


3: li 15 4 10 9 5 9


14	 7 9 5 1 8 2 5


5 1.2 2 9 2 1 9 3


2 12 2 8 3 1 9


3 11 1 8 1 3 6 ;


8 27 8 20 3 7 18 8 

2 2 2 

: 3 3i ; 

: i 5; i 3 i 

12 12 16 2i 5: 20 

7 5 2 6; ? 23 i 3 

17 25 12 72 37 23 18 19 

3 5 1 2 3 2 

43 51 19 156 45 21 85 33 35 

17 33 7 46 31 6 27 20 19 

16 24 22 19 5 58 27


: 33 6 82 11


1: 1; 12 13 1:


10	 7 :: 9 3 ;;


4 6 5 20 2 8 11


1 1 2 1


3 20 13 4 3 11 8


23 31 5 28 28 5 21 18 17


27

---------------------

------------------------- -----------------------

-----------------------

------------------------------

-- - -- --- - -- - -- ---- ----

------------------------

-------------------------------

--------------

------------------------

----------------------

--------------

----------------

---------------------

------------------------

------

---- -- - -- - -----

------------------------

------------------

Table 10. Percent distribution of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, according to


Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, Quantity-Frequency Index, and


Definitions of Alcohol Scale scores by selected drinking characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January


1964


1 

2


;


5


6


z


1;


:;


13


;;


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25


H


28


29


::


32


33


34


35


—


Drinking characteristic


Total


Gallup question


drinker


:xdrinker


~bstainer


preoccupation With Alcohol Scale


.-


:1------------------------------


:11-----------------------------


:V-----------------------------­

r-- “. - -- - ­ lot ascertained, don’t know,


refused


Trouble Due to Drinking Index


)---,.
----------.---.------.-----


.-..----------------------------


!---.---------------------------


I


}--------.------------------.---


;----------------­


lot ascertained, don’t know,


refused


[ousehold difficulties during


past year


Quantity-Frequency Index


) !!Abstainer!!-------------------


Light-infrequent


[Moderate or heavy-infrequent--


I Light-frequent


\ Moderate or heavy-frequent---­


iModerate or heavy-very


frequent


lot ascertained, don’t know,


refused


Heavy drinking


I-4drinks on one occasion


‘-8 drinks on one occasion------


Definitions of Alcohol Scale


:--------------.----------------


;1------------------------------


:11-----------------------------


Y-----------------------------­ r--- -- -. ------ --­ lot ascertained, don’t know,


refused


LICOhOliSIII (from card A list)---


)rink too much


Cedar Rapids Survey 1P reoccupation With Alcohol Scale


General General.sample 

I Known I sample I KI-Iownalcoholics


holics 

Total I

Drinkers High High Low 

only I, II, III I, II, III Iv, v 

Percent distribution


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 

73.2 100.0 83.0 100.0 72.7 92.9 . 17.0 27.3 7.1 

2$: 

0.6 0.8 29.5 13.0 59.1 

0.8 1.1 17.4 18.2 

3.1 1?:: 69.6 22.7 1::: 9.1 19.6 

18;:; 82.6 38.6 81.0 

0.9 1.2 2.3


194.3 92.2 36.4 54.3 66.7 

3.0 4.1 15.9 13.0 26.2 

17.4 2.4 

;:2 ::? 1::; 27:3 

0.2 0.3 13.6 ::; 22.7 4.; 

0.3 0.4 12.5 4.3 22,7 -

0.4 0.5 

1.3 1.7 30.7 10.9 56.8 2.4


127.7 2.3 

29.5 4::: 3.4 2.2 ::: 2::; 3;:: 3?; 3::2 54.8 

6.4 8.8 8.0 15.2 9.1 7.1 

7.0 9.6 42.0 39.1 56.8 28.6 

0.6 0.8 6.8 6.5 9.1 2.4 

30.0 41.0 79.5 87.0 95.5 61.9


5.4 7.4 45.5 47.8 70.5 19.0


5.6 30.7 32.6 47.7 14.3 

J:; 12.5 23.9 13.6 11.9 

1::? 22.8 27.3 30.4 18.2 38.1 

,:;.; 26.3 14.8 13.0 9.1 21.4 . 30.1 12.5 11.4 14.3 

1.6 2.1 2.3 

0.3 0.4 22.7 4.3 40.9 2.4 

4.9 6.6 40.9 43.5 61.4 19.0 

:his figure includes the 230 abs iners WI were no asked tl s question and the 46 exdrinkers


who were asked the question, but for purposes of this analysis were treated as abstainers.


28

Table 10. Percent distribution of general sample and known alcoholic respondents, according to


Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, Quantity-Frequency Index, and


~;~~i~~~s of Alcohol Scale scores by selected drinking characteristics: Cedar Rapids, January —.
 /


Trouble Due to Drinking Index Quantity-Frequency Index Definitions ot Alcohol Scale


General Known alcoholics General Known alcoholics General KIIOWnalcoholics
 sample sample sample


Low High High Low High High Low none 2, 4, 5 2, 4, 5 0, 1, 3 I, 11 I, II III, IV, V I 

Percent distribution


100.0 100.0 100.C 100.C 100.( 100.0 100. c 100.( 100.C 1 

100.0 78.6 90.6 100.c 77.( 90.9 100.C 76.: 87.? 2 

21.4 9.4 22,.[ 9.1 23.7 12.: . : 

10.9 

10.9 

42.9 

14.3 

6.3 2.6 42.5 

10.2 ::+ 5: 50.C 

5.: 

14.6 

12.5 5 

6 

16.4 16.1 3.i ::: 12.2 11.4 15.E 

18.2 9.4 20.0 8.> 1;:: 17.9 7.; 1::: i 

43.6 1::? 78.1 65.3 26.: 60.6 63.6 21.1 54.2 9 

1.8 3.1 0.5 3.0 .0 

100.0 84.7 30.6 48.5 84.3 18.4 50.0 .1 

56.; 25.6 30.3 6.4 13.2 18.7 .2 

25.5 12.5 ;:; 1::; 3.0 5.3 10.4 

9.1 21.4 1.1 18.4 6.1 w 23.7 : 21.4 16.3 9.1 0.7 23.7 2:; ;:; 19.6 ::: 16.3 3.0 2.1 15.8 8.3 2 

. 7 

14.5 48.2 4.2 40.8 9.1 5.0 47.4 16.7 8 

6.1 4.2 9 

1::: %: 9.1 22.; 7.; 0 

27.; 10.; 1 

2;:: 2;:: 5;:: 84.i 3::: J:: 4::; 2 

12.7 6.3 34.: 14.; 16.4 10.5 6.2 

30.9 4;:2 37.5 37.9 75.5 16.4 47.4 39.6 : 

5.5 8.9 3.1 1.4 7.9 4.2 5 

78.2 91.1 59.4 82.1 91.8 63.6 60.7 86.8 72.9 6


30.9 58.9 21.9 24.2 63.3 18.2 19.3 52.6 39.6 7


;;.; 42.9 11.6 38.8 15.2 41.4 71.1 8 

12.5 1;:2 17.4 12.2 15.2 58.6 28.9 

34;5 21.4 37.5 37.9 26.5 33.3 50.6 : 18.2 10.7 21.9 21.6 18.4 27.1 

7.3 10.7 15.6 10.5 4.1 2::; 22.9 ; 

-
 1.8 3.1 1.1 3.0 3


5.5 35.7 26.5 12.1 2.1 28.9 16.7 4


41.8 55.4 15.6 14.7 57.1 15.2 15.0 47.4 35.6 5


29

------------------------------

-------------------------------------

-----------------------------------

-----

----------------------------

---------------------

-----

-----

---------------------------------

-------------------------------- ----------------------------------

------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

-----

Table 11. Percent distribution of general sample and known alcoholic respondents according to


scores on the Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, Quanti~y-~re­


auencv Index. and Definitions of Alcohol Scale, by selected sociocultural characterlstlcs:


~edar-Rapids, ’January 1964


— 

Preoccupation With 1 Alcohol Scale score Total in Known I, II, 111 

Sociocultural characteristic	 general alcoholics
 samDle


Genera 1 Known


sample I alcoholics
 I II 

Percent distribution


1 Total 100.0 100.0 4.5 50.0 

— 

Sex

2 tale 47.4 83.0 27.8 54.8


3 female 52.6 17.0 1.5 26.7


Age 

4 20-29 years------------------------------

30-39 years------------------------------

19.2 

20.6 1::: ::; 

100.0 

53.8 : LO-49 years------------------------------ 16.7 34.1 5.8 50.0 

50-59 years------------------------------ 17.6 35.2 4.4 51.6 ; 50 years and over------------------------ 25.6 14.8 1.9 38.5 

9 Yot ascertained, don’t know, refused 0.3 

Marital status 

10 tievermarried 4.5 50.0 

11 !larried---------------------------------- 72.7 48.4 

12 Dther------------------------------------ 22.7 55.0 

Education 

13 Less than high school-------------------- 21.4 18.2 5.0 56.3 

14 Some high school------------------------- 14.2 17.0 8.2 60.0 

15 High school graduate 40.2 29.5 4.1 57.7 

16 Some college----------------------------- 11.5 15.9 2.5 50.0 

17 College graduate, plus------------------- 12.0 19.3 2.4 23.5 

18 Not ascertained, don’t know, refused 0.8 

Not high school graduate----------------- 35.6 35.2 6.3 58.1 ;; High school graduate--------------------- 40.2 29.5 4.1 57.7 

21 Beyond high school----------------------- 23.4 35.2 2.5 35.5 

Income (household) 

22 Under $4,000-----------------------------

23 $4,000-$5,999----------------------------

19.5 

19.4 

20.5 

19.3 N 66.7 

82.4 

24 $6,000-$7,499---------------------------- 14.7 10.2 4.6 44.4 

25 $7,500-$9,999---------------------------- 20.5 8.0 57.1 

26 $10,000-$14,999-------------------------- 15.3 25.0 36.4 

27 $15,000 and over------------------------- 7.1 11.4 10.0 

28 Not ascertained, don’t know, refused 3.5 5.7 20.0 

Under $6,000----------------------------- 39.0 39.8 4.0 74.2 

:; $6,000 and over-------------------------- 57.5 54.5 5.1 35.4 

31 Under $7,500----------------------------- 53.6 50.0 4.2 68.2 

32 $7,500 and over-------------------------- 42.9 44.3 5.2 33.3 

Religion 

33 Catholic--------------------------------- 22.5 23.9 6.5 52.4 

Lutheran 12.2 10.2 5.6 77.8 :: Congregational, Episcopal, Presbyterian-- 21.8 25.0 2.i 18.2


36 Methodist 20.0 13.6 58.3


37 5.2 10.2 ::: 77.8


Other 10.6 N 5.5 57.1 

% None 4.8 5.7 6.1 40.C 

41 Not ascertained, don’t know, refused 0.2 1.1 100.C — 

38 %%-a&otestant (not specified)--------- 2.7 50.C


*These percents are derived from figures in table 7. ‘Example: 7.8 percent of the males


30

Table 11. Percent distribution of general sample and known alcoholic respondents according to
 scores on the Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale, Trouble Due to Drinking Index, Quantity-Fre­


quency Index, and Definitions of Alcohol Scale, by selected sociocultural characteristics:


Cedar Rapids, January 1964—Con.


Trouble Due to


Drinking Index


1 or more


General Known


sample alcoholics


5.3 63.6
 —


74.C


13.2


4.5 100.C 

7.I. 76.5 

56.7


67.7


53.8


75.C


56.2


85.0


100.0 

;:: 80.0 

4.3 61.5


5,1 57.1


1.6 23.5


90.3


61.5


38.7


4.5 94.4


8.0 76.5


5.3 77.8


7.1 42.9


45.5


;:? 20.0


80.0


6.2 85.7


5.1 45,8


6,0 84.1


5.0 38.5


5.2 66.7


7.1 88.9


4.0 36.4


4,9 66.7


3.8 77.8


50.0


::: 71.4


12.2 80.0


100.0


1 

1 the general sample (N=488)


Quantity—Frequency


Index score 2,4,5


Genera 1 Known


sample alcoholics


Percent distribution


18.5 55.7


25.6 57.5


12.0 46.7


25.8 100.0 

32.5 38.5 

25.0 70.0 

10.5 51.6 

46.2


19.0


20.0 53.1


7.9 75.0


10.0 50.0 

21.2 46.7 

21.5 73.1 

20.3 57.1 

19.5 41.2


14.5 48.4


21.5 73.1


19.9 48.4


9.5 61.1


16.5 76.5


24.5 44.4


19.4 57.1


24.2 40.9


60.0


40.0


13.0 68.6


23.0 47.9


16.1 63.6


22.4 48.7


22.0 61.9


21.4 77.8


19.2 54.5


14.6 58.3


17.0 44.& 

14.3 50:0 

17.4 28.6 

14.3 40.0 

100.0


!ave Preoccupati m Scale scores


. 

Definitions of


Alcohol	 Scale score
 1,11


General Known


sample alcoholics


13.6 43.2 1 

17.6 45.2 

10.0 33.3 ; 

15.7 100.0 4


15.6 53.8 5


18.6 43.3 6


10.5 41.9


9.5 30.8 ;


9


25.0 50.0 .0


12.9 46.9 .1


10.3 30.0 .2


10.9 62.5 .3


15.1 53.3 .4


14.3 38.5 .5


19.5 28.6 .6


9.8 35.3 .7


.8


12.6 58.1 .9


14.2 38.5 !0


14.5 32.3 !1


11.9 55.6 !2


12.5 58.8 !3


14.6 55.6 !4


17.5 42.9 !5


14.0 22.7 !6


13.7 30.0 :7


40.0 !8


12.2 57.1 :9


15.4 33.3 10


12.9 56.8 11


15.6 28.2 Z


14.2 42.9 ‘3


15.9 66.7 ‘4


15.6 31.8 ‘5


10.2 41.7 6


66.7 ‘7
 R 8


17.4 42.; ‘9


12.2 40.0 o


1


—


f I, II, or III.


31

--------------------------------

---------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

--------------------------------

-------

------------------------------ ------------------------------------

-------

-------

-----------------------------------

----------------------------------

------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

-------

Table 12. Number and percent distribution of matched known alcoholics and their neighbors


(matched on sex and on age within 20 years) and the general sample by selected sociocultural


characteristic: Cedar Rapida, January 1964


Sociocultural characteristic


Total


Male


Female


Age


20-29 years


30-39 years--------------------------------


40-49 years--------------------------------


50-59 years--------------------------------


60 years and over--------------------------
 Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Marital status


Never married


Married


Other--------------------------------------


Education


Less than high school----------------------


Some high school---------------------------


High school graduate-----------------------


Some college-------------------------------


College graduate, plus---------------------
 Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Income (household)


Under $4,000-------------------------------


$4,000-$5,999------------------------------


$6,000-$7,499------------------------------


$7,500-$9,999------------------------------


$10,000-$14,999----------------------------


$15,000 and over---------------------------


Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Religion


Catholic


Lutheran------------------------?----------


Congregational, Episcopal, Presbyterian----


Methodist


Baptist


Other Protestant (not specified)-----------


Other


None------------------------------------:--


Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Known Neigh­


bors of General
 alco­


holics alco- sample


holics


Number of persons


55 154 1,029


43 48t


11 541


198


1$ 212


16 172


16 181


7 26Z


:


4:	 8;;


5 126


6 22C


146


% 414


4 118


12 12:


8


6 201


20C


; 151


13 211


157


;


3 ;2


12	 23;


126


1: 224


14	 206


3 52


28


: 109


1 49


2


Known	 Neigh­


bors of Genera 1
 alco- alco- sample


‘O1ics holics


Percent distribution


100.0 100.0 100.0 

78.2 79,6 47.4


21.8 20.4 52.6


1.8 19.2 

14.5 2;:; 20.6 

30.9 29.6 16.7 

38.2 29.6 17.6 

14.5 13.0 25.6 

0.3 

7;:: 8;:; 7;;:


18.2 9.3 12.2


12.7 11.1 21.4 

18.2 22.2 14.2 

30.9 37.0 40,2 

12.7 7.4 11.5 

25.5 22.2 12.0 

0.8 

16.4 11.1 19,5 

23.6 13.0 19.4 

16.7 14.7 

1::: 24.1 20,5 

29,1 13.0 15.3 

14.5 16.7 

5.6 ;:: 

25.5 22.2 22.5 

12.2 

2;:; 2;:: 21,8 

25.9 20.0 

1::; 5.6 5.2 

3.6 1.9 2.7 

11.1 10.6 n 1.9 

:.!


10ne neighbor was matched with an alcoholic living on both aides.


32

--------------------------------

------------------------------------

----------------------------------

----------------------------------

-------

------------------------------

-------------------------

-------------

---------------------------

---------------

-------

- - - - - ---- - --------------------------------

-------

------------------------------------------

-------

Table 13. Number and percent distribution


(matched on sex and on age within 20 years)


teristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964


Drinking characteristic


Total


Gallup question


Drinker


Exdrinker


Abstainer


Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Quantity-Frequency Index


O ltAb~tainertl


1 Light-infrequent


2 Moderate or heavy-infrequent


3 Light-frequent


4 Moderate or heavy-frequent


5 Moderate or heavy-very frequent----------


Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Exdrinkers and abstainers------------------


Heavy drinking


3-4 drinks on one occasion-----------------


7-8 drinks on one occasion-----------------


Trouble Due to Drinking Index


o 

l------------------------------------------

2------------------------------------------


3----------------------------------------- -


4------------------------------------------


5------------------------------------------


Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Exdrinkers and abstainers------------------


Definitions of Alcohol Scale


I------------------------------------------


II-----------------------------------------


III----------------------------------------


Iv----------------------------------------­


v


Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Exdrinkers and sustainers-----------------­


(Continued on next page)


of mstched known alcoholics and their neighbors


and the general sample by selected drinking charac-


I


Known	 Neigh­


bors of Genera:
 alco­


holics alco- sample


holics
 I


Number of persons


55 151 1,02$


47 4: 75? 

8 1 46 

; 230 

1 

9


2 16 304


3 2 52


16 15 244


6 4 66


26 8 72


2 1 6


8 276


45 24 309


21 5 56


22 39 694 

8 4 31 

4 2 14 

8 5 

6 2 

7 3 

1 4 

8 276 

17 58 

8 4 82 

18 17 172 

9 13 198 

3 11 227 

1 16 

8 276 

Known Neigh­


alco- bors of Genera1


holics h:~:; sample


I I


Percent distribution


100.0 100.0 100.0 

85.5 83.3 73.2


14.5 1.9 4.5


13.0 22.4


1.9


0.9 

3.6 29.6 29.5 

5.5 3.7 5.1 

29.1 27.8 23.7 

10.9 7.4 6.4 

47.3 14.8 7.0 

3.6 1.9 0.6 

14.8 26.8 

81.8 44.4 30.0


38.2 9.3 5.4


40.0 72.2 67.4 

14.5 7.4 3.0 

7.3 3.7 1.4 

14.5 0.5 

10.9 0.2 

12.7 0.3 

1.9 0.4 

14.8 26.8 

30.9 5.6


14.5 7.4 8.0


32.7 31.5 16.7


16.4 24.1 19.2


5.5 20.4 22.1


1.9 1.6


14.8 26.8


33

------------------------------------------

-------

------------------

---------------------------------------

-----------------------

Table 13. Number and percent distribution of matched known alcoholics and their nei~hbors


(matched on sex and on-age within 20 yeara) and the general sample by selected drinking c~arac­


teristics: Cedar Rapids, January 1964—Con.


Drinking characteristic


Preoccupation With Alcohol Scale


I------------------------------------------


II-----------------------------------------


III----------------------------------------


IV-----------------------------------------


Not ascertained, don’t know, refused


Exdrinkers and abstainers


Self or proxy respondent


Self---------------------------------------


Proxy--------------------------------------


Both


Household difficulties in past year-­


Alcoholism (from card A list)--------


Drink too much


Known Neigh­


bors of Genera 1
 alco­


holic h::::; sample


Number of persons


15 6 

6 8 

7 1 32 

6 6 76 

21 38 622 

1 9 

8 276 

27 29 643


28 22 367


3 19


17 1 13


10 3


21 1 50 

ElE3z


Percent distribution


27.3 0.6 

10.9 0.8 

12.7 1.9 3.1 

10.9 11.1 7.4 

38.2 70.4 60.4 

1.9 0.9 

14.8 26.8 

49.1 53.7 62.5


50.9 40.7 35.7


5.6 1.8


30.9 1.9 1.3


18.2 0.3


38.2 1.9 4.9


10ne neighbor was matched with an alcohol c living on both sidea.


34


v 
APPENDIX I 

QUANTITY-FREQUENCY INDEX, IOWA SCALE OF DEFINITIONS OF ALCOHOL, AND 

SCALABILITY OF THE PREOCCUPATION WITH ALCOHOL SCALE 

Quantity-Frequency Index 

The following description of the Quantity-Frequency 

Index is taken from one of the reports of the 1958 Iowa 

survey .-“1 The index was originally developed by Straus 

and Bacon,~~ and Maxwe1123 adapted it for his study of 

drinking behavior in the State of Washington. It is a 

measure of the extent of a person’s drinking. 

The “frequency” question was worded as follows: 

“How often during the past Yc: r did you have one or 

more drinks?” Response ale,. . ..ives ranged from once 

per year to daily. The ‘‘cpi.tity” question was worded: 

“How much (kind of beverage) would you say you 

ordinarily consume at a sitting? That is, from the time 

you start drinking until you quit?” The response 

alternatives to this question, classified as “small, ” 

“medium,” and “large, ” are as follows. 

Small amount:	 1-5 glasses of beer 

1-3 bottles of beer 

1-2 drinks of liquor 

1-3 glasses of wine 

Medium amount	 6-9 glasses of beer 

4-6 bottles of beer 

3-4 drinks of liquor 

4-5 glasses of wine 

Lavge amount:	 10 or more glasses of beer 

7 or more bottles of beer 

5 or more drinks of liquor 

6 or more glasses of wine 

This trichotomy was arrived at after converting standard 

“bottles,” “glasses ,“ and “drinks” to amounts of absolute 

alcohol. It seems reasonable to assume that at least 

among drinkers there is considerable consensus concerning the meaning of a “bottle” or “glass” of beer, a 

“glass” of wine, and a “drink” of liquor. In short, 

the index is based on the respondent’s report of the 

number of drinks (converted to absolute alcohol) which 

he ordinarily consumes at a sitting, combined with 

the reported frequency of such “sittings” in a given 

pericd of time. Various response combinations yield 

the five Q-F Index types shown below. However, Q-F 

Index types 1 and 2 may be combined and referred 

to as “light” drinkers, types 3 and 4 may be combined 

and called “moderate” drinkers, and type 5 drinkers 

may be labeled “heavy” drinkers. 

The Quantity-Frequency (Q-F) Index 

Type 1.	 Drinks infrequently (once a month at most) and 

consumes small amounts (not more than approximately 1.6 ounces of absolute alcohol). 

Type 2. Drinks infrequently (once a month at most) 

and consumes medium (1.6 to 2.88 ounces of 

absolute alcohol) or large amounts (more than 

2.88 ounces of absolute alcohol). 

Type 3. Drinks more than once a month but consumes 

small amounts. 

Type 4.	 Drinks two to four times a month and consumes 

medium or large amounts. 

Type 5.	 Drinks more than once a week and consumes 

medium or large amounts. 

A major shortcoming of the index is that it does 

not gather all alcoholics into one category. That is, one 

might suppose that all alcoholics would fall into the 

heavy drinking category. However, since types 2 and 4 

as well as 5 have no upper limit on quantity (but frequency is limited) we are likely to find the infrequent 

binge drinker either a type 2 or type 4. For this 

reason, in the present study Q-F types 2, 4, and 5 are 

considered one category. 

Although the validity and reliability of the Q-F 

Index have not been thoroughly investigated, it seems 

to be a convenient tool adequate for the task of ranking 

individuals as light, moderate, or heavy drinkers. 

Iowa Scale of Definitions of Alcohol 

The Definitions of Alcohol Scale is an attitudinal 

measure which is conceptualized as an explanatory 

variable intervening between drinking behavior and 

background sociocultural characteristics. 24~25 The 

measure was included in this study for two reasons. 

In the first place, it has been shown in previous studies 

to have the logically expected high association with 

other measures of extreme deviant drinking and was 

35 
used here as yet another reliability check. Secondly, 

there was the possibility that this scale or some of the 

individual items which constitute it might prove useful 

in the search for a set of items which would distinguish 

the alcoholic. The following description of the scale is 

for the most part taken from an earlier report. ~~ 

The original source of the statements to be scaled 

was an earlier study ~Gwhich collected responses to the 

open-ended question: “What do alcoholic beverages 

mean to you? How do you define liquor? In answer to 

the question ‘What is liquor?’ make some statements 

to complete the sentence, ‘Liquor is. . . .‘ “ From responses to this question a list of items was prepared 

and pretested in a college student population.~? In 

195825 the list of items shown below (but not in the 

order shown) was administered to each of the 1,185 

persons chosen to represent the adult population of 

Iowa along with these instructions: “Here is a list of 

statements commonly made about liquor. Would you 

please indicate for each statement whether or not you 

personally would make that statement about liquor. ” 

The Iowa Scvi. of DJinitions of Alcohol 

Contrived Statement Method 

item number Content of statement of scoring 

I +1 Liquor helps me forget 1 am not the kind of Agree O. 

person I really wont to be. o“y two 

+2 L@.or helps me get olong better with other 

people. 

f3 Liquor helps me feel more satisfied with 

myself. 

II +4 Kquor gives me more confidence in myself. Agree on 

5 Lfquor helps me forget my problems. my three 

6 Lfquor makes me less concerned with whet 

other people think of me. 

;; Liquor helps me overcome shyness. 

Liquor mokes me less self. conscious. 

Ill +9 L@r makes me more carefree. Agree on 

Liquor peps me up. any three 

+;! Liquor gives me pleasure. 

+12 tiq.or helps me enioy o party. 

13 Liquor helps me relax. 

Iv +14 L@.or improves parties m“d celebrations. Agree . . 

+15 Liquor makes o social gothering more my tbtee 

enioy able. 

+16 Liquor goes well with entertainment. 

17 A drink sometimes helps me feel better. 

v +18 Liquor is customory on special occasions. Agree 

VI Failure 10 respond affirmatively to the preceding items. 

fThese 13 items were asked in Cedar Rapids. Statement 18 was not used in scoring, 

thus “f.zil”re to respond .Wirm.ativel y”’ became contri. >~ item V. 

The respondent was instructed orally to indicate his 

response to each item by checking “yes” or “no” in 

the appropriate column. The results of the 1958 Iowa 

survey 25 were essentially repeated in the 1961 replication study. 11 

36 

scalability af the Preoccupation With 

Alcohol Scale 

Efforts to scale the responses of all drinkers 

to the 12 statements, using Guttman scaling procedures ,28 resulted in a Guttman coefficient of reproducibility (C. R.) of 0.958. In Guttman scaling the coefficient 

of reproducibility indicates the percent of accuracy 

with which responses to the different statements can be 

reproduced from the total scores. (A C,R. of 0.90 or 

above is usually considered acceptable.) For example, 

when the 12 statements are arranged in ascending 

order by their marginal frequencies, a person with a 

total score of 9 should have responded positively to all 

but the top three statements and a person with a total 

score of 2 should have responded positively to only the 

bottom two statements. Positive or negative responses 

which are out of order from this expected pattern are 

called “errors. ” 

The minimum marginal reproducibility (M.M.R .)ti!4 

indicates the minimum level which the C. R. can reach. 

This is obtained by summing the proportion of responses 

in the modal category for each statement and dividing 

by the number of statements. The difference between 

the M.M.R. and the C.R. is a measure of the improvement of predictability from knowledge of the total 

scores. The minimal marginal reproducibility is 

accordingly high, with a value of 0.892. This slight 

improvement over the minimal marginal reproducibility 

is little evidence of scalability, especially when it is 

considered that more than half of the drinkers rejected 

all the statements and therefore could make no errors. 

Moreover, a large proportion (79 percent) of those who 

responded positively to one or more of the 12 statements 

made at least one error. 

A more rigorous test of scalability limits the 

population to be scaled to the 310 who responded 

positively to at least one statement. The increased 

proportion of positive responses results in a minimal 

marginal reproducibility of 0.758. Scaling the responses 

of these 310 respondents yields a Guttman C.R. of O.~0. 

However, since 79 percent of the respondents made at 

least one error, a high degree of test-retest reliability 

could not be expected. In an effort to improve reliability, 

and as a further test of scalability, the six statements 

marked with a symbol in chart 1 were scaled. The minimal marginal reproducibility of the responses to these 

six statements by the 260 persons who responded to onc 

or more of them was 0.715; the Guttman C.R. was O.WM, 

and 53 percent of the respondents made one or more 

errors. 

This C. R., a marked improvement over the minimal 

marginal reproducibility, is evidence that the behaviors 

in question possess a degree of cumulativeness. The 

reliability, however, as evidenced by the proportion of 

persons making errors, is less than might be desired. 

To improve reliability and at the same time retain uII 

I z statements, the H.technique wus employed.;{” The 1~ 
statements were combined in a fashion which yielded 

four contrived items, each composed of three single 

stutcrnents, as shown in chart 1. 

A response to each contrived item is considered 

positive if “yes” was answered to any two or all three 

of the single statements making up the contrived item. 

\ltogether 158 (22 percent) of the 706 drinkers responded 

favorably to one or more of the contrived items, and 

22 of these each made one error. Five of these respondents failed to make scale pattern responses and 

were given a scale score of V. A respondent is assigned 

LI sccile score which is the same as the number of the 

“most difficult” contrived item to which he responded 

positively, provided that he responded to other contrived 

items in a scale fashion. When the 158 respondents are 

rmkcd in this manner, the resulting Guttman C .R. is 

O.LIM1,Generally speaking, this means that, for example, 

from knowledge that the respondent has a scale score 

of 11 we can predict with 96.6 percent accuracy that he 

rusponcled positively to contrived items H, III, and IV, 

but not to contrived item I. In summary, about onefifth of the drinkers in a sample of the adult population 

of Iowa responded to the four contrived items listed 

in chart I in a cumulative fashion. 

In 1961 a replication study 11 was made to test the 

relitibility of the Preoccupation Scale. Another similarsized sample (n= 1,213) of the adult population of Iowa 

was interviewed. Based on the responses of the total 

drinking population (715 cases compared with 706 in 

the original survey), the proportion that responded 

favorably to each item was slightly lower in the replication (see table 2). The rank order of these 12 items, with 

the exception of number five, was repeated in the replication. Considering that many of the items had nearly 

identical marginal frequencies, the fact that the original 

rank order was substantially maintained is evidence 

strongly supporting the stability of the scale. It is not 

surprising, therefore, that the 12 items were again 

found to possess a high degree of cumulativeness. Scale 

analysis of the responses of only those 300 drinkers 

who responded positively to one or more of the 12 

items yielded a C.R. of 0.91 and an M.M.R. of 0.81. 

This compares with a C.R. of 0.90 and an M.M.R. of 

0.76 for the 1958 data, where 310 cases responded 

positively to at least one item. 

The contrived item response frequencies of the 

two studies compare favorably (table 3). Scaling the 

responses of the 145 subjects who responded positively 

to one or more of the contrived items yielded a C .R. 

of 0.96 and an M.M.R. of 0.80. These values are very 

similar to those of the original study in which 158 

subjects responded favorably to at least one of the 

contrived items; the C.R. was 0.97 and the M. M. R., 

0.77. Thus, the replication reaffirms the scalability 

of the Preoccupation Scale items, 

37 
APPENDIX II€

DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT€

Terms Relating to Drinking Behavior 

Alcoholic. —This study used the following as an 

operational definition of the term “alcoholic .“ An alcoholic is anyone who repeatedly drinks beverage alcohol 

to the extent that it adversely affects his life—his health, 

domestic relations, job performance, or relations with 

the law. 

Alcoholic beve~ages.— Alcoholic beverages include 

such beverages as beer and ale, wine and champagne, 

and all forms of liquor, such as whisky, gin, vodka, etc. 

lJSi,t,jinglt.— A “sitting” refers to a period of time 

during which a person has been drinking, delimited in 

the questionnaire as ‘‘. . . from when you start drinking 

until you quit. ” 

Iowa Scale of Preoccupation With Alcohol. —The 

Preoccupation Scale is a cumulative scale which 

measures a person’s deviant drinking behavior. See 

“Iowa Scale of Preoccupation With Alcohol” in the 

text for a detailed description of the scale (p. 2). 

Iowa Index of Tvouble Due to Drinking.-The 

Trouble Index measures the social consequences of 

a person’s drinking behavior. See’ ‘Iowa Index of Trouble 

Due to Drinking” in text for a further description (p. 5). 

Iowa Scale of Definitions of Alcohol. —The Definitions Scale is a cumulative attitudinal scale which measures the extent to which a person defines alcohol for 

its personal effects. For a more detailed description of 

the scale, see Appendix I. 

Quantity-Frequency Index.- The Quantity-Frequency Index is a measure of the extent of a person’s 

alcohol consumption and is further explained in Appendix L 

Self- respondent. —A self-respondent is a person 

who is interviewed directly by the interviewer and gives 

his own answers. All respondents were at least 21 years 

old or married. 

Proxy respondent.-A proxy respondent is a household member who was not present at the time of the 

interview. A proxy’s responses are obtained from a 

responsible related adult member of the household, who 

is in turn a self-respondent. 

Known alcoholic .—A known alcoholic is a person 

whose behavior as an alcoholic (see operational definition) has been confirmed by at least two knowledgeables. 

Confirmation was obtained by a knowledgeable offering 

an alcoholic’s name independently or by checking the 

name on a proffered list and by locating the names on 

official records such as arrests for intoxication or 

drunken driving, inebriate cases, and hospital records. 

A known alcoholic was to be a “practicing” alcoholic 

and not currently “on the wagon. ” 

Knowledgeable.— Resource persons who assisted 

in establishing the known alcoholics are referred to as 

“knowledgeables.” Knowledgeable included such persons as Alcoholics Anonymous members, personnel 

managers, psychiatrists, police officers, police files, 

county clerk records, and hospital records. 

DYinking behavioY.—Persons are classified as 

drinke?’s, exdrinke?w, or abstainers according to their 

responses to a question developed for the Gallup 

Poll (Gallup Drinking Question): “Have you ever had 

occasion to use alcoholic beverages such as liquor, wine, 

or beer; or are you a total abstainer?” If abstainer, 

“Have you always been a total abstainer?” 

DYinkers include those persons who do have 

cxcasion to use alcoholic beverages and are not 

now total abstainers. 

Exdrinkers include those persons who are now abstainers, but who at one time were drinkers. 

Abstainem include those persons who are now, and 

have always been, abstainers. 

Household difficulties.-lle following question was 

used to determine household difficulties: “During the 

past year have there been any serious difficulties in 

your household due to excessive drinking?” This 

question was asked on a household basis and not of 

each member of the household however, the response 

was recorded for each member. That is, the data give 

the number of persons living in households where 

difficulty was reported, not the number of households 

reporting difficulty. 

Demographic, Social, and Economic Terms 

Age .—The year of birth was recorded for each 

person and this was subsequently subtracted from 1964 

to obtain the age. Age was recorded in single years and 

38 
l,ltc~r groupccl in the distribution used in the tables. 

.zducutz’w? .—Each person is classified by education 

in h.’rms of the highest grade of school completed. 

OnIs grw.ics completed in regular schools, where 

p’rsons ;tre given a formal education, are included. 

:\ “r~’gular” school is one which advances a person 

mw;trd an elementary or high school diploma, or a 

CLih_’~L’ , university, or professional school degree. 

Thus, cchtcation in vocational, trade, or business 

schools outside the regular school system is not 

counted in determining the highest grade of school 

ccmplc~tcd. 

lIICIII)lL’ (lkxlsellold).— Each member of a household 

is CIW+Sified according to the total income of the household of which he is a member. The income recorded is 

thL’ total of all income received by members of the 

hcm+hokl in the 12-month period prior to the interviLwT.Jnccnm from all sources is included, e.g., wages, 

wl.mics, business profits, net farm income, pensions, 

rents, ;md any other income received by members of 

th~’ hmHL’hoki. 

Ma~ital status. —The marital status categories are 

as follows: 

Mawied includes all married persons not separated 

from their spouses because of marital discord. 

Persons with common-law marriages are considered married. 

NeveY rnawied includes persons who were never 

married and persons whose only marriage was 

annulled. 

Otlzev includes persons who are widowed, divorced, 

or legally separated and persons separated because 

of marital discord. 

Religion. — Each person’s religious preference was 

recorded as given. If the preference was “Protestant,” 

the respondent was asked to specify the denomination. 

If the preference was “Christian,” it was determined 

whether this referred to the specific denomination of the 

Disciples of Christ. The religious preference was later 

classified into the categories reported in the tables. 

39 
APPENDIX Ill 

LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN CEDAR RAPIDS HEALTH SURVEY 

Letter sent tomost respondents prior to the interview 

— 

STATE 

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA m_di$­ —.. = IOWA CITY, IOWA -—— 

Health .%mices Pro/ect #X607 

500 Newton Road 

December 10, 1963


Dear Friend:


The University of Iowa Medical Center is carrying out a research


project to obtain information on subjecte concerning the health of Cedar


Rapids residents. Physician, reeearch workers, and other groups in the


health field are much interested in the knowledge which will be gained


from this project.


The address of your r!:,.lling
place was selected as a part of a random


sample of the dwellinge in Cedar Rapide. An interviewer from the University


will contact you eometime during January. The interviewer will ask you a


number of queetiona about your own health and the health of other members


of your family, particularly about illneaaes you have had in recent weeke


as well as other questions closely related to health. The interview will


take about thirty minutes to complete. Your cooperation will be very much


appreciated.


The information you give will of couree ba held in confidence, and


nothing will be published except statistical summaries in which no indi­


vidual can be identified. All information which would permit identifi­


cation of the individual will be held etrictly confidential, will be uged


only by persons engaged in and for the purposes of the project, and will


not be disclosed or released to othere for any other purposeg.


Harold A. Mulford, Ph$.


Project Director


40 
-----

-----

---- -----

----

The questionnaire used in the drinking study follows. naire are not covered in this report, but are currently 

The actual questionnaires are designed for a household being analyzed by the Division of Alcohol Studies, State 

as a unit and include additional spaces for reports on University of Iowa. 

more than one person. Several items on the questionBudget Buren. No. 68-6370;A!mrov.1 RCPires AuEust 31, 1964


CONFIDENTIAL- All informti.n which would permit identif i..tion of the individualwill be held strictly .cmf id.zntial,


will be used only by persons engaged in and for the purposes of tbe survey, and will not be di8closed


or released to others for any other purposes. (42 cm 1.101-1.108).


1964 

UNIVERSITY OF lOWA MEDICAL CENTER 

CEDAR RAPIDS HEALTH SURVEY 

Health Services Proied # X607 

Name 

Address ~Que”’’”nna’re 1- single family dwelling unit


-1-2)stratum #


(3-4)Block #


(5-6)Nouae #


Aa81snmer.t#


u


REG3RD OF cm= AT i+0U5EH0LD


Item (8) 1 Con. 2 con. 3 Com. 4 Corn. 5 cum


Entirs household Date --- ----- _ ----- _ _____ . 

(9) Time 

ecord of Date 

eturn --- ----- .-_--

.11. for Col. No.— Time 

ndividua1 

eapondanta Date - ----- - -----

Col. No. — Time 

Date 

Col. No.— Time 

TTPE (10) A 

1- Refunal (des.ribe In f.aot”c.tes) 

2- No one at home - repeated cal1s 

lea.m 3- Temporarily absent 

4- Other (specify) 

Interview not obtained for:


Bacauaa: 

ice u., only


3)12


4)


.. . . .


5-23)


. . . . . . .


24-50)


cola.


REASON FUR NON1N2ERV1RW


B


1- vacant - non-seasonal


2- vacant - seasonal


3- usual residence e.lae.where


4- Ar.ledForces


5- Other (specify)


_____ _


-


c


1- Demolished 

2- ln sample by mistake 

3- Eliminated in wb.smmple 

4- Other (specify) 

Slgmture of Intel-viewer, 

I 

I 

I(11-12)


F00TW2ES AND ~Nl12NTS


41

.-, --

11 

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

- -

-----

------ -- ------ ------ ------ ------ -----

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ------

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ------

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- -----

/1 10. Did y.. ever lmve � (any other) accident or injury 

I 

1.	 (.) what i. tb. mm. .f th. h-d of this household? that still h.the.. You .. .Efecta You in my waY? I 1-‘e’ ~= IN 1sT COLUMN. 2- No 

(b) what arm tbe u8rn. of .11 other Pr.ona 21 .ti (a) In Whmt way does it bother you? (69), ..,... 

over who 11“. her.? ~= / RECORD PRESENT EFFECTS 

(.) 1 h.. lfat.d (R2AD -). 1. there �rm.. .1.. / 

now mtaying here such . . Cri*nd#, ralati;as, 

roomers 7 1+ Ye. 2- No 

or ~ XD 

(b) Any2hing mlae? 

I 

(.> n-s 

-- . .. ... . of ties, ——-PC@. h,ve � home els.vh.r.?

1- Ye, Al PPLY IIOUSKNXD N8NB2RSI!IP RULX3. 

-F NOT ==, D2%ET2 . 1- S.lf (70)h IF ANY ADDLT MALES I.ISTED. ASK: t 11. m. any... in tbafamily— w., your - - , �tc. - 1- Y,, 

(f) A.. any of thet persons in this household non on I bad �y of the.. conditions during th. paat 12 month#? 

full-time active duty with the Armtd F.rc.n? 

1- Y.. DELETE 2- No ( 11-1 . 

2-

. . 

No 

. . . . 

READ CA3D ,,A, ‘, C0NDIT20N SY COND1TION:R3CORD IN R2S 

How are you related to the head of thi. bou..hold? COLUMi m COND1TION (BY h7m=) _lOW FOE NT 

2- No L2AVE ON LIST. (52) 2- Proxy 

(Son, daughter, father, mother, mother-in-law, P2F.SOI . 

roamer, step-..”, partner, .tc.)

LziiE=E	 (2-29) 

(30)r1.. 

12.	 DO.. .!ay.m fn the family have any of them Conditlona?


I 1- ‘“”


RSAD ~ ,%, ‘S CONDITION SY cO~lT1 ON: REGOND IN NIS 2- No 

(57)I COLNl!X AXY CX3~1T10NS (BY RNM2+?R)MENTION2D FOR % J. . . . . . 

PSRSON. (32) 

5.	 SEX (C3RCLE CODE) 1- Ule 

2- female 

[SE


6. Are you now married, widowed, divorced, .eparated, 1- marr Led* (33-41) 

or never married? 2- widowed 

3- divorced 

(59)	 3- .ep.r. ted 

&- single 

*IF %AP.RIEDS, (l), ASK: . . . . 

I 

. . . (r42) HOW long have Y.. been married? 

(60-1) 1 

DE2~1NS WlllCH AL7UfTS ARE AT HOKE Am R3CORD TRIS lRFURHA-


TION. BEGINNING WITS #7, YOU ARE TO lhTEF.VIEWFOR H?JSELF 1- At home


OR HES3ELF EACN ADDT.T WRO 1S AT NOMS ( =c=T WHEN0TH2RWI13E 2- Not home 13. (.) DO Y.. (D.., Y..r h.s>and, wife, - - ) ever hava 1- y.,, .,.
 INDICkTED). (62)	 occasion to us. alcoholic beverages such .s 1lqu.r. SKIP ~ #14


wine, or beer: or are y.. (i. he OR he) . total
 7.	 !4... you sick �t any time lamt week or the w.ak b8fore? 1- Yes abstainer? IF ,YES,,.CINCLE 3HE 0,71”UNDEK TNE .- No, (That i., the Z-week pariod which ended this pat (63) 2- No APPSOPRUTE M% ON ~ SIDES abstmln Sunday nLght?) . . . . . . . 

I (e . . . . . . (.) vlut w.. the matter? (w 

(b) Have You (Has your - - ) always been a total 3- 7?.s (b) Anything else? abstainer? IF ,%NV, CIRCLE THE ,,XD$. UNDSX INE SK1P 11.$
 N 31

APPROPRIATE NAMZ ON ~ SIDES 2- N.


1


-t 

(c)	How .Idofere you when y.” quit drinking .lc.h.lic beverages? RECORD AGE 

(45-6) .---- . . . . . . (61b) l_ 1’ 

8.	 L.at week c.. the w.ek b.fcm, did y.” t.ke any madicird 1-y., (d) Did YOU (your - -) find quitting difficult? 3- No 

or treatment for my c.ndition (bmfdes ... which you 2- No 2- Sllmt 

told me �bout)? . . . . . . 1- very 

(65) It- Cant ,,,,! 

(a) Wb.t w.* the conditkm? ~h,l 5- Dent know 

-

(b) Anything .1..? (.) Did You have �y kind of help t. q.it drinking 2- Non. 

c.. did you j“. t quit by your.elf? SKIP 71> #14 

1- N.d help 

(&El 3- D.nt know 

(6d) _____ .- (f) Wb. helped? Was help received from .“y of these 

. Curces? SHDW URD ,,C,, . RECORD CODE cm .30URCE(S)


(49-56)

-..-- PI . . A3K QUE3TIONS 14 - 17 OF ONLY ONE MR4SER PES NOUSE3@LD I 

9. Since thf. timelamt	 year, have you (your , etc) 1- Yes 14. During tbe past year have there been any aeri.um dlf- 2- No 

i.. bd any injuries from accident. that interferedwith f imlt in your household due to excessive d. ink%? SKIP m nlu things you usually do, or which bc.th..edyou for more 2- N. (57) 1. Ye, than a w..k? . . . . . . (67; . . . . . 

15. About how msny years ago did this diff i.. lty f ir8t (.) tit was tht accident and injury? begin7 RECORD NUF!B2ROF YMRS ,5,, 1 

-.--- -.--- . . . . . ----- . (b) Anything alsc? 

16. whose drinkl”E was involved? Was it your w“. Your 1 1- icmm 

h“sb.nd,	 n (wi~e,., - - ) or whose? -

I

2- 5pmM. 

CIRSLE ALL llUT APPLY 3- SPECIFV 

(68)Ill (m) I 

42 
---- ------ ------ ------

----- ----- ----- ----

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----

------ ------ ------ ------

----- ----- ----- -----

- -

----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

---

.

(23

--------------------

- -

------

------

------

. ..-. 23. D. you feel you drink to. much (or did at the tire 

17. would you mind describing the difficulty? you quit)? 1- Yes 

PRDXT: Does - - feel he (she) drinks to. much (or did 2- No 

before quittfng)? {7) 

1 (6]
 — 

WRTION9 18 - 30 ASK ONLY OF DRINK6RS AND U-ml-; 

TNAT 2S , YNOSE W1311 “Dt’ OR W)” CIRS3,E0 BY NAM3. 

18. How often during th. paintyear (or during the year


bef.re you quit drinking) did you have one or more


drhkm ?


O) None (Leas than once a Yeal


1) 1-12 times a year


RECORD L13DE 2) 2-3 times a month


3) on.. a week


4) 2 or more times a week


5) Een,t know (6:
 . ---- .----


19.	 (Q) Non much bmec or ale would You .m.yyou ordinarily 

conmum.(d) � t . aitting? That is, from when you 

start(d) drinking until you quit? 

0) No b.er . . al. 

kwmsu mm 1) 1-5 glamaea, 1-3 bottles or cam 

2) 6+ giaa,ea, 4+ bottles or cans


3) Donst know (6:
 ____


(b) UOW much WiIleor ChamPaglle.t . 8ittillR? 

0) No wine or champagne


R!J03RD03DX 1) 1-3 gl.sae.


2) 4 or more gl..se.


3) Dontt know (61


(c)	 Now many drink. of lb+... (whiskey, gin, vodka, .tc.) do ldid) y.” .ONUIIN at � sitting, eftbr.r 

mix*d or straight?


O) None


1) 1-2 drink. 14DZD (6!


2) 3 or more drinks - - ‘&,jl~


3) Don,t know


---:- <6, 

IF%tOlr, (0) ON	— ALL OR ABOVS =, (a-c); ASK:

(d) What do You drink? REMRD KIND ~ AWJUN2 

Anything � 19*7 

. ..-. ----, 

20.	 (a) Owing tha paintY*U’ (or year before you quit), 

did you hava am many am 3-4 drinks of liquor or 

6-8 bottl.m of b..r c.”any one oce.aic.n? (6 

*W ‘VW+, C, ASK: 

(b) Dld you hiv. .. many .. 7-S drinks of liqwar or


mor* than two .fx-packa of beer on any one o.c..i,


21.	 miring tha Pat year, have You driven a car within two 

m thr.a hour. aftar you had consumed M many � s 3 - 4 

drink. of liquor or 6 - S bottle. of beer?
 ,..


22. Now do You think your drinking ccmparea with the


drinking or other pec.ple7 Would YOU my you drink
 IMor.,,,th. Ius.mm, N or ,ILe.?a
 O,than:


PRLVX: Non #uppoaa your were �nswering this; how 

doss h. (mh.) think his drinking compare. with the 

dr2nking OC oth.r people? Would ha (#he) say that 

ha (8h.) drlnkm T-km’., if~he ,,~,ma ,!,or !,L=*
 *,!th,”:


ASK V2RT10ALLY


a. The �v,cragapardon.......................CUx: 

b. Mot OC your (hi. OR her) beat frie”dm......(?


c. Your humb.nd (waif .........................(~


d. Your (his OR bar) fatbr ....................(4.


� . Your (hit OR bar) mother....................(5. 

f. Would yOU ( - - ) .~y that yOU (b* OR h.) 

drink(s) mora now, lams ncu, or abeut the 

aama now � you (b. OR #h*) did 5 yearn ago?.. 

(6


2U.	 Nm?, wbmt d. alcoholic bw?.ragea mean to You? ware L


. list of st.t.ments co=only mmde about alcoholic


b.v.rag... 2’EAROUT IMERT ,X,,AND EiND IT ‘M R5WFOW


RNT. Would YOU phase put � chmck mnrk in either the 

,Y..,-C.lUEU or the ,X.Srcolumn to fndfc.te for ...b 

#tatamantwhttha or not You peraomlly would make 

that .t.temant. ‘l%er.are rm ,,.fgbt,,.. ,Wrmg,, 

� nswer.. Just 2ndicatewhether you would or would n. 

mska mcb .t.tement. cbo... the moat .pproprtite 

answer. RETRIEVE PAGE WT12NKESFOlmENT IS FINISE’dD. 

OLANOS’M SKR3NAT ALL1’2ZM3ARS AN3WEREDANDP5ACR


ASIDE, FACR DJWN.


FKOXT-RY9PDNDRW2: NOW suppose your h..b.nd (wife, ­

- wer. anmier2ng tbs ..- .t.tere.ts about .1coholi. !S NO J3COC2 

bsveragen for u; would he (8he) make each of these 

.tatamntm? ASK A~OSS 

1.	 Alcoh.lfc bev.rag.s make . social gathering more 

enjoyable...........................................(s 

2. Alcoholic beverage. �r. cwtommy .. .pecLal .ccaaiom 

- 3.	 Alcoholic bav.rag.a help ma forget 1 am not the.kind


of pus.n lr.ally want t. be......................<l~


4. Alcoholic bavuagss Zsprova parties and celebration.


5.	 Alcoholic bavcag.s halp me feel more m.tisf%ed


Ilitb. ............................................

(1.3


- 6. Alcoholic bevuasu hmlp M W-..= shyness.......~~3 

7.	 Alcobolie beversges help me get along better with (la


otbnr p.oplc.........................................


_ s. Alcoholic beverage. help m. enjoy � party..........(.1.5 

9. Alcoholic beverages make ma 1..s eelf-c.r.sci.u
 .....(.1.6


KN3w 

03


0 3 

0 3 

0 s 

0 3 

0 3 

0 3 

0 3 

0 3 

0 3 

0 3 

0 3 

0 3 

0 3 

_ (17
 10. Alcoholic bev.ragen Mb = more carefree.
..........


11. Alcoholic beverages give me more confidence in myself


(19
 12. Alcoholic beverages give me Ple.sura.................


13. Alcoholfc b+varagea g. well with ent.rtdnmant.... .(??


—
 1- Yes*


2- No


. . . . .


1- Ye.


2- No


25.	 ma. �n employer ev.r ftied 90. (your husband OR wff. 

OR - - ) or threaten.d to fire you (him OR b.r) if YOU 

1-	 Yea (ha OR h.) did not cut down or quit drf.r.king? _________________________ ;.: 2- No


*IF ‘YES,,,ARK: NM this happened within the pixt year 

(year befora you quit drinking?) (’x 

1s3, 2d. U. your b.aband (wif., etc.) ever left You or tbreatIAED .n.d to l.ave you if you did not d. a.mething about MS your drinking? ;E~K YROXT: smva YOU .... lc.ftor threatened to leave you-i 

husband (wife) if ha (mhe) did not d. a.mething about 

234 hti (her) dr2nking? 

—--—--- (25 . 234 

*IF ,YSS,’,ARK: ha. this h.pp.nmd with%n th. pmt par 

234 (Ye.. b=for. Y.. q.it dr~~g)? (26


234


27. sin Your husband (wff.. .tc) or .th.r family mmhr 

234 .v.r-complaf.n.dthat y& spad to. nucb moniy for 

alcoholic bcv.r.ms? 

234	 PROXY: HIV. you-or any other family member ev*r


.cmpl.b.d t6At your b.mbmd ( ) .p.nd. t.. mu.b


m.an.yfor alcoholic b.varagan?


________________ --____ ----(::


234 

�IF IT&S,’,ASK: ma this bappmed within tbc pzst ymr 

(ymr b.f.r. y.. (b. O, .bd q.it dr~fng)? (28


1-Y.,* 

2-No 

3-DOllt knew 

1-Y.. 

2-No 

1-Y..* 

2-No 

%-D.a”t know 

b-Never 

married


1-Y.. 

:-No 

1-Y”*


?-No 

l-DOnt know 

[-Y” 

Hi. 

43 
---------------------------

---------------------------

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----

------

------

-----

-----

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- --

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----

------

-----

------

------

28.	 Nav. you (has your husband Cm wLf. OR - - ) amr be.. 1-Y” * 

piciud up or �rr..t.d ~ th. polie. for intoxicationo 2-HO 

oth.r cb.rg.. f.nvolvfngalcoholic b.v.r.g..? 3-DX,t know ,.,


..2 

�1F ,,~, 0$ASK: ma this bapwned withfm th. past yar 1-Y., 

(y-r baf.r= 70. quit drfnkir.g)? 2-N. 

(., 

29. San � phy,ioian .V.r t old YOU (your husband 0P,wife 1-Y.,* 

0S.-- ) that drinking “.S injuring yam (hf. or her) 2-No 

h-lth? 3-20nt know
 (31 

*1F W3S ,,sASK: Has this happen.d within th. Past y.., 1-Y”


(ye*r before you quit drtitis)? 2-No 

(3: 

(903ss) 

[334


— 

30.	 NW, would you look over this list of statements about 

th. ... of �lcoholic beverage.. NAND R2SPOND2N2 PAGE 

OY.,. For each atatem.nt check whether or not E Per-

.OIU1lY would make that statement about your own drink- F 

ing - or would have made it before you quit drinking. RSD


choose the ~ �ppropriate response. AFfFR R NM CO14- !300 

9LSTS71FAGS W’,. R2TR12V2 IT. NOTS _ ALL ITEM QMN 

SAV2 BE2N ANSW2b, ASK PAST”(b) AND (C) IF AFPL1CABL3, UET 

AND FuT IT WITS PAG3 ,X,,. ETN 

NIEK


PROXY-R= P0~BW2: Now, would y.. indfo.te which of TMVN
 tbeae (..rea).t.temer.tsdeaeribe your husband,. (wif.,, LEEO


etc.) drinking hebavior — or would t+ve describtd it YSRW
 hef.re he (she) quit drinking? Use the (same) re­


sponse.: ,Wmw+mr,tly,,,,Sometimes ,,,or O!Never.
 0, 2103


1. I neglect my r.gul.r me.ls when 1 .= drf.nkfng ...... (35) ..
 2103 

2.	 1 drfnk for the effect .x!the �lcohol with littl. 

attention to the type of bever.ge or brand name ...Qq 2103 

3. Liquor baa Iaaa effect m .dethin it used to.......<?? 2103 

4.	 1 tab a drlmk tlw first thing when 1 get “p in


tha IOorniuI&
 .......................................(.~ 2103


{39; 5. 1 get fntoxicxted onimrkd.ys ..................... ..
 2103


6.	 I awabn the nmxt &y not being �ble to remamba mom {40’ of the things I bd dorm while 1 was drinking...... ... 2103


7.	 1 tab m f.W quick OM. before gobg to � P1.ty to 

make nure 1 have enough............................(~!z 2103 

8. 1 worty abaut not being �ble to get a drink when 1 

ne.d OM ...........................................<$? 2103


9. I don’t nurse my drinks: I tom.
 than d.wn pretty fant 2103


10. 1 *t.Y ~t.xi..ted for a.ver.l d.y. �t . tfm.......$$+ 2103 

11. 1 sneak drink. when no one in Imkimg . . . . . . . . . . . . ..{+?i 2103 

12. Once 1 start drfnkf.ng,it ia difficult for M to at.


b.fora I become completely intoxicated..............(E6
 .. 2103


13. 1 drtik ste.dily for two or three day. .t . time . . $??, 2103 

14.	 I try to kemp other paople from knoni”g th.t 1 �m 

drinking orhowmuch l.mdrinkfng .................!!@ 2103 

15. when I am going to do something or go someplace, I hav4


� few drinki first or else take sorm long. .........($?, 2103 

16. without roalf.ing wh.t 1 .= doing, 1 end up drhkin


more than 1 bad planned............................&’?. 2103
 -


IF MST STAT2WN2S W2M AN3WZKSD WSV2R,, (0) IN ANY C=JLUhl+, 

ASK FOR TEAT P2S30N, 1- Yes* 

(b) wan thars ever been � period in your (- -) life ASK MSTC 

whan most of tbe at.tements would have described 2- N.


YOUI (hi8 OR her) drinking? 3- r-antkm


IF ,’T2S,,,
 ASK: (53 - (c) Ah..thow old were you (he CF.she) .t t~t tti? 

ssmsn AGE -1- [54-5) 

31. Now we Iuve a few qU.3*tiomsabout �ut.mobila �ecid.ml 

-. 

(~) DO YOU own a driverts licmse7	 ,- Y.,* 

!- NO 

- ---.L5! 1- Sumpmd.d, 

-

*IF ,Y3S,,OF.,,SUSPSSDED,S
 , ASK: 1) Non. 

(b)	 How many mile. have ycw 2) 1-99


per.cm.lly driven in the 3) 100-4,999
 past year? 4) 5,000-9,999


5) 10.000-l&.999


RSCORD 03DE bj Ovi. 15,060 7) DonOt know
 ,..
 ~.~~ 

(c)	 Mring the Wst three year. - ainc. January 1,
 1961 - hcw many reportable (to fbe p.lfc.) .uto


accident. were YOU fr,vo
 I,ed inwhmce ~ w.,.


the driv.r? RsmsD submit, IF ,,NONW, 221T2s0


IF ANY ACC1DENT2 , CO~L~ TA3M A 

(58


32. What is tb. hfgb.nt grade 1) am-r .tt.nd.d


(or year) of rasular mcbool 2) kindmrwztan 

YOU b9V8 CCaDlat.d? - 3) .I.w,tmrv ..-.-.J (1-a)

4j hisb school (9-12) 

SNfSll=L2VSL~Y2L43 5) ..ll.g. ..- ~>y SN22R Y2AS COW7X2SD AT L2vzL ENfSSSD ASDVX. 

YsAs: 1234567S 

33.	 What wam tha approximate.total incnm of thfs f.mily


during thm pat 12 months? ‘2Mi includaswagas mid


salarim, businus profits, net fmrm incm, pmwimu rantm, and any othmr income r.c.ived by rnmb.ra of 

tbfs f�mily. SNQu OAm “D,,. Gfva m the n..b.r �nd 

l.tt- that .pp”r. nut to the SXO”P ht.which 

Your tic- falls.
 SNIW. IllALL COLNNNS
 (61;


24. What b your r.ligiou. pmf er.nea? S.S03RDS2SPON3X. 

IE WVY2S9MN2, ,,9.SWSD ‘TS.01!S33!AN21!
 (62:
 7 IF ,TWJPS2TANT0,
ON A7W13, ASK:


(b) Wtat denmtition?


(63; 1


35. Well, nm tbtt W* ar. .t the end of tba intarvimt, 

tall E+:


Do you think I 4M � .5rMr or an abstdrnr? 

(dh:


TM mm A.M. 

(65; —P.M. 

44 
---------------- --------

TABLE A 

CJ2LUNN 

hmistiu .) How many of these accidents have .c..rr.d since the fimt or last year? (Iv-1) 

m FJR F/&H AccImNT (i. the last three years) ASK: ACC1DEN2 #l ACCID2N’2#2 ACCIDENT M (7) 

b)	 Was anyone hospitalized overnight as . result of this �ccident? 1-Ye8 l-Ye* I-Ye* 

(S) 2-No 2-No 2-No 

c)	 Were there �ny f.hlities as a result of this accident? 1-Y., 1-Yes 1-Y,, 

(4) 2-No 2-No 2-No 

i) Did the ...idemt occur in town m m the highway? I-Town I-Town 1-Town
 e) Z-xighw.y 2-Slighway Z-Fiighway


k) W.. another vehicle involved in this accident? l-yen* 1-Y,.* 1-Y.S*


2-No 2-No 2-No


A SK:-------- (-6) *IF,,YFS,, -. -------. _________


W.. the other vehicle moving �t the tire,of the accident? 1-YCS 1-Y., 1-Y., 

2-No 2-No 2-No
 (i)


!) Approximately hcw much property 1) 1... thm $100


damage re.”lted from the r,c.ident- 2) $100-499
 to all vehicles involved? 3) $500-999


4) $1,000 - 1,999


5) $2,000 - 2,999
 — . _


6, $3’000 “r ‘ore (-8)


;) W.a your car listed .. . total 1.ss? I-Ye* I-Yea 1-Y,.


(-9) 2-No 2-No 2-No


I) W.uld YOU say that the ... of alcohol had anything to do with 1-Ye. 1-Ye. I-Ye*
 th. accident‘/ (-10) 2-No 2-No 2-No


) Dfd~ have anything to drink within two or three ho”.. prior 1-Yes l-z-es l-res
 to the accident? 2-No 2-No 2-No
 (-11)


45 
CARD A CARD B 

Has nnyone in the family had any of these Does anyone in the family have any of these conditions DURING THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS? conditions? 

2. Asthma


3, Tuberculosis 33. Deafness or SERIOUS trouble hearing with 

4. CHRONIC bronchitis one or both ears
 5. REPEATED attacks of sinus trouble


6. Rheumatic fever


7. Hardening of the arteries 34. SERIOUS trouble seeing with one or both eyes


8. High blood pressure even when wearing glasses


9. Heart trouble


10. Stroke 35. Any speech defect


11. Hemorrhoids or piles


12. Hay fever 36. Missing fingers, hand, or arm—toes, foot, or


13. Tumor, cyst or growth leg


14. CHRONIC gall bladder trouble


15. CHRONIC liver trouble 37. Palsy


16. Stomach ulcer


17. Any other CHRONIC stomach trouble 38. Paralysis of any kind
 18. Kidney stones or CHRONIC kidney trouble


19. Mental illness


20. Arthritis or rheumatism


21. Diabetes


22. Alcoholism


23. Thyroid trouble or goiter


24. Any allergy


25. Epilepsy


26. CHRONIC nervous trouble


27. Cancer


28. CHRONIC skin trouble


29. Hernia or rupture


39. REPEATED trouble with back or spine


40. Club foot


41.	 PERMANENT stiffness or any deformity of the


foot, leg, fingers, arm, or back


CARD C CARD D 

Was help or advice sought from any Total Family Income FROM ALL 

of these sources? SOURCES During Past Twelve Months 

49. Clergy


50. Psychiatrist


51. Physician


52. Social Worker


53. Member of family


54. Friend


1a. Under $1,000


2b. $1,000-$1,999


3c. $2,000-$2,999


4d. $3,000-$3,999


5e. $4,000-$4,999


6f. $5,000-$5,999


55. Member of Alcoholics Anonymous 7g. $6,000-$7,499


56.	 If some other source, who was it? 8h. $7,500-$9,999


%. $10,000-$14,999


X. $15,000 and over


ooo —— 

46 

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRLNTING OFFICE : 1966 0-213-746 
OUTLINE OF REPORT SERIES FOR VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 

SeTies 1.	 Programs and collection procedures. — Reports which describe the general programs of the National 

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions, and 

other material necessary for understanding the data. 

Reports number 1-4 

SeYies 2. Data evaluation and methods resea~ch. -Studies of new statistical methodology including: experimental . tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical techniques, 

objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory. 

Reports number 1-17 

SeYies 3.	 Analytical studies. —Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and health statistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series. 

Reports number 1-4 

SeTies 4. Documents and committee rePo?’ts,-Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and health 

statistics, and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birth and 

death certificates. 

Reports number 1 and 2 

SeVies 10.	 Data Fyom the Health InteYview Survey. —Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of 

hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, based on data collected in 

a continuing national household interview survey. 

Reports number 1-~q 

Series 11.	 Data Fvom the Health Examination Suvvey.— Statistics based on the direct examination, testing, and 

measurement of national samples of the population, including the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases, and distributions of the population with respect to various physical, phy~iological, and 

psychological measurements. 

Reports number ~-is 

SeYies 12.	 Data Fvom the Health Records Survey. —Statistics from records of hospital discharges and statistics 

relating to the health characteristics of persons in institutions, and on hospital, medical, nursing, and 

personal care received, based on national samples of establishments providing these services and 

samples of the residents or patients. 

Reports number I --1 

Sevies 20.	 Data on movtaiity. — Various statistics on mortality other than as included in annual or monthly reportsspecial analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also geographic and time 

series analyses. 

Repoyts nu]mbel. 1 

Sevies 21. Data on natality, marriage, and divorce. —Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other /

than as included in annual or monthly reports —special analyses by demographic variables, also geographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility. 

Reports number 1-8 

Sevies 22.	 Data From the National Natality and Mortality Surveys. —Statistics on characteristics of births and 

deaths not available from the vital records, based on-sample surveys stemming from these records, 

including such topics as mortality by swioeconomic class, medical experience in the last year of life, 

characteristics of pregnancy, etc. 

Reports number 1 

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to:	 National Center for Health Statistics 

U.S. Public Health Service 

Washington, D.C. 20201