Validation study demonstrates sound psychometric properties of a risk perception tool in students and inpatients with alcohol use disorder, highlighting its utility in addiction therapy.
Background Risk perception is a central concept in the public health and prevention field. Alcohol-related risk perception is distorted in Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), but is rarely employed in substance use research and therapy. The German questionnaire “Form to assess Alcohol-related Risk perception (‘Fragebogen zur alkoholbezogenen Risikowahrnehmung’; FAR) is a 44-item self-report instrument measuring the subjective risk perception of typical dangers caused by hazardous alcohol use (health, risk behavior, social life, work, law). It is based on the theoretical framework of four risk perception domains and allows the quantification of the Optimistic Bias. We report on the validation of the German 20-item short version, FAR-S. Methods We used two secondary datasets: A first sample of 690 students was used to perform a Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In a second sample of 57 inpatients with AUD discriminant and convergent validity was studied. Furthermore, we examined item and scale characteristics. Results The FAR-S replicates the theoretical factor structure (CFA, all λ > 0.60), support confirmatory and discriminant validity and good psychometric characteristics. The theoretical expected distortion of comparative risk perception in inpatients with AUD compared to students was shown. Conclusions The FAR-S is an economic and valid instrument to assess alcohol-related risk perception and seems appropriate for a variety of contexts, such as research, prevention, or therapy. Alcohol-related risk perception might provide new insights into important questions like who might develop AUD or recurrence; it might allow to study psychological changes along alcohol use careers and to identify new treatment targets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lipinski et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: