 Athletes and Energy Drinks: Reported Risk- Taking and Consequences from the Combined Use of Alcohol and Energy Drinks By: Manny Ozoa, Jaclyn Medel and Brandi Tillman

Purpose  The first purpose of this study was to measure athletes’ alcohol, energy-drink-only, and combined-use consumption rates.  The second purpose was to compare athletes’ reported risk- taking and consequences when they used alcohol-only compared to when they combined alcohol-only and energy drinks.

Hypotheses  Within combined users, there will be significant differences in reported risk taking behaviors when they use alcohol by itself compared to when they combine alcohol and energy drinks.  Within combined users, there will be significant differences in reported negative consequences when they drink alcohol by itself compared to when they combine alcohol and energy drinks.

Variables  Independent  Amount of alcohol and/or energy drinks one consumed on different occasions in the past year  Dependent  Differences in risk taking behaviors  Increase/decrease in binge drinking, more occasional drinking, etc.  Relationship Being Examined  The effects of energy drinks combined with alcohol on risk taking behavior among college athletes.

Sampling  Participants  401 (out of 456) intercollegiate athletes volunteered for the study from a large Midwestern Division I University  Consisted of 257 males and 144 females  Average age = years  Recruited as entire teams at designated meetings in which all the coaches and personnel were removed from the area to protect the athletes’ privacy  Participation was confidential and voluntary with no consequences for not participating

Groups  The assessment the participants took part in split them into three groups based on their results:  Nonalcoholic users  Alcohol only users  Combined users (alcohol and energy drinks)

Procedure  Prior to the study, the research obtained permission and approval form the campus Institutional Review Board, athletic department’s director of compliance, team coaches, and academic coordinators.  Recruited as entire teams at designated voluntary meetings in which all the coaches and personnel were removed from the area to protect the athletes’ privacy.  Participation was confidential and voluntary with no consequences for not participating.

Procedure  All participants (401) took the Quick Drink Screen (QDS) along with a brief 27 item assessment (B-CEOA & B-CEOCU) in which he or she indicated their expectancies for particular effects to happen to them while under the influence of alcohol and combined use on a scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 4 (agree).  Higher scores from the assessment indicated more negative health consequences.

Procedure  The QDS and Assessment determined which athletes use both alcohol and combine energy drinks with alcohol on separate occasions.  It also measured differences in risk taking behaviors and negative consequences within the same user.  Comparisons were then made between these athletes’ reported risk taking behaviors and negative health consequences on the alcohol and combined used expectancy measurements.

Results  315 (78.55% of 401) of the athletes reported using alcohol within the past year  290 (92% of 315) of the athletes reported binge drinking in the past year. (5 or more drinks on one occasion for both men and women)  165 athletes only used alcohol.  150 athletes reported combining alcohol with energy drinks and had riskier drinking habits than athletes who only used alcohol.  86 were non-users.  194 athletes reported using energy drinks without alcohol.  81 athletes reported consuming 3 or more energy drinks with alcohol. (“energy binge”)

Results  Compared to athletes who only used alcohol, results indicated combined users drank more often, consumed more alcohol per occasion, and used more than double the amount of alcohol.  Compared to athletes who only used alcohol, results indicated combined users have a higher risk for negative consequences such as not being able to sleep well, feeling nervous or jittery, and experience a rapid heartbeat.

External Validity  Generalized to all athletes  Sample group consisted of 401 intercollegiate male and female athletes with an average age of years.  The study could have produced different results between gender and amount of alcohol and energy consumed.  Only testing one age group of “athletes” cannot produce a generalization for all of them  Setting and Treatment  Participants were recruited as entire teams at designated meetings.  Coaches were removed from the area to protect the confidentiality of the athletes’ results  There were no consequence for not participating.

External Validity  History and Treatment  Could the results have varied if the time frame and the amount of drinks consumed were specified?  The study did not specify what days each athlete drank and how much on each day (weekdays vs. weekend).  Improving External Validity  The study could have specified which days each athletes drank if they drank along with the amount of alcohol consumed on the given day.  It could have addressed tolerance levels between men and women.

Construct Validity  Inadequate Preoperational Explication  The QDS was a valid test for measuring a person’s average alcohol consumption because when it was compared to the TLFB test, the results were very similar and consistent.  TFLB was a more thorough version of the QDS (20 minute test vs. 5 minute test) and the QDS still came out with similar results.  The B-CEOA (brief test) compared to the CEOA (thorough test) had the same relationship as the QDS to the TFLB.  Mono-operation Bias  The study could have specified which days an athlete drank and the amount of alcohol consumed on that given day.  The study only asked how many days in a week and a year an athlete drank and the average amount of alcohol consumed on one occasion.

Construct Validity  Interaction of Testing and Treatment and Interaction of Different Treatments  There weren’t any actual given treatments to the participants since the results were confidential therefore specific athletes couldn’t receive any treatment anyways.  The study was only meant to discover the effects of energy drinks combined with alcohol, not to treat the participants of the study.

Internal Validity  Single Group Threats  Mortality Threat = 18 cases were dropped for missing or incomplete data which could thrown off the final results  No regression threat because taking the tests over a second time would not change their results since the tests are confidential.  There is an instrumentation threat for the B-CEOA pretest because it was modified to include the threats of mixing alcohol with energy drinks compared to just testing for alcohol.