Athletes and Energy Drinks: Reported Risk-Taking and Consequences from the Combined Use of Alcohol and Energy Drinks

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 = 19.80 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

6. 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)

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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”)

11. 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.

12. External Validity • Generalized to all athletes • Sample group consisted of 401 intercollegiate male and female athletes with an average age of 19.80 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.