Reliability and Validity of the Alcohol Marketing Assessment Rating Tool (AMART)

Overview

Journal Nordisk Alkohol Nark

Specialty Psychiatry

Date 2020 Sep 16

PMID 32934520

Authors

Jonathan K Noel

Thomas F Babor

Katherine Robaina

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Current national responses to the monitoring and prevention of alcohol marketing to vulnerable populations, such as youth, typically rely on partial bans, co-regulation and industry self-regulation. Efforts to evaluate compliance with existing regulations are often cumbersome and resource intensive. We sought to develop a short questionnaire to assess compliance of alcohol advertising to existing alcohol industry self-regulated marketing codes.

Methods: Questions for the Alcohol Marketing Assessment Rating Tool (AMART) were taken from a longer rating instrument that was originally developed to detect violations of a self-regulated alcohol marketing code. Secondary analysis of data from three studies of alcohol advertisements was performed to determine the reliability and validity of AMART at detecting code violations, using the longer form as the criterion. One sample was used as an exploratory set. Two samples were used to validate the questionnaire.

Results: In the exploratory set, the reliability of AMART was considered near perfect (kappa = 0.92). Sensitivity was 97%, and specificity was 100%. Positive predictive value (PPV) was perfect and negative predictive value (NPV) was approximately 90%. In the validation sets, reliability was considered substantial to near perfect (kappa = 0.71-0.94). Specificity and PPV remained perfect, and NPV was 86%-90%.

Conclusion: The AMART is a reliable tool to detect violations of a self-regulated marketing code in alcohol advertising. It significantly decreases the amount of resources needed to evaluate a finite number of advertisements.

References

Gordon R . An audit of alcohol brand websites. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011; 30(6):638-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00257.x. View

Powell C . The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2003; 41(4):376-82. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x. View

Noel J, Babor T, Robaina K . Industry self-regulation of alcohol marketing: a systematic review of content and exposure research. Addiction. 2016; 112 Suppl 1:28-50. DOI: 10.1111/add.13410. View

Noel J, Babor T . Predicting Regulatory Compliance in Beer Advertising on Facebook. Alcohol Alcohol. 2017; 52(6):730-736. DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/agx059. View

Vendrame A, Silva R, Xuan Z, Sparks R, Noel J, Pinsky I . Self-Regulation of Beer Advertising: A Comparative Analysis of Perceived Violations by Adolescents and Experts. Alcohol Alcohol. 2015; 50(5):602-7. DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/agv045. View

Jernigan D, Noel J, Landon J, Thornton N, Lobstein T . Alcohol marketing and youth alcohol consumption: a systematic review of longitudinal studies published since 2008. Addiction. 2016; 112 Suppl 1:7-20. DOI: 10.1111/add.13591. View

Babor T, Xuan Z, Proctor D . Reliability of a rating procedure to monitor industry self-regulation codes governing alcohol advertising content. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2008; 69(2):235-42. DOI: 10.15288/jsad.2008.69.235. View

Searle R, Alston D, French D . Do UK television alcohol advertisements abide by the code of broadcast advertising rules regarding the portrayal of alcohol?. Alcohol Alcohol. 2014; 49(4):472-8. DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/agu018. View

Noel J, Babor T, Robaina K, Feulner M, Vendrame A, Monteiro M . Alcohol marketing in the Americas and Spain during the 2014 FIFA World Cup Tournament. Addiction. 2016; 112 Suppl 1:64-73. DOI: 10.1111/add.13487. View

10.

Landis J, Koch G . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1):159-74. View

11.

Noel J, Lazzarini Z, Robaina K, Vendrame A . Alcohol industry self-regulation: who is it really protecting?. Addiction. 2016; 112 Suppl 1:57-63. DOI: 10.1111/add.13433. View

12.

Pantani D, Peltzer R, Cremonte M, Robaina K, Babor T, Pinsky I . The marketing potential of corporate social responsibility activities: the case of the alcohol industry in Latin America and the Caribbean. Addiction. 2016; 112 Suppl 1:74-80. DOI: 10.1111/add.13616. View

13.

Noel J, Babor T . Does industry self-regulation protect young people from exposure to alcohol marketing? A review of compliance and complaint studies. Addiction. 2016; 112 Suppl 1:51-56. DOI: 10.1111/add.13432. View

14.

Babor T, Xuan Z, Damon D, Noel J . An empirical evaluation of the US Beer Institute's self-regulation code governing the content of beer advertising. Am J Public Health. 2013; 103(10):e45-51. PMC: 3780752. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301487. View

15.

Babor T, Robaina K, Noel J, Ritson E . Vulnerability to alcohol-related problems: a policy brief with implications for the regulation of alcohol marketing. Addiction. 2016; 112 Suppl 1:94-101. DOI: 10.1111/add.13626. View

16.

Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H . Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000; 32(4):1008-15. View

17.

Chapman A . Can human rights standards help protect children and youth from the detrimental impact of alcohol beverage marketing and promotional activities?. Addiction. 2016; 112 Suppl 1:117-121. DOI: 10.1111/add.13484. View