Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addiction. 2010 Apr;105(4):655–665. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02880.x

The Effects of Binge Drinking on College Students’ Next-Day Academic Test-Taking Performance and Mood State

Jonathan Howland 1, Damaris J Rohsenow 2, Jacey A Greece 3, Caroline A Littlefield 1, Alissa Almeida 4, Timothy Heeren 1, Michael Winter 1, Caleb A Bliss 1, Sarah Hunt 1, John Hermos 1
PMCID: PMC2859622  NIHMSID: NIHMS188500  PMID: 20403018

Abstract

Aim

To assess the effects of binge drinking on students’ next-day academic test-taking performance.

Design

A placebo-controlled cross-over design with randomly assigned order of conditions. Participants were randomized to either alcoholic beverage (mean =.12 g% breath alcohol concentration [BrAC]) or placebo on the first night and then received the other beverage a week later. The next day, participants were assessed on test-taking, neurocognitive performance and mood state.

Participants

193 college students (≥ 21 years) recruited from greater Boston.

Setting

The trial was conducted at the General Clinical Research Center at the Boston Medical Center.

Measurements

The Graduate Record Exams © (GREs) and a quiz on a lecture presented the previous day measured test-taking performance; the Neurobehavioral Evaluation System (NES3) and the Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) measured neurocognitive performance; and, the Profile of Mood States (POMS) measured mood.

Findings

Test-taking performance was not affected the morning after alcohol administration, but mood state and attention/reaction time were.

Conclusion

Drinking to a level of .12 g% BrAC does not affect next-day test-taking performance, but does affect some neurocognitive measures and mood state.

Keywords: binge drinking, academic performance, neurocognitive performance, mood state, students, intoxication

Introduction

The National Advisory Council of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) defines binge drinking as attaining a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 g% or more, corresponding, for most adults, to ≥ 5 or more drinks (≥ 4 if female) in about 2 hours 1 . In the US, both binge drinking and heavy drinking (binge drinking at least 5 times in the last 30 days 1 ) peak at age 21 2 .

Although college students have lower rates of daily drinking than their non-college peers, they have higher rates of binge drinking 3, with 32–44% reporting binge drinking 4 . Not surprisingly, 60–75% of college students experience at least one hangover a year, 27% report 1–2 hangovers, and 34% report 12–51 hangovers 5.

Serious negative consequences associated with student drinking include death 6, injury, suicide, fighting, unprotected sex, rape, property damage, and legal problems; academic difficulties are, however, the most frequently reported consequence of excessive student drinking 7. Academic problems resulting from heavy drinking can occur through several mechanisms: hangover results in missing morning classes; drinking uses time otherwise spent studying; drinking impedes next-day learning in class or, when studying, by affecting memory retention 8 ; and, personal and interpersonal problems resulting from heavy drinking may make it hard to focus on school work 910 .

A number of surveys have shown relationships between college students’ drinking and academic difficulties 7, 915. Other survey studies, however, have found that the relationship of drinking and academic performance disappeared after controlling for pre-college differences in academic performance 1617 .

Little experimental work has been published on the effects of student drinking on academic performance. There is, however, a body of experimental research on the effects of intoxication on next-day performance (“residual effects of alcohol”), as measured by neurocognitive laboratory tests or occupational training simulators. Since academic performance is the occupation of students, this research is relevant to the question of whether intoxication in the evening impairs students’ next-day test-taking ability, when blood alcohol concentration (BAC) has returned to zero. Several studies found residual alcohol effects on simulated occupational tasks 1829. However, in other experimental studies residual effects of intoxication were not found for occupational tasks 3034. Some investigators have found residual alcohol effects on various neurocognitive tests 3544. But other studies found no impairment on tests of manual dexterity or neuocognitive performance 39, 4549.

Inconsistencies among study findings may be the result of factors such as the type of performance measured the amount of alcohol administered, the age and alcohol tolerance of participants, and the length of time from drinking to testing 49.

We conducted a randomized crossover trial to examine the extent to which alcohol intoxication affects college students’ next-day academic performance at zero BAC. Neurocognitive tasks relevant to academic performance were also assessed. We hypothesized that drinking to about .12 g% BrAC would not affect next-day performance on academic tests requiring long-term memory (e.g. standardized academic achievement tests), but would affect performance on tests of recently learned material and on neurocognitive tests requiring sustained attention and speed. To our knowledge, this is the first study to experimentally explore the relationship between binge drinking and academic performance.

Methods

Participants

Participants were university students recruited from greater Boston, Massachusetts, who were between 21 and 24 years of age and met the following criteria: (1) no drinking problems (score < 5 on the Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (SMAST) 50 and no history of treatment or counseling for chronic alcohol problems; (2) consumption of ≥ 5 drinks (≥ 4 if female) on a single occasion at least once in the 30 days prior to screening; (3) no health problems or current medication use contraindicated for alcohol; (4) no diagnosis of sleep disorders or use of sleeping medications; (5) fluent English; (6) recently graduated from, or currently attending, an institution of higher learning; (7) not working night shifts; (8) not a daily smoker; (9) not traveled across two or more time zones in the prior month; and (10) if female, negative pregnancy test and not nursing. Female participants’ phase of menstrual cycle was documented but not a factor in scheduling their experimental sessions 5153. For safety reasons, regular tobacco users were excluded because participants were not allowed to leave the laboratory to smoke. This exclusion also avoided possible confounding due to nicotine withdrawal during the study sessions. Before beverage administration, participants who reported consuming alcohol, caffeine, prescription, or over-the-counter drugs within the prior 24 hours, or who had a positive breath alcohol test (BrAC), were rescheduled (see Table 1 for participant characteristics).

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics

Total (n= 193)

Sex
  Male 107 (55.4%)
  Female 86 (44.6%)

Age
  Mean ± SD 21.47 (0.64)
  Range 21 – 24

Race
   White 155 (80.3%)
  Black 8 (4.2%)
  Asian 13 (6.7%)
   Other 17 (8.8%)

Family History of Alcohol problems
Yes 71 (36.8%)
No 119 (61.7%)
Adopted 3 (1.6%)

Mean age of drinking onset
Mean ± SD 16.18 (1.66)
Range 11–21

Maximum breath alcohol
concentration (BrAC)
    Mean ± SD 0.12 (0.01)
    Range 0.09 – 0.16

Amount of Alcohol Received (mls)
    Male: Mean ± SD 1609 (288)
    Male: Range 1052–2308
    Female: Mean ± SD 1122 (178)
    Female: Range 683–1606

% with Hangover
Rated hangover >1 the morning following
alcohol administration when asked to rate
their hangover on a scale of 0 (no hangover)
to 7 ( incapacitating hangover)
69.8%

Morning mean AHS Score:
Placebo condition .71 (.35)
Alcohol condition 1.38 (.81)

No information about individuals’ participation was provided to institutions attended by volunteers. Participants were paid $300 upon completion of the study, or a prorated amount if their participation ended prior to completing the study. The Institutional Review Boards at Boston Medical Center and Brown University approved this study.

Study design

We used a placebo-controlled, double-blind, within-subjects, repeated measures design to study the residual effects of alcohol, with participants serving as their own controls. Participants took part in the study over four days: an evening and the next morning, followed a week later by the same schedule. All participants received two beverages (alcohol and placebo) in counterbalanced order (alcohol week 1 vs. alcohol week 2).

Study procedures

Recruitment and screening

Participants were recruited by advertisements in local newspapers and websites (e.g., Facebook and Craig’s List). Interested individuals were first screened by telephone and then in person, including a physician examination (after informed consent). To reduce potential confounding by sleep pattern variations, participants were instructed to keep a sleep diary, comply with a minimum regimen of 8 hours sleep (retiring to bed no later than midnight and awaking no later than 8:00 a.m.), with confirmation call-ins to a time-stamped answering machine each evening and morning for the three nights prior to experimental sessions. Participants were told not to nap and, for 24 hours prior to their experimental sessions, to abstain from alcohol, medications not already approved by the study physician, sleep aids, recreational drugs, and caffeine. To familiarize participants with the standard academic achievement tests, they were required to read and complete a practice booklet issued by the testing service.

One week after screening and enrollment, participants returned in a group of three to five for the first overnight experimental session. They reported at 4:00 p.m.; car keys were collected from participants who drove to the study site; compliance with pre-laboratory regimens was checked; and, following a standardized dinner, participants were screened for zero breath alcohol (BrAC) and negative pregnancy test (if female). To prepare for a quiz the following morning, at 6:00 p.m. participants randomly viewed one of two 30-minute video lectures on a public health topic and had an hour to study an accompanying text book chapter. They viewed the other video lecture the following week. To reduce potential learning effects, participants then practiced the computer-based neurocognitive test prior to alcohol administration. (Table 2)

Table 2.

Schedule of Study Procedures

Orientation/Consent Orientation. Consent. Enrollment
questionnaires. Medical
screening by physician.
10 AM – 12 PM
Evening Sessions Dinner, Screened for adherence
to study protocol. BrAC tested.
Pregnancy tests administered to
females.
4 PM – 5 PM
5 PM – 6 PM Family Tree Questionnaire
administered. Practice tests to
familiarize participants with
GRE and PVT.
6 PM – 7:30 PM Video lecture based on next-
day’s quiz. Participants study
lecture notes for one hour.
7:30 PM – 8:45 PM Practice NES3 test.
8:45 PM – 11 PM Beverage Administration
Repeated BrAC tests
11:00PM Lights out.
Observed throughout night by
EMT
Morning Sessions Subjects awaked. Morning
questionnaires.
7:00 AM - 7:30AM
7:30 AM - 8:00 AM Breakfast
8:00 AM - 11:00 AM BrAC tests
POMS Questionnaire, Quiz on
video lecture, GRE, NES3, PVT,
Self-Rated Performance
questionnaire
12:30 PM Subjects dismissed

Randomization procedures

For the first experimental session, participants received a study ID number and were randomly assigned to beverage (placebo or alcohol); they received the other beverage the following week. For safety reasons, no more than three of the five participants received alcohol on any given night. To maintain double blinding, the individual who prepared beverages and conducted breath tests had no other contact with participants; all other study assistants working directly with participants were unaware of participants’ beverage assignments. Participants were told there was a 50–50 chance of receiving alcohol the first night and they were instructed not to inspect or taste each others’ drinks or discuss the beverage they received.

Beverage administration procedures

Alcoholic beverage administration targeted .12 g% BrAC, adjusting the alcohol per kilogram of body weight for sex (1.068 g/kg body weight for men and .915 g/kg for women), as per Friel et al. 54. Males received a mean of 1609.07 (sd: 288.55) mls of beverage (range: 1052.20–2308.00), or the equivalent of 6.75 12-ounce cans of regular beer (at 4.82% alcohol by volume); females received a mean of 1122.09 (sd: 178.48) mls of beverage (range: 683.3–1606.60), or the equivalent of 4.72 12-ounce cans of regular beer.

Beer controlled with nonalcoholic beer has been shown to be one of the two most effective beverage combinations for disguising placebo 55. Beer was chosen because most young men and women find it palatable. Elephant Beer ™ (Carlsberg, 100 Ny Carlsberg Vej, DK-1760 Copenhagen V, Denmark) with 7.2% alcohol and Clausthaler ™ nonalcoholic beer (Radeberger Gruppe KG, Darmstadter Landstr. 185, 60598 Frankfurt am Main, Germany) were the beverages. High alcohol beer reduces the volume required to achieve the targeted BrAC. Beverage administration began four hours after eating and went from 8:45 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. (up to 10:00 p.m. as needed). Participants were told the total number of cups of beverage they were to consume in an hour. They were asked to drink the first two cups (330–340 ml) quickly and to pace the rest over the time allowed. Participants were breath tested 15 minutes after completing their beverage. If participants randomized to alcohol did not reach .12 g% BrAC, the ratio of obtained versus targeted BrAC was used to estimate the additional amount of beer to be administered. To maintain blinding, some of the placebo participants were given a matched extra dose of non-alcoholic beer. After participants finished drinking, they were breath tested every 15 minutes prior to bedtime, with the last BrAC measurement recorded five minutes before lights out.

Following beverage administration and a 30-minute absorption period, participants completed questionnaires, received snacks, and prepared for bed. Participants had an 8-hour opportunity to sleep (no lights or television and cell phones turned off) between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in an individual bedroom with bathroom. They were monitored throughout the night for safety by an emergency medical technician (EMT).

At 7:00 a.m. participants were awakened, breath-tested and served breakfast (no caffeine). They then completed a questionnaire assessing mood state and, at 8:00 a.m., started testing. Sleep inertia during the first 30 minutes after waking is likely to impair performance 56; allowing an hour before performance testing avoids this. To avoid confounding by alcohol remaining in the blood, performance testing was delayed, if necessary, until BrAC reached < .00 g%. Participants were dismissed from this session at approximately 11:30 a.m. They were given an additional mood assessment questionnaire in a self-addressed, postage paid return envelope and asked to complete it at 5 p.m. that day and mail it back to the study coordinator. One week later they returned for the second experimental session, identical except for beverage, video lecture, and the standardized test version.

Individual difference measures

Recent drinking practice was estimated using a two-item alcohol use questionnaire: 1) “Considering all your drinking times in the past 30 days, about how often did you have any beer, wine or liquor?”, Likert-rated from 1 “once a day” to 7 “did not drink”, with each point anchored; and, 2) “In the past 30 days, on a typical day that you drank, about how much did you have to drink in one day?”, rated from 1 to 8, with choices of 1 to 7 drinks and “8 or more drinks”. One drink was defined as 12 ounces of beer or wine cooler, 4 ounces of wine or 1 ounce of liquor. Average daily volume (ADV) was calculated as the product of these. We also collected information on family history of drinking problems using the Family History Tree questionnaire developed by Mann et al. 57 and on age of drinking onset. These data are presented in Table 1, but were not included in analyses.

Dependent measures of objective effects

Overview

Two tests of academic performance were used. Short-term recall was assessed by a quiz on a lecture delivered prior to beverage administration. Versions of the Graduate Record Examinations© (GREs) (Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ) were used to measure verbal and quantitative skills that have been acquired over a long period of time. Two methods of assessing neurocognitive performance were used: the Neurobehavioral Evaluation System (NES 3), a neurocognitive battery; and, the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT), a measure of sustained attention/reaction time.

Lecture quiz

First we administered a 30-question quiz based on the videotaped lecture and associated reading presented the day before. Two lectures and readings were used in counter-balanced order. The two lectures were based on chapters from a public health text, Introduction to Public Health 58: Chapter 15, Tobacco: Public Health Threat Number One and Chapter 16, Diet and Activity: Public Health Threat Number Two. Quiz questions were derived from the teacher's guide. The quizzes were previously pilot-tested with 50 college students to ensure a normal distribution of scores.

GREs

After the quiz, we administered two parts of the GRE’s General Test: a 30-minute verbal section (ability to discern, comprehend and analyze words, sentences and written passages) and a 45-minute quantitative section (basic mathematical skills, elementary mathematical concepts, and ability to reason and to solve quantitative problems) in four broad content areas: arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and data analysis 59. Two different, but comparable, computer-administered and computer-scored tests were used, with order randomized by individual.

For assessments, participants had their own carrels and were monitored to ensure that they did not communicate. To enhance motivation, participants who scored in the top 50% of national averages on both sections received up to four complimentary movie tickets (two per study week). Participants were not informed of their scores or awarded tickets until they had completed the study.

NES3

The Neurobehavioral Evaluation System 3 is a computer-assisted battery of cognitive tests validated for cognitive impairment 60. As primary measures, we selected 9 tests requiring speed, sustained attention, or sustained attention/reaction time, tests most apt to be affected the day after intoxication 61. For manual dexterity tests that individually tested each hand, we used the test for the preferred hand; for tests that had forward and backward versions, we used the more difficult backward versions. The following tests assessed speed: Finger Tapping Test, preferred hand (FTT-P) (assesses manual motor speed and dexterity); and, Sequences Test A, latency (ST-A-L); Digit-Symbol Test, latency (DST-L); Pattern Memory Test, latency (PMT-L) (all assessing speed of cognitive processing). The following tests assessed sustained attention: Auditory Digit Span Test, backwards (ADST-B); Adaptive Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test, number correct (APASAT-C); Visual Span Test, backward (VST-B); Pattern Memory Test, number correct (PMT-C). Continuous Performance Test (CPT), measures both sustained attention and reaction time.

PVT

As an additional test of sustained attention/reaction time, we used the Psychomotor Vigilance Task 62 (Ambulatory Monitoring, Inc, Ardsley, NY). On this handheld unit participants press a button with their preferred hand as quickly as possible in response to numbers scrolling on an LCD screen, with a random 3–7 second inter-stimulus interval. Response time is counted in milliseconds. A solid-state storage unit collects data for downloading to a PC. The recorded outcome variable is median reaction time.

Exploratory measures

As exploratory measures, we administered an additional 9 NES-3 tests: FTT (non-preferred hand); ST (backward); ADFST (forward); APASAT (stimulus response rate); VST (forward); VT (Vocabulary Test, a measure of general verbal ability); LOT (Line Orientation Test, number correct and latency, both measures of attention to visio-spatial information); and LL (List Learning, a measure of quantitative aspects of several components of verbal learning and memory).

Dependent measures of subjective effects

Mood

Because the residual effects of alcohol on mood state might be salient to college students, we also measured next-day mood in both the morning and the afternoon. To assess mood, we used the Profile of Mood State Brief Form (POMS) 63, a validated self-administered questionnaire with 30 adjectives (each rated on a 5-point Likert scale, from 0 [not at all] to 4 [extremely]). These comprise 6 domains: fatigue-inertia (F); tension-anxiety (T); depression-dejection (D); anger-hostility (A); confusion-bewilderment (C); and vigor–activity (V). Only total mood disturbance score ([F+ T+D+A +C]-V) was scored for analyses because we had no hypotheses about individual mood domains.

Self-rated performance

To assess participants’ perceptions of their performance on the morning quiz and GRE tests, they completed ratings of subjective performance, with every point anchored: “Overall, how would you rate your performance on the test that you just completed?” Response categories were: 1= “very poor”; 2 = “poor”; 3 = “good”; 4= “very good” and 5 = “excellent”.

Hangover

The Acute Hangover Scale (AHS) 64, developed based on empirical hangover data 36, 6566, consists eight validated symptoms plus “hangover” rated from 0 “none” to 7 “incapacitating” on anchored Likert-type scales. The 9 items form a reliable and valid scale, scored using the mean.

Alcohol Administration Manipulation checks

An AlcoSensor-4 (Intoximeters, Inc, St. Louis, MO) was used for breath-testing. Following beverage administration, participants were asked to estimate their blood alcohol concentration on a scale ranging from 0 to .15 g%.

Statistical power

With a target enrollment of 200 participants, our study had 99% power of detecting the anticipated medium-sized effect of alcohol on next-day academic test performance (d = .52), a value derived from our previous studies. For comparison of the effects of alcohol versus placebo in females versus males, the study had 80% power of detecting a difference.

Data analysis approach

All measures were examined for normality and outliers, using the criteria set forth by Hoaglin et al.67. Outliers were recoded following recommendations by Tabachnick and Fidell 68. Among the primary outcomes measures, there was 1 outlier for both the GRE verbal and GRE quantitative scores; 5 outliers for the Quiz score.

Differences in outcomes following consumption of alcohol vs. placebo were tested through mixed-effects regression models for repeated measures data 69. Our primary interest was in differences by experimental condition (alcohol vs. placebo, a within-subjects factor). We controlled for randomly assigned order of beverage administration by including a session variable (indicating a first or second study evening, a within-subject factor) and also controlled for gender (a between-subject factor). Differences in alcohol effects for males and females were tested through the interaction between experimental condition and gender, and all other two-way and three-way interactions were also included in the model. Where significant interactions were found between experimental condition and gender, within-gender alcohol effects were tested through model contrasts.

Comparisonwise p-values are reported. When considering multiple testing issues, we grouped study outcomes as measures of : 1) academic performance (1 Quiz and 2 GRE scores); 2) 10 primary neurocognitive performance measures (including the PVT); 3) 9 exploratory neurocognitive performance measures; 4) mood state measures (a.m. and p.m. assessments); and 5) self-reported performance (1 for the quiz and 1 for the two GRE scores). Analyses are interpreted to indicate an alcohol effect if either the main effect of beverage, or the interaction between experimental condition and gender, are significant. To formally account for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni adjustment, comparisonwise p-values of .008 (academics), .0025 (primary neurocognitive), .0028 (exploratory neurocognitive), and .0125 (mood state and self-rated performance), would be required. Because Bonferroni is known to overcorrect, we used an α = .005 throughout our analyses.

Although formal analyses were based on mixed effects regression models, rather than simple differences by beverage condition, difference scores and their standard deviations are presented for ease of interpretation. Differences in performance are also described as standardized effect sizes, calculated as the difference in mean performance under alcohol and placebo divided by the standard deviation of the difference scores (Cohen’s d) 70. Cohen 70 considers effect sizes (d) of .2, .5, and .8 as small, moderate, and large, respectively.

Results

Participant enrollment

Four hundred thirteen participants were screened; 364 (88%) were eligible. Of these, 239 (65%) appeared for their scheduled experimental session, and of these 196 (82%) completed the study. Three of the 196 participants who completed the study were excluded from analyses because their maximum breath alcohol measures did not reach the minimum BrAC level (.09 g%). Seventy percent of participants reported some hangover the morning following alcohol administration. The mean AHS score was significantly higher under alcohol condition, relative to placebo condition. Table 1

Objective performance outcomes

The morning after beverage administration, neither the quiz scores on the prior day’s lecture nor the two GRE scores differed by beverage condition; effect sizes were close to zero (< .06). None of the academic performance outcomes showed significant beverage-order or gender-beverage interactions. Table 3

Table 3.

Academic Performance Outcomes by Experimental Condition

Measure N Alcohol Placebo Difference
(SD)
Effect
Size
P-value
GRE
Raw
Scores
GRE Verbal 193 495.39
(87.79)
497.62
(86.43)
−2.23
(61.02)
0.04 NS
GRE
Quantitative
193 615.75
(98.92)
612.38
(94.64)
+3.37
(62.57)
0.05 NS
Quiz # Correct 193 24.70
(2.26)
24.59
(2.48)
+0.11
(2.65)
0.04 NS

-All p-values are based on mixed effects models controlling for gender and session number.

-The interaction of gender and dose was tested in each model and found to be non-significant.

Of the nine primary NES3 measures, VST-B was significantly different by beverage. PMT-C showed significant gender by beverage interaction (p=.032); females performed worse (borderline significant) under alcohol condition, relative to placebo, but for males there was no difference. No interactions of beverage with order were significant. The morning after beverage administration, median attention/reaction time scores, as measured by the PVT, were significantly longer under alcohol condition, relative to placebo condition. Table 4 Of the exploratory neurocognitive tests, none was significantly different by beverage condition at our α level.

Table 4.

Neurobehavioral Evaluation System-3 and PVT Outcomes by Beverage Condition

NES3 Outcomes N Alcohol Placebo Difference
(SD)
Effect
Size
(d)
P-value
Tests requiring speed
Finger Tapping Test: Mean
number of taps, preferred hand
(FTT-P)
188 59.68
(7.11)
60.12
(7.24)
−0.44
(4.73)
0.09 NS
Sequences Test (ST-A-L)
Sequence A:
 Latency (ms)
188 14.35
(2.66)
14.48
(3.02)
−0.13
(2.59)
0.05 NS
Digit-Symbol Test (DST-L)
 Latency (ms) § 188 80.02
(9.53)
79.53
(9.22)
+0.49
(6.63)
0.07 NS
Pattern Memory Test (PMT-L)
   Average response latency
   for correct items (seconds)
188 3.17
(0.85)
3.15
(0.90)
+0.01
(0.71)
0.02 NS
Tests requiring sustained attention
Auditory digit span test (ADST-B)
 Maximum span backward 188 6.25
(1.40)
6.16
(1.42)
+0.09
(1.40)
0.06 NS
Adaptive Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (APASAT-C)
 Number correct 184 94.92
(3.42)
95.06
(3.19)
−0.14
(2.86)
0.05 NS
Visual Span Test (VST-B)
 Maximum span backward 186 5.41 (0.89) 5.67 (1.16) −0.26 (1.22) 0.21 0.004
Pattern Memory Test (PMT-C)
Number Correct
 Male 103 16.14
(2.90)
16.06
(2.36)
+0.08
(2.65)
0.03 NS
 Female 85 15.26
(2.74)
16.12
(2.12)
−0.86
(2.70)
0.32 0.004
Tests Requiring Sustained Attention and Reaction Time
Continuous Performance Test (CPT)
  Reaction time (ms) 187 378.77
(35.48)
375.98
(35.82)
+2.78
(22.47)
0.12 NS
Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT)
   Median reaction time (ms) 190 223.40
(22.81)
218.57
(20.25)
+4.83
(15.08)
0.32 0.000

-All p-values are based on mixed effects models controlling for gender and session number.

-The interaction of gender and dose was tested in each model. If interaction found to be significant, results were presented by gender.

Valid range of span scores for the forward condition: 3–9; backward condition: 2–8.

Maximum time permitted to complete Sequence A: 60 seconds; Sequence B: 120 seconds.

§

Maximum time permitted to complete digit/symbol test: 180 seconds.

Estimated as the sum of the number of items answered correctly of those seen by the subject and 25% of the remaining number of items that the subject did not see due to early exit from the test.

Dependent measures of subjective effects

Mood

The day after beverage administration, the mean total mood disturbance score was significantly worse under alcohol condition, relative to placebo condition, in both the morning and the afternoon. Table 5.

Table 5.

Subjective Measures by Beverage Condition

Profile of Mood States (POMS)
(higher scores reflect more negative mood state)
Measure N Alcohol Placebo Difference
(SD)
Effect
Size
P-value
Morning:
Total Mood
Disturbance
Score
193 6.71 (9.41) 1.90 (7.20) +4.81 (7.95) 0.60 0.000
Afternoon:
Total Mood
Disturbance
Score
153 4.30 (10.19) 1.93 (8.39) +2.37 (8.72) 0.27 0.001
Self-rated performance
Quiz
Performance
185 3.43 (0.77) 3.61 (0.79) −0.18
(0.95)
0.19 0.005
GRE
Performance
188 2.48 (0.69) 2.65 (0.68) −0.18
(0.76)
0.23 0.002

-All p-values are based on mixed effects models controlling for gender and session number.

-The interaction of gender and dose was tested in each model and found to be non-significant.

Self-rated performance

Participants tended to rate their performance on the academic performance tests as worse under alcohol condition, compared to placebo condition. These differences were significant for self-rated performance on the quiz and GREs. . Table 5. Participants’ mean estimates of their BrACs following beverage administration were .006 g% and .098 g% under placebo and alcohol conditions, respectively.

Discussion

College students’ test-taking performance was not significantly affected the morning after intoxication. Significant decrements in some laboratory tests of neurocognitive function were observed the morning after alcohol. The NES3 was administered to increase understanding of academic performance effects, should they be found. Under placebo condition, participants’ NES3 performance scores were normative and most tests showed no alcohol effects. The pattern of residual alcohol effects we found clustered around visuo-spatial, motor function, and attention /reaction time deficits. These effects may not be central to performance on multiple choice tests based on recall and recognition, but may affect other types of academic performance (unmeasured by our study), such as essay-writing and problem-solving requiring higher-order cognitive skills, as well as safety-related performance such as ability to process information and respond quickly to unexpected events when driving or operating machinery. Mood states, both in the morning and afternoon, were significantly worse the day after alcohol. Similarly, participants tended to rate their test-taking performance as significantly worse the day after alcohol relative to placebo, even though no impairment in academic performance was actually observed.

We do not believe our outcomes were artifacts of participant motivation. The GRE scores were comparable to recent norms, with about 60% of participants scoring in the top 50th percentile of the national distribution. Similarly, the mean quiz scores were about 83%, high enough to indicate participant motivation, but low enough to suggest that the quizzes were not too easy (i.e., no ceiling effect). We also do not believe participant blinding, which can be problematic at high alcohol doses, affected results because the bias would be away from the null hypothesis and we did not find differences on the primary outcome variables (academic test-taking performance). Although our procedures called for abstinence from recreational drugs 24 hours prior to experimental sessions, we used only self-report to check drug-use compliance. Moreover, we did not screen for, or document, drug-use history. Thus, participants’ drug-use over time, or undisclosed drug use prior to experimental sessions, could have confounded our results. If so, the effect was inconsistent across measures, since some outcomes were significantly affected the day after alcohol, and others were not.

Although the morning and afternoon mood scores were significantly worse following the alcohol condition, these results may have been driven in part by fatigue resulting from alcohol’s sleep-disturbing effects 36, 7173 .

While our findings are discordant with results of survey studies that find associations between alcohol use and academic problems, these studies are potentially confounded in that a third factor (e.g., personality) may cause both excessive drinking and academic difficulties and causal order is unknown (i.e. academic difficulties could lead to excessive drinking). Our findings are consistent, however, with a study on the effects of intoxication on next-day occupational performance 33. In that study, merchant marine cadets’ performance on a diesel engine simulator was not significantly affected, relative to placebo, the morning after intoxication (mean BrAC: .115 g%), but self-rated performance was significantly worse. Similarly, another laboratory study found measures of combined attention and reaction time to be the only neurocognitive measures affected the morning after .11 g% BrAC 74 .

We do not, however, conclude that excessive drinking is not a risk factor for academic problems. It is possible that a higher alcohol dose would have affected next-day academic test scores. Moreover, test-taking is only one factor in academic success. Study habits, motivation, and class attendance also contribute to academic performance; each of these could be affected by intoxication. When drinking leads to staying up too late, sleeping in, or getting too little sleep, it can disrupt next-morning attendance or focus. Moreover, we did not measure whether learning skills were impaired the day after intoxication. The neurocognitive measures that were negatively affected the day after alcohol could be related to the ability to process new information effectively. By necessity, all participants were ≥ 21 years of age and thus were college juniors, seniors, or recent graduates. It is possible that over the course of their education students develop skills that allow them to perform well on multiple-choice tests despite neurocognitive impairment resulting from intoxication the previous night. Accordingly, had our participants been freshmen or sophomores, they might have performed worse under alcohol, relative to placebo, condition. We excluded volunteers who had not engaged in recent binge drinking or who were at risk for alcohol dependence. It is possible that these excluded drinkers might be more susceptible to alcohol-related problems with test-taking. Nonetheless, in surveys almost half of college students report binge drinking and presumably most of these have not developed alcohol dependence. Thus, we believe that our findings are relevant to a substantial proportion of college students.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by: (1) The Youth Alcohol Prevention Center, Boston University School of Public Health, with funding from NIAAA grant # P60 AA013759-01; and (2) by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), grant # M01 RR00533, a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the NCRR or NIH.

Footnotes

The research for the report was conducted at the Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT00183170

References

  • 1.National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. [accessed March 12, 2009];Recommended Council Guidelines on Ethyl Alcohol Administration in Human Experimentation. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.00988.x. Revised. May 2005 http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/Research Resources. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 2.Chen CM, Dufour MC, Yi H-y. Alcohol consumption among young adults ages 18–24 in the United States: results from the 2001–2002 NESARC Survey. Alcohol Research and Health. 2004/2005;28:269–280. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.White HR, Jackson K. Social and psychological influences on emerging adult drinking. Alcohol Research and Health. 2004/2005;28:182–190. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wechsler H, Nelson TF. What have we learned from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study: Focusing attention on college student alcohol consumption and environmental conditions that promote it? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2008;69:481–490. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2008.69.481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Slutske WS, Piasecki TM, Hunt-Carter EE. Development and initial validation of the Hangover Symptom Scale: Prevalence and correlates of hangover symptoms in college students. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2003;27:1442–1450. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000085585.81711.AE. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hingson RW, Heeren T, Winter M, Wechsler H. Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among US college students ages 18–24: Changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review of Public Health. 2005;26:259–279. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Perkins HW. Surveying the damage: A review of research on consequences of alcohol misuse in college populations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2002 Supplement 14:91–100. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Atkinson RC, Shiffrin RMHuman memory. A proposed system and its control processes. In: Spence KW, Spence JT, editors. The psychology of learning and motivation. London: Academic Press; 1968. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wechsler H, Dowdall GW, Maenner G, Gledhill-Hoyt J, Lee H. Changes in binge drinking and related problems among American college students between 1993 and 1997: Results of the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health. 1998;47:57–68. doi: 10.1080/07448489809595621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Perkins HW. Gender patterns in consequences of collegiate alcohol abuse: A 10-year study of trends in an undergraduate population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1992;53:458–462. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1992.53.458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Werch CE, Gornam DR, Marty PJ. The relationship between alcohol consumption and alcohol problems in young adults. The Journal of School Health. 1987;57:232–236. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wolaver AM. Effects of heavy drinking on study effort, grade point average, and major choice. Contemporary Economic Policy. 2002;20:415–428. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Engs RC, Hanson DJ, Diebold BA. The drinking patterns and problems of a national sample of college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. 1996;41:13–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Singleton RA. Collegiate alcohol consumption and academic performance. Journal of studies of Alcohol and Drugs. 2007;68:548–555. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Singleton RA, Wolfson AR. Alcohol consumption, sleep, and academic performance among college students. Journal of Studies of Alcohol and Drugs. 2009;70:355–363. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2009.70.355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wood PK, Sher KJ, Erickson DJ, DeBord KA. Predicting academic problems in college from freshman alcohol involvement. Journal of Studies of Alcohol and Drugs. 1997;58:200–210. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1997.58.200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Paschall MJ, Freisthler B. Does heavy drinking affect academic performance in college? Findings from a prospective study of high achievers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2003;64:515–519. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wolkenberg R, Gold C, Tichauer E. Delayed effects of acute alcoholic intoxication on performance with reference to work safety. Journal of Safety Research. 1975;7:104–119. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Seppälä T, Leino T, Linnoila M, Huttunen M, Ylikahri R. Effects of hangover on psychomotor skills related to driving: Modification by fructose and glucose. Acta Pharmacologica and Toxicologica. 1976;38:209–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0773.1976.tb03113.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Laurell H, Törnros J. Investigation of alcoholic hangover effects on driving performance. Blutalkohol. 1983;20:489–499. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tornros J, Laurell H. Acute and hang-over effects of alcohol on simulated driving performance. Blutalkohol. 1991;28:24–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yesavage J, Leirer V. Hangover effects on aircraft pilots 14 hours after alcohol ingestion: a preliminary report. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1986;143:1546–1550. doi: 10.1176/ajp.143.12.1546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Morrow D, Leirer V, Yesavage J. The influence of alcohol and aging on radio communication during flight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 1990;61:12–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Morrow D, Leirer V, Yesavage J, Tinklenberg J. Alcohol, age, and piloting: judgment, mood, and actual performance. The International Journal of the Addictions. 1991;26:669–683. doi: 10.3109/10826089109058912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Morrow D, Yesavage J, Leirer V, Dohlert N, Taylor J, Tinkleberg J. The time-course of alcohol impairment of general aviation pilot performance in a Frasca 141 simulator. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. 1993;64:697–705. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Taylor J, Dohlert N, Morrow D, Friedman L, Yesavage J. Acute and 8-hour effects of alcohol (0.08% BAC) in younger and older pilots’ simulator performance. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. 1994;65:718–725. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Taylor JL, Dolhert N, Friedman L, Mumenthaler M, Yesavage JA. Alcohol elimination and simulator performance of male and female aviators: A preliminary report. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. 1996;67:407–413. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yesavage J, Dolhert N, Taylor J. Flight simulator performance of younger and older aircraft pilots: effects of age and alcohol. Journal of American Geriatric Society. 1994;42:577–582. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb06852.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Petros T, Bridewell J, Jensen W, Ferraro FR, Bates JA, Moulton P, Turnwell S, Rawley D, Howe T, Gorder D. Postintoxication effects of alcohol on flight performance after moderate and high blood alcohol levels. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology. 2003;13:287–300. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dowd PJ, Wolfe JW, Cramer RL. After effects of alcohol on the perception and control of pitch attitude during centripetal acceleration. Aerospace Medicine. 1973;44:928–930. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Collins W. Performance effects of alcohol intoxication and hangover at ground level and at simulated altitude. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. 1980;51:327–335. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Collins W, Chiles W. Laboratory performance during acute alcohol intoxication and hangover. Human Factors. 1980;22:445–462. doi: 10.1177/001872088002200406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rohsenow DJ, Howland J, Minsky S, Arnedt JT. Effects of heavy drinking by maritime academy cadets on hangover, perceived sleep, and next-day ship power plant operation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2006;67:405–415. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Streufert S, Pogash R, Braig D, Gingrich D, Kantner A, Landis R, Lonardi L, Roache J, Severs W. Alcohol hangover and managerial effectiveness. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1995;19:1141–1146. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1995.tb01592.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Myrsten AL, Rydberg U, Idelström CM, Lamble R. Alcohol intoxication and hangover: Modification of hangover by chlormethiazole. Psychopharmacology. 1980;69:117–125. doi: 10.1007/BF00427636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Roehrs T, Yoon J, Roth T. Nocturnal and next-day effects of ethanol and basil level of sleepiness. Human Psychopharmacology. 1991;6:307–311. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Roehrs T, Roth T. Sleep, sleepiness, and alcohol use. Alcohol Research and Health. 2001a;25(2):101–109. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Roehrs T, Roth T. Sleep, sleepiness, sleep disorders and alcohol use and abuse. Sleep Medicine Reviews. 2001b;5:287–297. doi: 10.1053/smrv.2001.0162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Verster JC, van Duin D, Volkerts E, Schreude AH, Verbaten MN. Alcohol hangover effects on memory functioning and vigilance performance after an evening of binge drinking. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28:740–746. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kim DJ, Yoon SJ, Lee HP, Choi BM, Go HJ. The effects of alcohol hangover on cognitive functions in healthy subjects. International Journal of Neuroscience. 2003;113:581–594. doi: 10.1080/00207450390162308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.McKinney A, Coyle K. Alcohol hangover effects on measures of affect the morning after a normal nights drinking. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2006;41:54–60. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agh226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Alford C, Wadling S. Comparative effects of caffeine and alcohol bedtime drinks on sleep, performance and mood in young adults. Journal of Psychopharmacology. 2004;18 (suppl):A41. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Finnigan F, Schulze D, Smallwood J, Helander A. The effects of self-administered alcohol-induced “hangover” in a naturalistic setting on psychomotor and cognitive performance and subjective scale. Addiction. 2005;100:1680–1689. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01142.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kruisselbrink LD, Martin KL, Megeney M, Fowles JR, Murphy RJ. Physical and psychomotor functioning of females the morning after consuming low to moderate quantities of beer. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2006;67:416–420. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Takala M, Siro E, Toivainen Y. Intellectual functions and dexterity during hangover-experiments after intoxication with brandy and with beer. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1958;19:1–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.McCaul ME, Turkkan JS, Svikis DS, Bigalow GE. Alcohol and serobarbital effects as a function of familial alcoholism: Extended intoxication and increased withdrawal effects. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1991;15:94–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1991.tb00524.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lemon J, Chesher G, Fox A, Greeley J, Nabke C. Investigation of the “hangover” effects of an acute dose of alcohol on psychomotor performance. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1993;17:665–668. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1993.tb00816.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chait LD, Perry JL. Acute and residual effects of alcohol and marijuana, alone and in combination, on mood and performance. Psychopharmacology. 1994;115:340–349. doi: 10.1007/BF02245075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Finnegan F, Hammersley, Cooper T. An examination of next-day hangover effects after a 100 mg/100 ml dose of alcohol in heavy social drinkers. Addiction. 1998;93:1829–1838. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.931218298.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Selzer MD, Vinokur A, Van Rooijen L. A self-administered short Michigan alcoholism screening tests (SMAST) Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1975;36:117–126. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1975.36.117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Brick J, Nathan PE, Westrick E, Frankenstein W, Shapiro A. The effects of menstrual cycle on blood alcohol levels and behavior. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1986;47:472–477. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1986.47.472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Niaura RS, Nathan PE, Frankenstein W, Shapiro AP, Brick J. Gender differences in acute psychomotor, cognitive, and pharmacokinetic response to alcohol. Addictive Behavior. 1987;12:345–356. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(87)90048-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Terner JM, deWit H. Menstrual cycle phase and responses to drugs of abuse in humans. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2006;84:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Friel PN, Logan BK, O’Malley D, Baer JS. Development of dosing guidelines for reaching selected target breath alcohol concentrations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1999;60:555–565. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1999.60.555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Keane TM, Lisman SA, Kreutzer J. Alcoholic beverages and their placebos: an empirical evaluation of expectancies. Addictive Behaviors. 1980;5:313–328. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(80)90005-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tassi P, Muzet A. Sleep inertia. Sleep Medicine Review. 2000;4:341–353. doi: 10.1053/smrv.2000.0098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mann RE, Sobell LC, Sobell MD, Pavan D. Reliability of a family tree questionnaire for assessing family history of alcohol problems. Drug & Alcohol Dependence. 1985;15:61–67. doi: 10.1016/0376-8716(85)90030-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Schneider MJ. Introduction to Public Health. Boston: Jones and Barrlett Publishers; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Educational Testing Service. Preparing for the GRE General Test. 2001 May 24; [Online]. Available: http://www.gre.org/codelst.html.
  • 60.White RF, James KE, Vasterling JJ, Letz R, Marans K, Delaney R, Krengel M, Rose F, Kraemer HC. Neuropsychological screening for cognitive impairment using computer-assisted tasks. Assessment. 2003;10:86–101. doi: 10.1177/1073191102250185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lezak MD. Neuropsychological Assessment Second Edition. New York: Oxford Press; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Dinges DF, Powell JE. Microcomputer analyses of performance on a portable, simple visual RT task during sustained operations. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 1985;17:652–655. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF. Profile of Mood States: POMS Manual. San Diego, CA: EdITS; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Rohsenow DJ, Howland J, Minsky SJ, Greece J, Almeida A, Roehrs T. The acute hangover scale: A new measure of immediate hangover symptoms. Addictive Behaviors. 2007;32:1314–1320. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Chapman L. Experimental induction of hangover. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1970 Supplement 5:67–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ylikahri R, Huttumen M, Eriksson CJP, Hikkila EA. Metabolic studies on the pathogenesis of hangover. European Journal of Clinical Investigation. 1974;4:93–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.1974.tb00378.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Hoaglin D, Mosteller F, Tukey J. Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: Harper & Row; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Diggle PJ, Liang KY, Zeger SL. Analysis of Longitudinal Data. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Stone BM. Sleep and low doses of alcohol. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 1980;48:706–709. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(80)90427-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Kobayashi T, Misaki K, Nakagawa H, Okuda K, Ota T, Kanda I, Isaki K, Kosino Y, Fukuda H. Alcohol effect on sleep electroencephalography by fast Fourier transformation. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 1998;52:154–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.1998.tb01002.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Williams DL, MacLean AW, Cairns J. Dose-response effects on ethanol on the sleep of young women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1983;44:515–523. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1983.44.515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Rohsenow DJ, Howland J, Arnedt JT, Almeida AB, Greece JA, Minsky S, Hunt SK. Intoxication with bourbon versus vodka: Effects on hangover, sleep and next-day neurocognitive performance in young adults. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2009 June; doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.01116.x. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES