Quality of Research
Documents Reviewed
The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of
contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability
of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.
Study 1Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Blume, A. W., McKnight, P., & Marlatt, G. A. Brief intervention for heavy drinking college students: 4-year follow-up and natural history. American Journal of Public Health, 91(8), 1310-1316.
Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Dimeff, L. A., Larimer, M. E., Quigley, L. A., et al. Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: Results from a 2-year follow-up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(4), 604-615. Study 2Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. Effects of a brief motivational intervention with college student drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 728-733. Study 3Larimer, M. E., Turner, A. P., Anderson, B. K., Fader, J. S., Kilmer, J. R., Palmer, R. S., et al. Evaluating a brief alcohol intervention with fraternities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62(3), 370-380.
Outcomes
| Outcome 1: Frequency of alcohol use |
|
Description of Measures
|
Frequency of alcohol use was measured using two self-report instruments: the Q-F-P, which measures the quantity, frequency, and peak occasions of drinking, and the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ). One item of the Q-F-P measures frequency of alcohol use in the past month, with responses on a 6-point scale from 0 (less than once a month) to 5 (nearly every day). Three measures of alcohol use frequency were derived from the DDQ: number of drinking days per week, number of times using alcohol in the past month, and frequency of binge drinking in the past month. Number of drinking days per week was calculated from the reported number of drinks for each day of a typical week. Number of times using alcohol in the past month was measured with one item using a 10-point scale from 0 (no alcoholic beverages in past month) to 9 (3 or more times daily), and frequency of binge drinking was measured with one item using a 6-point scale from 0 (no binge drinking occasions in past month) to 5 (10 or more binge drinking occasions in past month). Binge drinking was defined as consuming five or more drinks on one occasion for men and four or more drinks on one occasion for women.
|
|
Key Findings
|
One study evaluated the impact of the intervention on students with high-risk drinking over a 4-year follow-up period. Students receiving BASICS had significantly greater reductions in drinking frequency over the first 2-year period than students in the no-treatment control group (p < .05). The intervention had its greatest impact between baseline and 6-month follow-up (p < .05) and baseline and 1-year follow-up (p < .05). The intervention group reported drinking significantly less frequently at 1-year follow-up than the control group (p < .05).
A second study evaluated the short-term effects of the intervention on student binge drinkers. After statistically controlling for gender, participation in BASICS was shown to account for a significant reduction in the number of times alcohol was consumed (p < .001) and the frequency of binge drinking episodes (p < .05) from baseline to 6-week follow-up. These differences represent large and medium effect sizes (eta-squared = .28 and eta-squared = .12), respectively.
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 2
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.1
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 2: Quantity of alcohol use |
|
Description of Measures
|
Quantity of alcohol use was measured using two self-report instruments: the Q-F-P and the DDQ. Three measures of alcohol use quantity were derived from the Q-F-P: past-month average quantity of alcohol consumption, past-month peak alcohol consumption, and typical peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC). To assess average alcohol consumption and peak consumption, one question was asked for each with responses options ranging from 0 (0 drinks) to 5 (more than 8 drinks). BAC was estimated using the quantity and rate of consumption, body weight, and gender. Two measures of alcohol use quantity were derived from the DDQ: average drinks per drinking day and average drinks per week. Both measures were calculated from the reported number of drinks for each day of the week.
|
|
Key Findings
|
One study evaluated the impact of the intervention on students with high-risk drinking over a 4-year follow-up period. Compared with students in the no-treatment control group, students receiving BASICS had significantly greater reductions in drinking quantity that persisted over the 4-year period (p < .001), with the intervention appearing to have its greatest impact between baseline and 1-year follow-up (p < .001). Short-term changes in drinking quantity were found from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Specifically, students receiving BASICS had greater reductions in drinking quantity (p < .05), peak quantity (p < .05), and average drinking quantity (p < .01) than students in the control group. At 2-year follow-up, students in the intervention group reported drinking an average of 3.6 drinks per drinking occasion, whereas students in the control group reported drinking an average of 4.0 drinks per occasion. This difference represents a very small effect size (Cohen's d = 0.15).
A second study evaluated the short-term effects of the intervention on student binge drinkers. After statistically controlling for gender, participation in BASICS was shown to account for a significant reduction in the number of drinks consumed per week (p < .01) from baseline to 6-week follow-up. This difference represents a large effect size (eta-squared = .21).
A third study evaluated the effectiveness of the intervention among fraternity members. In comparison with students in the control group, who received a required, 1-hour didactic presentation on alcohol use, students receiving BASICS had significantly greater reductions in average drinks per week (p < .05) and typical peak BAC levels (p < .05) 1 year following the intervention. These differences represent small effect sizes (Cohen's d = 0.42 and Cohen's d = 0.38, respectively).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 2, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.1
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 3: Negative consequences of alcohol use |
|
Description of Measures
|
Negative consequences of alcohol use were measured using two self-report instruments: the Rutger's Alcohol Problem Inventory (RAPI) and the Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS). The RAPI asks respondents to rate the frequency of 23 situations reflecting alcohol's impact on social and health functioning over the past 6 months. A score ranging from 0 to 23 is computed by adding all items occurring at least once. The ADS is an 18-item survey assessing symptoms of physical dependence on alcohol. Total scores range from 0 to 47.
|
|
Key Findings
|
One study evaluated the impact of the intervention on students with high-risk drinking over a 4-year follow-up period. Compared with students in the no-treatment control group, students receiving BASICS had significantly greater reductions in negative drinking consequences that persisted over a 4-year period (p < .05), with the intervention appearing to have its greatest impact between baseline and 1-year follow-up (p < .01). Students receiving BASICS reported significantly fewer negative drinking consequences at 1-year (p < .01), 2-year (p < .01), 3-year (p < .05), and 4-year (p < .01) follow-up than students in the control group. At 2-year follow-up, students receiving BASICS reported an average of 3.3 negative drinking consequences, compared with an average of 4.7 consequences reported by control group students, a difference representing a small effect size (Cohen's d = 0.32). In addition, only 11% of students in the intervention group were classified as showing mild dependence at 2-year follow-up, compared with 27% of those in the control group (p < .001).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.3
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Study Populations
The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of
Research.
|
Study
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Race/Ethnicity
|
|
Study 1
|
18-25 (Young adult)
|
54.2% Female
45.8% Male
|
82.5% White
17.5% Race/ethnicity unspecified
|
|
Study 2
|
18-25 (Young adult)
|
56.7% Female
43.3% Male
|
88.3% White
11.7% Race/ethnicity unspecified
|
|
Study 3
|
18-25 (Young adult)
|
100% Male
|
81.8% White
12.6% Asian
3% Race/ethnicity unspecified
1.3% American Indian or Alaska Native
1.3% Hispanic or Latino
|
Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's
reported results using six criteria:
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.
|
Outcome
|
Reliability
of Measures
|
Validity
of Measures
|
Fidelity
|
Missing
Data/Attrition
|
Confounding
Variables
|
Data
Analysis
|
Overall
Rating
|
|
1: Frequency of alcohol use
|
2.2
|
3.1
|
2.0
|
3.8
|
3.5
|
4.0
|
3.1
|
|
2: Quantity of alcohol use
|
2.2
|
2.9
|
2.0
|
3.6
|
3.6
|
4.0
|
3.1
|
|
3: Negative consequences of alcohol use
|
3.0
|
3.5
|
2.0
|
3.8
|
3.5
|
4.0
|
3.3
|
Study Strengths The use of randomized controlled trials, the relatively low attrition rates throughout follow-ups, and the sophisticated data analysis plans across studies strongly enhance confidence in the study outcomes. The investigators were particularly thoughtful in specifying and ruling out potential confounding variables. Intervention and control groups were equivalent at baseline, and missing data were replaced by a multiple imputation method to maintain the original sample size available for analyses without biasing parameter estimates. One study gathered information about the participants' alcohol use and alcohol-related problems from collaterals, increasing confidence in the validity of the participants' self-reported assessment.
Study Weaknesses Study weaknesses are limited to outcome and fidelity measurements. Although some of the outcome measures used have established reliability and validity from work by independent researchers, others were developed by the investigators, who did not report information about the scales' performance in the current studies. Fidelity measures relied primarily on training, practice, supervision, and a participant satisfaction survey. Sessions were not directly observed, and there was no report of a tested instrument being used to ensure that the intervention was delivered with fidelity.
|
|
Readiness for Dissemination
|
Materials Reviewed
The materials below were reviewed for Readiness for Dissemination. The implementation
point of contact can provide information regarding implementation of the intervention
and the availability of additional, updated, or new materials.
Addictive Behaviors Research Center, University of Washington. BASICS implementation [CD-ROM]. Seattle, WA: Author.
Addictive Behaviors Research Center, University of Washington. BASICS protocol: Practitioner checklist. Seattle, WA: Author.
Dimeff, L. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., & Marlatt, G. A. Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS): A harm reduction approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the intervention's Readiness for Dissemination
using three criteria:
- Availability of implementation materials
- Availability of training and support resources
- Availability of quality assurance procedures
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Readiness for Dissemination.
Implementation
Materials
|
Training and Support
Resources
|
Quality Assurance
Procedures
|
Overall
Rating
|
|
4.0
|
3.8
|
3.9
|
3.9
|
Dissemination Strengths Implementation materials are comprehensive and well organized, and they make good use of scaffolding as a learning technique. Organizational planning and readiness are incorporated into regular program implementation. The training is guided by excellent materials and is supplemented by technical assistance, site visits, and phone consultation. Multiple tools, including fidelity, outcome, and process measures, are provided to support quality assurance.
Dissemination Weaknesses Little information on potential training and support is provided to potential implementers unless they contact the developer directly. Some process and outcome data collection tools are still under development.
|
|