Ellen Meier1, Mary Beth Miller2, Nate Lombardi3, Thad Leffingwell3. 1. University of Minnesota, Department of Psychiatry, 717 Delaware St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414, United States. Electronic address: Meier109@umn.edu. 2. Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-5, Providence, RI 02912, United States. 3. Oklahoma State University, Department of Psychology, 118 N. Murray, Stillwater, OK 74078, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Completion of alcohol assessments influences treatment outcomes, yet little is known about the aspects of assessment that may contribute to this response. The present study is a randomized controlled trial examining how the themes of alcohol assessments (e.g., assessment of alcohol-related consequences as opposed to drinking patterns) may affect drinking behaviors. METHODS:Undergraduate students (N=290, Mage=19.97, SDage=1.81, 61.7% female), reporting at least one binge drinking episode during the past month, completed one of five baseline assessment batteries that varied thematically: (a) Control (e.g., minimal drinking quantity and frequency questions), (b) Consequences (e.g., College Alcohol Problems Scale; CAPS-r), (c) Norms (e.g., Drinking Norms Rating Form), (d) Diagnostic (e.g., Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test), and (e) Combined (all themes). Participants completed a one-month follow-up of drinking quantity/frequency and the CAPS-r. RESULTS: All groups decreased their self-reported peak drinks consumed (p<0.001, ηp2=0.05) and past month frequency of drinking (p=0.002, ηp2=0.03; except for the consequences group) from baseline to follow-up. There were no between-group differences. No changes emerged in drinks per week (p=0.09, ηp2=0.01) or alcohol-related consequences (p=0.06, ηp2=0.03) from baseline to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Minimal assessment of drinking quantity and frequency may result in assessment reactivity. Reductions in markers of risky drinking behaviors did not differ as a function of the type of assessments completed (e.g., Consequences vs Diagnostic). Continued research is needed to determine what other important variables (e.g., treatment seeking) may affect assessment reactivity.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Completion of alcohol assessments influences treatment outcomes, yet little is known about the aspects of assessment that may contribute to this response. The present study is a randomized controlled trial examining how the themes of alcohol assessments (e.g., assessment of alcohol-related consequences as opposed to drinking patterns) may affect drinking behaviors. METHODS: Undergraduate students (N=290, Mage=19.97, SDage=1.81, 61.7% female), reporting at least one binge drinking episode during the past month, completed one of five baseline assessment batteries that varied thematically: (a) Control (e.g., minimal drinking quantity and frequency questions), (b) Consequences (e.g., College Alcohol Problems Scale; CAPS-r), (c) Norms (e.g., Drinking Norms Rating Form), (d) Diagnostic (e.g., Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test), and (e) Combined (all themes). Participants completed a one-month follow-up of drinking quantity/frequency and the CAPS-r. RESULTS: All groups decreased their self-reported peak drinks consumed (p<0.001, ηp2=0.05) and past month frequency of drinking (p=0.002, ηp2=0.03; except for the consequences group) from baseline to follow-up. There were no between-group differences. No changes emerged in drinks per week (p=0.09, ηp2=0.01) or alcohol-related consequences (p=0.06, ηp2=0.03) from baseline to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Minimal assessment of drinking quantity and frequency may result in assessment reactivity. Reductions in markers of risky drinking behaviors did not differ as a function of the type of assessments completed (e.g., Consequences vs Diagnostic). Continued research is needed to determine what other important variables (e.g., treatment seeking) may affect assessment reactivity.
Authors: Stephen Sutton; Ann-Louise Kinmonth; Wendy Hardeman; Dyfrig Hughes; Sue Boase; A Toby Prevost; Ian Kellar; Jonathan Graffy; Simon Griffin; Andrew Farmer Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2014-12
Authors: Wave-Ananda Baskerville; Steven J Nieto; Diana Ho; Brandon Towns; Erica N Grodin; Caesar Li; Elizabeth Burnette; Suzanna Donato; Lara A Ray Journal: Alcohol Alcohol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 2.826
Authors: Derek D Satre; Amy S Leibowitz; Wendy Leyden; Sheryl L Catz; C Bradley Hare; Hannah Jang; Jennifer O Lam; Kendall J Bryant; Constance M Weisner; Stacy A Sterling; Michael Horberg; Paul Volberding; Michael J Silverberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Caroline Y Doyle; John M Ruiz; Daniel J Taylor; Joshua W Smyth; Melissa Flores; Jessica R Dietch; Chul Ahn; Matthew Allison; Timothy W Smith; Bert N Uchino Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2019 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Geetanjali Chander; Heidi E Hutton; Xiaoqiang Xu; Chelsea E Canan; Jennifer Gaver; Joseph Finkelstein; Catherine R Lesko; Mary E McCaul; Bryan Lau Journal: Addict Behav Rep Date: 2021-07-06
Authors: Ajla Mujcic; Matthijs Blankers; Brigitte Boon; Anne H Berman; Heleen Riper; Margriet van Laar; Rutger Engels Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jogé Boumans; Dike van de Mheen; Rik Crutzen; Hans Dupont; Rob Bovens; Andrea Rozema Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 3.390