A comparison of personalized feedback for college student drinkers delivered with and without a motivational interview.

Murphy, James G.; Benson, Trisha A.; Vuchinich, Rudy E.; Deskins, Mary M.; Eakin, D.E.; Flood, Amanda M.; McDevitt-Murphy, Meghan E.; Torrealday, Ohiana

doi:10.15288/jsa.2004.65.200

Cited by 144 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In one study (Murphy et al, 2004) where feedback was directly tested with or without the presence of an individual motivational interview, there was no significant difference between the two formats in terms of drinking outcome. At 6 months, Murphy et al (2004) reported composite effect sizes of .48 and .42 for feedback with and without a motivational interview, respectively. Thus, at this point, there is little or no evidence that an in-person meeting increases the short-term impact of feedback.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…One computer-delivered feedback study found reductions at 3-and 6-month follow-ups (Neighbors et al, 2004). In one study (Murphy et al, 2004) where feedback was directly tested with or without the presence of an individual motivational interview, there was no significant difference between the two formats in terms of drinking outcome. At 6 months, Murphy et al (2004) reported composite effect sizes of .48 and .42 for feedback with and without a motivational interview, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across several studies, personalized feedback appears to be equally effective for men and women. Two studies found that gender was related to changes in drinking, but neither found differences as a function of group assignment (Collins et al, 2002;Murphy et al, 2004). For example, in Collins et al (2002), men reduced their drinking more than women, irrespective of the group to which they were assigned.…”

Section: For Whom Does Feedback Work?mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…At a 6-week follow-up, changes between groups were nonsignificant, though mailed feedback did show a mean decrease over the other conditions. Finally, Murphy et al (2004) randomized students to receive personalized feedback with or without an individual motivational interview. At a 6-month follow-up, participants in both groups showed mean reductions in drinking, with no differences between the groups.…”

Section: Comparison Of In-person and Stand-alone Formatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: What, why and for whom?

Walters¹,

Neighbors

2005

Addictive Behaviors

302

308

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to the persistent problem of college drinking, universities have instituted a range of alcohol intervention programs for students. Motivational feedback is one intervention that has garnered support in the literature and been adopted on college campuses. This article reviews published outcome studies that have utilized feedback as a major component of an alcohol intervention for college students. Overall, 11 of the 13 reviewed studies (77%) found a significant reduction in drinking as compared to a control or comparison group. While the studies varied widely in terms of population, follow-up period, and feedback content, it appears that feedback can be effective whether delivered by mail, the Internet, or via a face-to-face motivational interview. Feedback seems to change normative perceptions of drinking and may be more effective among students who drink for social reasons. The addition of a group or individual counseling session does not appear to increase the short-term impact of the feedback.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: For Whom Does Feedback Work?mentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Comparison Of In-person and Stand-alone Formatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: What, why and for whom?

Walters¹,

Neighbors

2005

Addictive Behaviors

302

308

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One interpretation of this consistent lack of effectiveness is that risky drinking represents not a lack of knowledge but rather a lack of motivation to change. Therefore, interventions that enhance motivation for risk reduction are needed to assist the students who are already drinking heavily.Several published studies indicate that in-person brief motivational interventions (BMIs) lead to reduced drinking in college students (Baer et al, 1992;Borsari & Carey, 2000;Larimer et al, 2001;Marlatt et al, 1998;Murphy et al, 2004;Murphy et al, 2001). These BMIs typically consist of one or two 45-min sessions that provide personalized feedback and incorporate motivational interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students.

Borsari

Carey

2005

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

202

225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Encouraging but limited research indicates that brief motivational interventions may be an effective way to reduce heavy episodic drinking in college students. At 2 campuses, students (83% male) mandated to a substance use prevention program were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 individually administered conditions: (a) a brief motivational interview (BMI; n = 34) or (b) an alcohol education session (AE; n = 30). Students in the BMI condition reported fewer alcohol-related problems than the AE students at 3-and 6-month assessments. Trends toward reductions in number of binge drinking episodes and typical blood alcohol levels were seen in both groups. Process measures confirmed the integrity of both interventions. The findings demonstrate that mandated BMIs can reduce alcohol problems in students referred for alcohol violations. Keywords mandated; student; alcohol; college; brief interventionThe search continues for effective and innovative interventions to curtail heavy episodic (binge) drinking. Binge drinking is defined as having five or more drinks in a single occasion for men (four or more drinks for women; Wechsler et al., 2002). Roughly 4 out of 10 college students (including close to half of the men) binge drink at least once every 2 weeks (O'Malley & Johnston, 2002;Wechsler et al., 2002), and negative consequences frequently result from such drinking, including damage to self, others, and property (Perkins, 2002). Educational programs designed primarily to teach students about the risks associated with excessive drinking have frequently failed to achieve desired reductions in alcohol use (Hingson, Berson, & Dowley, 1997;Wechsler et al., 2002). One interpretation of this consistent lack of effectiveness is that risky drinking represents not a lack of knowledge but rather a lack of motivation to change. Therefore, interventions that enhance motivation for risk reduction are needed to assist the students who are already drinking heavily.Several published studies indicate that in-person brief motivational interventions (BMIs) lead to reduced drinking in college students (Baer et al., 1992;Borsari & Carey, 2000;Larimer et al., 2001;Marlatt et al., 1998;Murphy et al., 2004;Murphy et al., 2001). These BMIs typically consist of one or two 45-min sessions that provide personalized feedback and incorporate motivational interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2002). Personalized feedback is designed to engage students and heighten the self-relevance of the educational information; such feedback, when coupled with normative comparisons, develops a sense of discrepancy that can motivate risk reduction. The motivational interviewing style cultivates active collaboration and reinforces self-determination and freedom of choice as participants explore ambivalence regarding current drinking behavior. However, BMIs have yet to be compared with groups that receive sessions of similar length and format. Although the content of previous control Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brian Borsari, who is no...

show abstract

Social norms interventions to reduce alcohol misuse in University or College students

Moreira

Smith

Foxcroft

2009

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

217

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WF and IFF are probably effective in reducing alcohol misuse. No direct comparisons of WF against IFF were found, but WF impacted across a broader set of outcomes and is less costly so therefore might be preferred. Significant effects were more apparent for short-term outcomes (up to three months). For mailed and group feedback, and social norms marketing campaigns, the results are on the whole not significant and therefore cannot be recommended.

show abstract

A comparison of personalized feedback for college student drinkers delivered with and without a motivational interview.

Cited by 144 publications

References 19 publications

Feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: What, why and for whom?

Feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: What, why and for whom?

Two brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students.

Social norms interventions to reduce alcohol misuse in University or College students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About