Addressing Group Dynamics in a Brief Motivational Intervention for College Student Drinkers

Faris, Alexander S.; Brown, Janice

doi:10.2190/feal-12yh-31g7-nwh5

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In one study, examining members' appraisals of self-help groups (i.e., Multiple Sclerosis, Compassionate Friends, and Overeaters Anonymous groups), members who perceived that their group was well organized and had a proficient leader reported greater satisfaction with the group, higher levels of selfγesteem, and lower levels of depression (Maton, 1988). Similar findings have been obtained in other studies, which have shown that primary group outcomes are related to several features of group environments, including perceived levels of group cohesion (Budman, Soldz, Demby, Feldstein, Springer & Davis, 1989;Meredith, 1987), disruptive group dynamics (Faris & Brown, 2003), group leadership and implementation (Kulic, Horne, & Dagley, 2004), and perceived group climate (Choi, Price, & Vinokur, 2003;MacKenzie, Dies, Coché, Rutan, & Stone, 1987).…”

supporting

confidence: 71%

Scale development of a measure to assess community‐based and clinical intervention group environments

Wilson

Hansen

Tarakeshwar

et al. 2008

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though group interventions are widely used in community-based and clinical settings, there are few brief instruments for assessing the group environment. Two studies on the development of a brief measure to assess intervention group environments are described, and psychometric properties of the new scale are presented. The new measure is based on Moos' (1994) Group Environment Scale (GES). Participants in the studies were from two independent randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of group interventions (combined N = 334). In Study 1 (N = 139), the factor content of the original 90-item GES was examined. The scale was shortened, the response format was changed, and items were adapted and added to in an effort to increase applicability to community-based and clinical intervention groups. In Study 2 (N = 195), the new scale was evaluated, the factor solution obtained in Study 1 was cross-validated, and subsequently the length of the scale was shortened again. The final scale contains 25 items with three subscales. Reliability and validity of the new scale was examined. Finally, the research and practice implications of the scale are discussed.Group interventions have been proposed as perhaps the most promising psychosocial treatment modality for persons receiving care in clinical and community-based health care settings (Simonton & Sherman, 2000), and interest in and practice of group interventions is growing among researchers and practitioners (Sherman et al., 2004). For the purposes of this study, group interventions refer to the broad range of behavioral and mental health interventions that are delivered within the group environment. Types of groups that fall under the umbrella of a "group intervention" include psychotherapeutic groups, educational groups, support groups, skills-building groups, and any combination of the four. Using this perspective, group NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript interventions may take place as a part of a research study examining the effectiveness of an intervention (e.g., a randomized controlled clinical trial), or they can exist as a part of services provided to clients in public or private health service organizations or community-based organizations. Likewise, intervention groups refer to groups that are unstructured and conducted for indefinite periods of time, as well as those that are structured and delivered for a predetermined number of sessions to a fixed number of participants.There are many advantages of using the group environment to deliver an intervention. These advantages include: (a) the development of a sense of universality, cohesion, and social support among group members; (b) the opportunity for modeling and social learning from other group members, and (c) the positive experience of sharing with and helping others (Burlingame, MacKenzie, & Strauss, 2003;Hyde, Appleby, Weiss, Bailey & Morgan, 2005;Yalom, 1985). Additionally, research suggests that participants often view group interventions as less stigmatiz...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 71%

Scale development of a measure to assess community‐based and clinical intervention group environments

Wilson

Hansen

Tarakeshwar

et al. 2008

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can be accomplished via appropriate statistical analyses of observational and/or experimental data that might be available to the analyst. In empirical studies of groups, response data is sampled from individual group members, and thus, it is hierarchical in nature, as pointed out by (Nezlek & Zyzniewski, 1998) and others (e.g., see (Anderson & Ager, 1978), (Draper, 1995), (Faris & Brown, 2003), (Forsyth, 1998), (Hoyle & Crawford, 1994), (Hoyle, Georgesen, & Webster, 2001), (Kenny & Voie, 1985), (Quillian, 1995), (Raudenbush, 1995), (Raudenbush & Willms, 1995)). For example, one might be interested in determining the effect of a host population's unemployment rate and skill level of individuals on the individual or collective attitudes and behaviors towards immigrants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Predictive Reasoning for Group Interactions

Perry¹,

Vincent²,

Jordan³

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this effort, two approaches to predicting attitude and behavior of human groups are developed. One approach employs a novel statistical model for assessing group-level and individual-level factors on group constructs of interest. The second approach is more probabilistic in nature, and involves the use of a Markov chain with Bayesian updates in order to capture changes in group constructs as a function of changes in important environmental variables. These models were developed as alternative approaches to capturing the dynamics between group constructs of interest and important predictors of these group constructs. It is demonstrated how each model developed in this effort could be instantiated into the National Operational Environment Model (NOEM).

show abstract

Alcohol Interventions for College Students Improves Antecedents of Behavioral Change: Results from a Meta-Analysis of 34 Randomized Controlled Trials

Scott-Sheldon¹,

DeMartini²,

Carey³

et al. 2009

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Addressing Group Dynamics in a Brief Motivational Intervention for College Student Drinkers

Cited by 3 publications

References 31 publications

Scale development of a measure to assess community‐based and clinical intervention group environments

Scale development of a measure to assess community‐based and clinical intervention group environments

Human Predictive Reasoning for Group Interactions

Alcohol Interventions for College Students Improves Antecedents of Behavioral Change: Results from a Meta-Analysis of 34 Randomized Controlled Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About