2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2015.10.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Brief Motivational Interviewing and Normative Feedback for Adolescents: Change Language and Alcohol Use Outcomes

Abstract: Few studies have investigated the impact of adolescent change language on substance use treatment outcomes and even fewer have examined how adolescents respond to normative feedback. The purpose of this study was to understand the influence normative feedback has on adolescent change language and subsequent alcohol and cannabis use 3 months later. We examined how percent change talk (PCT) was associated with subsequent alcohol and drug use outcomes. Adolescents (N = 48) were randomly assigned to receive brief … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
27
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 76 publications
(115 reference statements)
1
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As can be seen in Table 2/left panel, the positive MI consistent skills to change talk path was supported across 21 primary studies that contributed 25 effect sizes (Apodaca, Magill, Longabaugh, Jackson, & Monti 2013; Boardman et al, 2006; Davis, Houck, Rowell, Benson, & Smith, 2015; Vader, Walters, Prabhu, Houck, & Field, 2010 examined two eligible MI conditions). Specifically, the inverse-variance weighted, pooled correlation coefficient was r = .55 (95% CI [.49, .60]; p < .001, Q < .05, I 2 = 63%).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 71%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As can be seen in Table 2/left panel, the positive MI consistent skills to change talk path was supported across 21 primary studies that contributed 25 effect sizes (Apodaca, Magill, Longabaugh, Jackson, & Monti 2013; Boardman et al, 2006; Davis, Houck, Rowell, Benson, & Smith, 2015; Vader, Walters, Prabhu, Houck, & Field, 2010 examined two eligible MI conditions). Specifically, the inverse-variance weighted, pooled correlation coefficient was r = .55 (95% CI [.49, .60]; p < .001, Q < .05, I 2 = 63%).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…k = number of groups. Total k is 36 primary studies contributing 40 effect sizes (Apodaca et al, 2013; Boardman et al 2006; Davis et al, 2015; Vader et al, 2010 contributed two effect sizes). MI interventions were proficient, on average, with respect to MI Spirit and Empathy (M = 4.2(.8), M = 4.3(.7), respectively).…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] The majority (n = 13) were studies conducted in the USA, 61,[64][65][66][67][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] with one in Germany, 68 one in Mexico 63 and one in Western Australia. 62 The setting was mainly emergency departments (n = 8), 62,66,68,[70][71][72][73]75 with three in universities, 61,67,74 one with homeless adolescents, 76 one with young people referred from not-for-profit agencies, 65 one based in the community 64 and two based in schools. 63,69 The ASBIs used largely followed a manual and/or used MI techn...…”
Section: Alcohol Screening and Brief Interventionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…That means that you drink as much as or more frequently than 56% of university students.' By comparing the participant's data with data from the ACHA-NCHA II, the app provides normative strategies to the students on how to reduce their drinking (ACHA-NCHA II 2016; Davis et al 2016). …”
Section: Module 5 Personalized Feedback (Pf)mentioning
confidence: 99%