Cited by 102Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and InterventionsSmoking Behavior and Cessation

Computerized versus motivational interviewing alcohol interventions: impact on discrepancy, motivation, and drinking

Open access
Murphy, James G., Dennhardt, Ashley A., Skidmore, Jessica R., Martens, Matthew P., McDevitt-Murphy, Meghan E.·2010·Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

The authors conducted two randomized clinical trials with ethnically diverse samples of college student drinkers in order to determine (a) the relative efficacy of two popular computerized interventions versus a more comprehensive motivational interview approach (BASICS) and (b) the mechanisms of change associated with these interventions. In Study 1, heavy drinking participants recruited from a student health center (N = 74, 59% women, 23% African American) were randomly assigned to receive BASICS or the Alcohol 101 CD-ROM program. BASICS was associated with greater post-session motivation to change and self-ideal and normative discrepancy relative to Alcohol 101, but there were no group differences in the primary drinking outcomes at 1-month follow-up. Pre to post session increases in motivation predicted lower follow-up drinking across both conditions. In Study 2, heavy drinking freshman recruited from a core university course (N = 133, 50% women, 30% African American) were randomly assigned to BASICS, a web-based feedback program (e-CHUG), or assessment-only. BASICS was associated with greater post-session self-ideal discrepancy than e-CHUG, but there were no differences in motivation or normative discrepancy. There was a significant treatment effect on typical weekly and heavy drinking, with participants in BASICS reporting significantly lower follow-up drinking relative to assessment only participants. In Study 2, change in the motivation or discrepancy did not predict drinking outcomes. Across both studies, African American students assigned to BASICS reported medium effect size reductions in drinking whereas African American students assigned to Alcohol 101, e-CHUG, or assessment did not reduce their drinking.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0021347

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Dimeff LA Baer JS Kivlahan DR Marlatt GA 1999 Brief alcohol screening and intervention for college students: A harm reduction approach New York Guilford Press
  2. Donohue B Allen D Maurer A Ozols J DeStefano G 2004 A controlled evaluation of two prevention programs in reducing alcohol use among college students at low and high risk for alcohol related problems Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 48 13 33

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murphy, J. G., Dennhardt, A. A., Skidmore, J. R., Martens, M. P., & McDevitt-Murphy, M. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Memphis (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
Venue
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
Published
2010-12
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
628-639
ISSN
  • 0893-164X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1501
OpenAlex
W2006974059
Cited by
102
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 12
FWCI
4.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • ABMRF/The Foundation for Alcohol Research
  • National Institutes of Health (AA016304)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
Keywords
motivational interviewing, web-based feedback, college drinking, heavy drinking, motivation for change, self-ideal discrepancy, African American students, mechanisms of change
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Motivation, Psychotherapy, Brief, Students, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Universities, Treatment Outcome, Alcohol-Related Disorders, Internet, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review