Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 578

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity: Project MATCH Three‐Year Drinking Outcomes

Project MATCH Research Group·1998·Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research

Abstract

This study reports 3‐year outcomes for clients who had been treated in the five outpatient sites of Project MATCH, a multisite clinical trial designed to test a priori client treatment matching hypotheses. The main purpose of this study was to characterize the status of the matching hypotheses at the 3‐year follow‐up. This entailed investigating which matching findings were sustained or even strengthened across the 3‐year study period, and whether any hypotheses that were not supported earlier eventually emerged at 3 years, or conversely, whether matching findings discerned earlier dissipated at this later time. This research also examines the prognostic effects of the client matching attributes, characterizes the overall outcomes at 37 to 39 months, and explores differential effects of the three treatments at extended follow‐up. With regard to the matching effects, client anger demonstrated the most consistent interaction in the trial, with significant matching effects evident at both the 1‐year and 3‐year follow‐ups. As predicted, clients high in anger fared better in Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) than in the other two MATCH treatments: Cognitive‐Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Twelve‐Step Facilitation (TSF). Among subjects in the highest third of the anger variable, clients treated in MET had on average 76.4% abstinent days, whereas their counterparts in the other two treatments (CBT and TSF) had on average 66% abstinent days. Conversely, clients low in anger performed better after treatment in CBT and TSF than in MET. Significant matching effects for the support for drinking variable emerged in the 3‐year outcome analysis, such that clients whose social networks were more supportive of drinking derived greater benefit from TSF treatment than from MET. Among subjects in the highest third of the support for drinking variable, TSF participants were abstinent 16.1 % more days than MET participants. At the lower end of this variable, difference in percent days abstinent between MET and TSF was 3%, with MET clients having more abstinent days. A significant matching effect for psychiatric severity that appeared in the first year posttreatment was not observed after 3 years. Of the 21 client attributes used in testing the matching hypotheses, 11 had prognostic value at 3 years. Among these, readiness‐to‐change and self‐efficacy emerged as the strongest predictors of long‐term drinking outcome. With regard to the overall outcomes, the reductions in drinking that were observed in the first year after treatment were sustained over the 3‐year follow‐up period almost 30% of the subjects were totally abstinent in months 37 to 39, whereas those who did report drinking nevertheless remained abstinent an average of two‐thirds of the time. As in the 1‐year follow‐up, there were few differences among the three treatments, although TSF continued to show a possible slight advantage.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1998.tb03912.x

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb02889.x · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb02889.x · Paper page
  2. Spitzer RL, 1985, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐III‐R
  3. Miller WR, 1995, The Drinker Inventory of Consequences (DrInC). An Instrument for Assessing Adverse Consequences of Alcohol Abuse
  4. 10.1037/0893-164X.10.2.75 · doi:10.1037/0893-164x.10.2.75 · Paper page
  5. 10.1037/0893-164X.10.2.104 · doi:10.1037/0893-164x.10.2.104
  6. Kadden RM, 1992, Cognitive‐Behavioral Coping Skills Therapy Manual: A Clinical Research Guide for Therapists Treating Individuals with Alcohol Abuse and Dependence
  7. Miller WR, 1992, Motivational Enhancement Therapy Manual: A Clinical Research Guide for Therapists Treating Individuals with Alcohol Abuse and Dependence
  8. Nowinski J, 1992, Twelve Step Facilitation Therapy Manual: A Clinical Research Guide for Therapists Treating Individuals with Alcohol Abuse and Dependence
  9. 10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.290 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Hunt DE, 1978, Assessing conceptual level by the paragraph completion method
  11. Crumbaugh JC, 1976, Purpose in Life Scale
  12. 10.1002/1097-4679(197707)33:3<900::AID-JCLP2270330362>3.0.CO;2-8 · doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197707)33:3<900::aid-jclp2270330362>3.0.co;2-8
  13. Gough HG, 1975, California Psychological Inventory Manual
  14. Spielberger CD, 1988, Manual for the State‐Trait Anger Expression Scale (STAX)
  15. 10.1046/j.1360-0443.91.12s1.7.x · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 578

Metadata

Authors
Project MATCH Research Group
Venue
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-09
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
1300-1311
ISSN
  • 0145-6008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-0277
OpenAlex
W4231635321
Cited by
578
References
36
FWCI
10.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity: Project MATCH Three‐Year Drinking Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1998.tb03912.x
The paper
Project MATCH Research Group. (1998). Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity: Project MATCH Three‐Year Drinking Outcomes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1998.tb03912.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.