Cited by 181Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and InterventionsMedia Influence and Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Stand-Alone Personalized Normative Feedback for College Student Drinkers: A Meta-Analytic Review, 2004 to 2014

Open access
Dotson, Keri B., Dunn, Michael E., Bowers, Clint A.·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Norms clarification has been identified as an effective component of college student drinking interventions, prompting research on norms clarification as a single-component intervention known as Personalized Normative Feedback (PNF). Previous reviews have examined PNF in combination with other components but not as a stand-alone intervention. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the degree to which computer-delivered stand-alone personalized normative feedback interventions reduce alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms among college students and to compare gender-neutral and gender-specific PNF. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched systematically through November 2014. Reference lists were reviewed manually and forward and backward searches were conducted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Outcome studies that compared computer-delivered, stand-alone PNF intervention with an assessment only, attention-matched, or active treatment control and reported alcohol use and harms among college students. METHODS: Between-group effect sizes were calculated as the standardized mean difference in change scores between treatment and control groups divided by pooled standard deviation. Within-group effect sizes were calculated as the raw mean difference between baseline and follow-up divided by pooled within-groups standard deviation. RESULTS: Eight studies (13 interventions) with a total of 2,050 participants were included. Compared to control participants, students who received gender-neutral (dbetween = 0.291, 95% CI [0.159, 0.423]) and gender-specific PNF (dbetween = 0.284, 95% CI [0.117, 0.451]) reported greater reductions in drinking from baseline to follow-up. Students who received gender-neutral PNF reported 3.027 (95% CI [2.171, 3.882]) fewer drinks per week at first follow-up and gender-specific PNF reported 3.089 (95% CI [0.992, 5.186]) fewer drinks. Intervention effects were small for harms (dbetween = 0.157, 95% CI [0.037, 0.278]). CONCLUSIONS: Computer-delivered PNF is an effective stand-alone approach for reducing college student drinking and has a small impact on alcohol-related harms. Effects are small but clinically relevant when considered from a public health perspective. Additional research is needed to examine computer-delivered, stand-alone PNF as a population-level prevention program.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0139518

Cites

53 of 54 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 54 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. From Local and National Action to Global Change. World Health Organization. Global Alcohol Policy Conference; 2013; Seoul, Korea.
  2. C Neighbors, 2006, Being controlled by normative influences: Self-determination as a moderator of a normative feedback alcohol intervention, Health Psychol, 25, 571, 10.1037/0278-6133.25.5.571 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–181 of 181

Metadata

Authors
Dotson, K. B., Dunn, M. E., & Bowers, C. A.
Affiliations
University of Central Florida (US)
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-10-08
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
e0139518
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124616725
Cited by
181
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11
FWCI
12.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
personalized normative feedback, college drinking, alcohol consumption, alcohol-related harm, computer-based intervention, alcohol prevention
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking in College, Alcohol Drinking, Humans, Databases, Factual, Internet, Feedback, Psychological

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