CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 350Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsHomelessness and Social Issues

Meta-analysis of the literature on Alcoholics Anonymous: sample and study characteristics moderate findings.

Tonigan, J S, Toscova, R, Miller, W R·1996·Journal of Studies on Alcohol
DOI 10.15288/jsa.1996.57.65
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Reviews of research on Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) have speculated how findings may differ when grouped by client and study characteristics. A meta-analytic review by Emrick et al. in 1993 provided empirical support for this concern but did not explore its implications. This review divided results of AA affiliation and outcome research by sample origin and global rating of study quality. The review also examined the statistical power of studies on AA. METHOD: Meta-analytic procedures were used to summarize the findings of 74 studies that examined AA affiliation and outcome. Results were divided by whether samples were drawn from outpatient or inpatient settings and a global rating of study quality that jointly considered use of subject selection and assignment, reliability of measurement and corroboration of self-report. Efficacy of dividing study results was examined by changes in magnitude of correlations and unexplained variance. RESULTS: AA participation and drinking outcomes were more strongly related in outpatient samples, and better designed studies were more likely to report positive psychosocial outcomes related to AA attendance. In general, AA studies lacked sufficient statistical power to detect relationships of interest. CONCLUSIONS: AA experiences and outcomes are heterogeneous, and it makes little sense to seek omnibus profiles of AA affiliates or outcomes. Well-designed studies with large outpatient samples may afford the best opportunity to detect predictors and effects of AA involvement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15288/jsa.1996.57.65

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tonigan, J. S., Toscova, R., & Miller, W. R.
Affiliations
University of New Mexico (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Studies on Alcohol
Publisher
Alcohol Research Documentation, Inc.
Published
1996-01
Volume
57
Issue
1
Pages
65-72
ISSN
  • 0096-882X (ISSN-L)
  • 1934-2683
DOI
10.15288/jsa.1996.57.65
OpenAlex
W2102714420
Cited by
350
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 19
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Studies on Alcohol (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Homelessness and Social Issues
Keywords
Alcoholics Anonymous, self-help groups, alcohol use outcomes, study quality, statistical power, treatment effect heterogeneity, alcohol recovery
MeSH terms
Alcoholics Anonymous, Alcoholism, Ambulatory Care, Humans, Temperance, Treatment Outcome

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