Evaluating a brief alcohol intervention with fraternities.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study tested the efficacy of a brief intervention designed to reduce drinking and drinking-related consequences among first-year fraternity members. METHOD: Twelve fraternities were randomly assigned to receive either a motivational enhancement intervention with individual and housewide feedback components (n = 6 houses) or a treatment-as-usual control condition (n = 6 houses). Individual feedback was delivered either by peer interviewers or professional research staff. Participants were assessed during their pledge (first) year of house membership and during a follow-up period 1 year later. RESULTS: Of the participants who completed follow-up (N = 120), fraternity members who received the brief intervention reported significant reductions in alcohol use (total average consumption) and typical peak blood alcohol concentrations when compared with fraternity members in the control condition. No differences in drinking-related consequences were observed. Fraternity members who received their individualized feedback from peer interviewers and professional members of the research staff reported similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide support for the efficacy of a brief motivational enhancement intervention in reducing drinking within this high-risk population. The cost-effective use of peer interviewers appears to be a promising strategy for delivering individualized prevention programming in college populations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Larimer et al. (2001) found new members consumed an average of 4.93 drinks per occasion on an average 3.03 occasions per week.
“The researchers found new members consumed an average of 4.93 (sd = 2.73) drinks per occasion on an average 3.03 (sd = 1.51) occasions per week.”
From The Influence of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement: A Critical Analysis of Research (1996–2013) (2014) · cites this paper as Larimer et al. (2001)
Larimer et al. (2001) found one year later, the men averaged 4.87 drinks per occasion on an average 2.98 occasions per week.
“One year, the men averaged 4.87 (sd = 3.93) drinks per occasion on an average 2.98 (sd = 1.91) occasions per week.”
From The Influence of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement: A Critical Analysis of Research (1996–2013) (2014) · cites this paper as Larimer et al. (2001)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 363
- Authors
- Larimer, M. E., Turner, A. P., Anderson, B. K., Fader, J. S., Kilmer, J. R., Palmer, R. S., & Cronce, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Studies on Alcohol
- Publisher
- Alcohol Research Documentation, Inc.
- Published
- 2001-05
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 370-380
- ISSN
- 0096-882X (ISSN-L)
- 1934-2683
- OpenAlex
- W2123409955
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 7.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Studies on Alcohol (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA10772, R01AA010772)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
- Keywords
- brief alcohol intervention, fraternity members, university students, motivational enhancement therapy, alcohol consumption reduction, personalized feedback, hazardous drinking, alcohol consumption, peak blood alcohol concentration
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Analysis of Variance, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Motivation, Peer Group, Students, 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