Quality of Research
Documents Reviewed
The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of
contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability
of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.
Study 1Perry, C. L., Williams, C. L., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Toomey, T. L., Komro, K. A., Anstine, P. S., et al. (1996). Project Northland: Outcomes of a communitywide alcohol use prevention program during early adolescence. American Journal of Public Health, 86(7), 956-965.  Study 2Komro, K. A., Perry, C. L., Williams, C. L., Stigler, M. H., Farbakhsh, K., & Veblen-Mortenson, S. (2001). How did Project Northland reduce alcohol use among young adolescents? Analysis of mediating variables. Health Education Research, 16(1), 59-70.
Supplementary Materials Komro, K. A., Perry, C. L., Murray, D. M., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Williams, C. L. & Anstine, P. S. (1996). Peer-planned social activities for preventing alcohol use among young adolescents. Journal of School Health, 66(9), 328-334.
Komro, K. A., Perry, C. L., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Williams, C. L., & Roel, J. P. (1999). Peer leadership in school and community alcohol use prevention activities. Journal of Health Education, 30(4), 202-208.
Perry, C. L., Williams, C. L., Forster, J. L., Wolfson, M., Wagenaar, A. C., Finnegan, J. R., et al. (1993). Background, conceptualization, and design of a community-wide research program on adolescent alcohol use: Project Northland. Health Education Research, 8(1), 125-136.
Williams, C. L., Perry, C. L., Dudovitz, B., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Anstine, P. S., Komro, K. A., et al. (1995). A home-based prevention program for sixth-grade alcohol use: Results from Project Northland. Journal of Primary Prevention, 16(2), 125-147.
Williams, C. L., Toomey, T. L., McGovern, P., Wagenaar, A. C., & Perry, C. L. (1995). Development, reliability, and validity of self-report alcohol-use measures with young adolescents. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 4(3), 17-40.
Outcomes
| Outcome 1: Tendency to use alcohol |
|
Description of Measures
|
The Tendency To Use Alcohol Scale combined items on actual alcohol use from the Monitoring the Future survey with items concerning intention to use alcohol. Questions included "How likely is it that you'll drink an alcoholic beverage?" at four future time points (ever, if someone offered it you in the next 12 months, in the next 30 days, in the next 7 days) and "On how many occasions have you had alcoholic beverages to drink?" at four past time points (in your lifetime, during the last 12 months, during the last 30 days, and during the last 7 days). Students responded using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (0 occasions) to 7 (40 or more occasions).
|
|
Key Findings
|
By the end of the intervention, students who participated in Project Northland were less likely to drink alcohol than other students, as measured by lower mean scores on the Tendency To Use Alcohol Scale (16.0% vs. 17.5%, p < .05). In addition, students who did not use alcohol before participating in Project Northland were less likely to use alcohol after the intervention than similar youth who did not participate (13.8% vs. 15.3%, p < .01).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.4
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 2: Past-week alcohol use |
|
Description of Measures
|
Alcohol use over the past week was assessed with an item from the Monitoring the Future survey: "On how many occasions have you had alcoholic beverages to drink during the last 7 days?" Students responded using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (0 occasions) to 7 (40 or more occasions).
|
|
Key Findings
|
By the end of the intervention, fewer students who participated in Project Northland reported any alcohol use during the past week than comparable students (10.5% vs. 14.8%, p < .05). This finding was especially strong among students who never used alcohol before participating in Project Northland (5.9% vs. 9.8%, p < .01).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.4
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 3: Past-month alcohol use |
|
Description of Measures
|
Alcohol use over the past month was measured using an item from the Monitoring the Future survey: "On how many occasions have you had alcoholic beverages to drink during the last 30 days?" Students responded using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (0 occasions) to 7 (40 or more occasions).
|
|
Key Findings
|
By the end of the intervention, fewer students who participated in Project Northland reported any alcohol use during the past month than comparable students (23.6% vs. 29.2%, p < .05). This finding was equally strong among students who never used alcohol before participating in Project Northland (15.3% vs. 21.2%, p < .05).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.4
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 4: Peer influence to use alcohol |
|
Description of Measures
|
Peer influence was assessed by two questions asking students to estimate how many of their friends use alcohol and how often their friends have offered them alcohol. Students responded using a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 (none or never) to 5 (almost all of them or many times).
|
|
Key Findings
|
Among young adolescents, peer influence was shown to have a statistically significant effect on the tendency to use alcohol (p < .05). This finding suggests that some of Project Northland's effectiveness on individual alcohol use decisions was due to its impact on peer influences.
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.9
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 5: Reasons not to use alcohol |
|
Description of Measures
|
The functional meaning of alcohol use (reasons not to use alcohol) was assessed by asking students to rate the importance of reasons for not drinking (such as "There are many other ways to have fun besides drinking alcohol," "it would hurt my reputation," "I'm afraid I may become an alcoholic," etc.) are to them. Students responded using a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 (not too important to me) to 5 (very important to me).
|
|
Key Findings
|
Among young adolescents, the perceived "functional meaning" of alcohol use was shown to have a statistically significant effect on the tendency to use alcohol. This finding suggests that Project Northland increased "functional meanings" that supported nonuse.
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.9
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 6: Parent-child communication about alcohol |
|
Description of Measures
|
Students responded "true" or "false" to four items assessing the communication between themselves and their parents concerning alcohol. Items included, for example: "My parents talk with me about problems drinking alcohol can cause young people," and "I think my parents will allow me to drink by the time I am a high school senior."
|
|
Key Findings
|
Among young adolescents, two parent-child communication items were shown to have statistically significant effects on the tendency to use alcohol. These items were "My parents talk with me about problems drinking alcohol can cause young people" (p < .05) and "My parents have told me what would happen if I were caught drinking alcohol" (p < .05). This finding suggests that Project Northland increased these types of parent-child communication around alcohol use.
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.9
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Study Populations
The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of
Research.
|
Study
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Race/Ethnicity
|
|
Study 1
|
6-12 (Childhood)
13-17 (Adolescent)
|
Data not reported/available
|
94% White
5.5% American Indian or Alaska Native
0.5% Race/ethnicity unspecified
|
|
Study 2
|
6-12 (Childhood)
13-17 (Adolescent)
|
51% Male
49% Female
|
95.6% White
3.7% American Indian or Alaska Native
0.7% Race/ethnicity unspecified
|
Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's
reported results using six criteria:
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.
|
Outcome
|
Reliability
of Measures
|
Validity
of Measures
|
Fidelity
|
Missing
Data/Attrition
|
Confounding
Variables
|
Data
Analysis
|
Overall
Rating
|
|
1: Tendency to use alcohol
|
3.5
|
3.8
|
2.8
|
3.5
|
3.0
|
3.8
|
3.4
|
|
2: Past-week alcohol use
|
3.5
|
3.8
|
2.8
|
3.5
|
3.0
|
3.8
|
3.4
|
|
3: Past-month alcohol use
|
3.5
|
3.8
|
2.8
|
3.5
|
3.0
|
3.8
|
3.4
|
|
4: Peer influence to use alcohol
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.3
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
2.9
|
|
5: Reasons not to use alcohol
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.3
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
2.9
|
|
6: Parent-child communication about alcohol
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.3
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
2.9
|
Study Strengths The study used a randomized control trial with a relatively long-term follow-up period to examine the effect of a comprehensive alcohol prevention program. The intervention is based on a sound theoretical foundation and was consistently implemented by trained staff and with the use of training manuals. The Tendency To Use Alcohol Scale has good psychometric properties (high internal consistency and test–retest reliability) with acceptable criterion-related validity. Participation rates were relatively high, especially for a population-based study. There were no differences between refusals and dropouts in the intervention when compared with the control conditions. In addition, appropriate and sophisticated analytic methods controlled for the effect of missing data and allowed the investigators to control for baseline differences along key variables between the intervention and control groups.
Study Weaknesses Although high rates of participation were demonstrated in the first year of the study, numbers declined somewhat and the attrition rate was 19% by the third year. It was difficult to separate which components or factors of the intervention were most important and effective in assessing the effectiveness of alcohol prevention program on young adolescents (either singly or in combination).
|
|
