Quality of Research
Review Date: November 2011
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 1Conrod, P. J., Stewart, S. H., Comeau, N., & Maclean, A. M. (2006).Efficacy of cognitive-behavioral interventions targeting personality risk factors for youth alcohol misuse. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(4), 550-563.  Study 2Conrod, P. J., Castellanos-Ryan, N., & Mackie, C. (2011). Long-term effects of personality-targeted interventions to reduce alcohol use in adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 296-306.
Conrod, P. J., Castellanos-Ryan, N., & Strang, J. (2010). Brief, personality-targeted coping skills interventions and survival as a non-drug user over a 2-year period during adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(1), 85-93. Study 3O'Leary-Barrett, M., Mackie, C. J., Castellanos-Ryan, N., Al-Khudhairy, N., & Conrod, P. J. (2010). Personality-targeted interventions delay uptake of drinking and decrease risk of alcohol-related problems when delivered by teachers. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(9), 954-963.
Supplementary Materials Castellanos-Ryan, N., O'Leary-Barrett, M., Lassiter, A. M., Sully, L., & Conrod, P. (2012). Psychometric properties and diagnostic value of the Substance Use Risk Profile Scale. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Woicik, P. A., Stewart, S. H., Pihl, R. O., & Conrod, P. J. (2009). The Substance Use Risk Profile Scale: A scale measuring traits linked to reinforcement-specific substance use profiles. Addictive Behaviors, 34(12), 1042-1055.
Outcomes
| Outcome 1: Alcohol use |
|
Description of Measures
|
Alcohol use was determined by asking students whether they consumed any alcohol in the past 6 months. The item was included in assessments administered at baseline and 6 months postintervention.
|
|
Key Findings
|
In a study in Canada, high school students who were self-reported drinkers were screened for four personality risk factors: sensation seeking, impulsivity, anxiety-sensitivity, and hopelessness. Students who scored above the mean for any factor were randomly assigned to intervention and no-treatment control conditions. Students in the intervention group were invited to participate in PreVenture group sessions matched to their personality risk profile. Subsample analyses showed that intervention group students in the anxiety-sensitivity (AS) category were significantly more likely to be abstinent at 4-month follow-up than AS students in the control group (p < .05). Significant findings for alcohol use were not found for the other subgroups or for the intervention group as a whole.
In a study in England, secondary students in schools that had been randomly assigned to intervention and control conditions were screened for four personality risk factors: sensation seeking, impulsivity, anxiety-sensitivity, and hopelessness. The intervention group consisted of students in the intervention schools who scored above the mean in any of these areas and agreed to participate in PreVenture group sessions matched to their personality risk profile. Students in control schools who scored above the mean in personality risk served as the no-treatment control group. At 6-month follow-up, intervention students reported significantly less alcohol use than control students, even after controlling for covariates (p < .01).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.8
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 2: Quantity and frequency of alcohol use |
|
Description of Measures
|
Quantity and frequency of alcohol use were measured by asking students to report how many standard alcoholic beverages they typically consumed per day or per drinking occasion (e.g., "1 or 2" to "10 or more") and how often they drank alcohol (e.g., "less than monthly" to "daily or almost daily") during the past 4 or 6 months, depending on the study. These items were administered only to students who reported they consumed alcohol during the reporting period. In one study, assessments were administered at baseline and 4 months postintervention. In a second study, assessments were administered at baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postintervention. In a third study, assessments were administered at baseline and 6 months postintervention, and a composite score was generated by combining responses to the individual quantity and frequency measures.
|
|
Key Findings
|
In a study in Canada, high school students who were self-reported drinkers were screened for four personality risk factors: sensation seeking, impulsivity, anxiety-sensitivity, and hopelessness. Students who scored above the mean for any factor were randomly assigned to intervention and no-treatment control conditions. Students in the intervention group were invited to participate in PreVenture group sessions matched to their personality risk profile. At 4-month follow-up, intervention students reported consuming an average of 3 or 4 drinks per drinking occasion, compared with an average of 5 or 6 drinks reported among control students (p < .05). Drinking frequency did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups.
In a study in England, secondary students who scored above the school mean in sensation seeking, impulsivity, anxiety-sensitivity, and hopelessness were randomly assigned to intervention and no-treatment control conditions. The intervention consisted of PreVenture group sessions matched to the student's personality risk profile. In an analysis that included data from all five assessment points, intervention students had lower quantity/frequency of use scores overall compared with control students (p = .02). However, analyses of data from individual assessments showed significant differences in drinking quantity/frequency only at the first of the four follow-ups (p < .05), in part because drinking among control students stabilized after increasing rapidly over the first 6 months.
In another study in England, secondary students in schools that had been randomly assigned to intervention and control conditions were screened for four personality risk factors: sensation seeking, impulsivity, anxiety-sensitivity, and hopelessness. The intervention group consisted of students in the intervention schools who scored above the mean in any of these areas and agreed to participate in PreVenture group sessions matched to their personality risk profile. Students in control schools who scored above the mean in personality risk served as the no-treatment control group. At 6-month follow-up, intervention students had significantly lower quantity/frequency of use scores than control students, even after controlling for covariates (p < .05).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 2, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.7
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 3: Binge drinking |
|
Description of Measures
|
Binge drinking was measured using a single question that asked students if they had consumed five or more alcoholic beverages (four or more for girls) on a single occasion in the past 4 or 6 months, depending on the study. The measure was administered at baseline and 4 months postintervention in one study, and at baseline and 6 months postintervention in another study.
|
|
Key Findings
|
In a study in Canada, high school students who were self-reported drinkers were screened for four personality risk factors: sensation seeking, impulsivity, anxiety-sensitivity, and hopelessness. Students who scored above the mean for any factor were randomly assigned to intervention and no-treatment control conditions. Students in the intervention group were invited to participate in PreVenture group sessions matched to their personality risk profile. At 4-month follow-up, 42% of intervention students reported binge drinking, compared with 60% of control students (p < .01).
In a study in England, secondary students in schools that had been randomly assigned to intervention and control conditions were screened for four personality risk factors: sensation seeking, impulsivity, anxiety-sensitivity, and hopelessness. The intervention group consisted of students in the intervention schools who scored above the mean in any of these areas and agreed to participate in PreVenture group sessions matched to their personality risk profile. Students in control schools who scored above the mean in personality risk served as the no-treatment control group. At 6-month follow-up, among those who reported past drinking at baseline, intervention students were significantly less likely than controls to report binge drinking, even after controlling for covariates (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.3-0.8; p < .001).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.8
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 4: Alcohol-related problems |
|
Description of Measures
|
Alcohol-related problems were measured using the Rutgers Alcohol Problems Index (RAPI) and abbreviated versions of the RAPI. The RAPI is a 23-item self-report measure that assesses behavioral symptoms of adolescent problem drinking (e.g., missed school because of drinking). Respondents indicate on a 5-point scale how many times they have experienced various negative consequences from their alcohol use. In one study, the full instrument was administered at baseline and 4 months postintervention, and respondents were asked about problems in the past 4 months. In this study, scores were dichotomized to presence or absence of problem drinking.
A second study used a shortened version of the RAPI, comprised of the 7 items most frequently endorsed in an earlier study. The assessments were administered at baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postintervention, and respondents were asked about problems in the past 6 months. An alcohol problem score was calculated by summing the total number of responses.
A third study used an 8-item version of the RAPI, again consisting of items most frequently endorsed by students in a previous trial. Lower scores indicate fewer drinking problems. An alcohol problems score was calculated by summing responses to the 8 items. Assessments were administered at baseline and 6 months postintervention, and students were asked about problems in the past 6 months.
|
|
Key Findings
|
In a study in Canada, high school students who were self-reported drinkers were screened for four personality risk factors: sensation seeking, impulsivity, anxiety-sensitivity, and hopelessness. Students who scored above the mean for any factor were randomly assigned to intervention and no-treatment control conditions. Students in the intervention group were invited to participate in PreVenture group sessions matched to their personality risk profile. At 4-month follow-up, intervention students were significantly more likely than control students to report an absence of drinking-related problems (p < .01).
In a study in England, secondary students who scored above the mean in sensation seeking, impulsivity, anxiety-sensitivity, and hopelessness were randomly assigned to intervention and no-treatment control conditions. The intervention consisted of PreVenture group sessions matched to the student's personality risk profile. In an analysis that included data from all five assessment points, intervention students had lower alcohol problem scores overall than control students (p = .002).
In another study in England, secondary students in schools that had been randomly assigned to intervention and control conditions were screened for four personality risk factors: sensation seeking, impulsivity, anxiety-sensitivity, and hopelessness. The intervention group consisted of students in the intervention schools who scored above the mean in any of these areas and agreed to participate in PreVenture group sessions matched to their personality risk profile. Students in control schools who scored above the mean in personality risk served as the no-treatment control group. At 6-month follow-up, intervention students had significantly lower alcohol problem scores than control students, even after controlling for covariates (p < .01).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1, Study 2, Study 3
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.8
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 5: Drug use |
|
Description of Measures
|
Drug use was assessed using the Reckless Behavior Questionnaire 25 (RBQ 25), a 10-item measure that asks respondents to report how often they have engaged in various risky behaviors in the past 6 months. Three items assess the frequency of marijuana, cocaine, and other drug use, on a scale from "never" to ">10 times." For the study, responses to the three drug-related items were combined to create a drug use frequency score, dichotomized into yes or no variables, and then added to create a variable of the number of drugs used. Follow-up assessments were conducted in school at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postintervention.
|
|
Key Findings
|
In a study in England, secondary students who scored above the mean in sensation seeking, impulsivity, anxiety-sensitivity, and hopelessness were randomly assigned to intervention and no-treatment control conditions. The intervention consisted of PreVenture group sessions matched to the student's personality risk profile. In an analysis that included data from all five assessment points, intervention students reported less drug use overall than control students, both in frequency of use (p < .05) and the number of drugs used (p < .01).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 2
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.4
(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
|
13-17 (Adolescent)
|
55.9% Female
44.1% Male
|
100% Non-U.S. population
|
|
Study 2
|
13-17 (Adolescent)
|
64.3% Female
35.7% Male
|
100% Non-U.S. population
|
|
Study 3
|
13-17 (Adolescent)
|
55% Male
45% Female
|
100% Non-U.S. population
|
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: Alcohol use
|
2.0
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
2.8
|
|
2: Quantity and frequency of alcohol use
|
2.0
|
2.5
|
2.3
|
3.2
|
2.9
|
3.2
|
2.7
|
|
3: Binge drinking
|
2.0
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.8
|
3.3
|
2.8
|
|
4: Alcohol-related problems
|
2.0
|
3.3
|
2.3
|
3.2
|
2.9
|
3.2
|
2.8
|
|
5: Drug use
|
1.5
|
2.0
|
1.0
|
3.5
|
3.0
|
3.5
|
2.4
|
Study Strengths All three studies were randomized controlled trials that used an intent-to-treat approach and had large, representative samples. Efforts were made to ensure that intervention participants received all program sections and components. Overall attrition was low, and any impact of attrition was greatly mitigated by the number of data points following program completion, very careful analyses of the threats posed by attrition, and conservative data imputation methods. The analytical approach was strong, and multiple strategies were employed that yielded convergent findings.
Study Weaknesses Limited information was available concerning the psychometric properties of measures, and no psychometrics were provided for the abbreviated versions of the RAPI. While careful training of group leaders and facilitators was documented, there is no clear indication whether or how intervention fidelity was measured. Although the analyses controlled for demographics, gender and ethnicity were not examined separately, which is important given that the intervention targets students based on specific behavioral criteria and therefore may not work equally well for all youth. None of the studies used an attention-control condition or included another intervention as a comparison, making it difficult to determine if the outcomes resulted from the intervention or from increased personal attention to higher-risk children.
|
|
Readiness for Dissemination
Review Date: November 2011
Materials Reviewed
The materials below were reviewed for Readiness for Dissemination. The implementation
point of contact can provide information regarding implementation of the intervention
and the availability of additional, updated, or new materials.
Al-Khudhairy, N., & Conrad, P. (2007). Adventure facilitation criteria scale (AFCS).
Beck, A. T., & Young, J. E. (1980). Cognitive therapy scale.
Castellanos-Ryan, N., & Conrod, P. (n.d.). Personality and addiction processes. In P. Miller (Ed.), Encyclopedia of addictive behaviors. Oxford: Elsevier.
Conrod, P. (n.d.). Preventing alcohol and drug misuse among high risk adolescents [PowerPoint slides].
King's College London, Section of Addiction Research, Division of Psychological Medicine. (2007). Student survey. England: Author.
PreVenture student manuals:
- Conrod, P. J., Comeau, M. N., Stewart, S. H., & Javin Creative. (2004). PreVenture: Learning to deal with anxiety sensitivity. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: 6148042 Canada.
- Conrod, P. J., Comeau, M. N., Stewart, S. H., & Javin Creative. (2004). PreVenture: Learning to deal with impulsivity. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: 6148042 Canada.
- Conrod, P. J., Comeau, M. N., Stewart, S. H., & Javin Creative. (2004). PreVenture: Learning to deal with negative thinking. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: 6148042 Canada.
- Conrod, P. J., Comeau, M. N., Stewart, S. H., & Javin Creative. (2004). PreVenture: Learning to deal with sensation seeking. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: 6148042 Canada.
PreVenture therapist manuals:
- Conrod, P. J., Comeau, M. N., Stewart, S. H., & Javin Creative. (2004). PreVenture: Learning to deal with anxiety sensitivity. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: 6148042 Canada.
- Conrod, P. J., Comeau, M. N., Stewart, S. H., & Javin Creative. (2004). PreVenture: Learning to deal with impulsivity. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: 6148042 Canada.
- Conrod, P. J., Comeau, M. N., Stewart, S. H., & Javin Creative. (2004). PreVenture: Learning to deal with negative thinking. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: 6148042 Canada.
- Conrod, P. J., Comeau, M. N., Stewart, S. H., & Javin Creative. (2004). PreVenture: Learning to deal with sensation seeking. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: 6148042 Canada.
Promotional and training DVDs
Q15 Core Counseling Components [handout]
Student Feedback Form
Substance Use Risk Profile Scale [Excel file]
Surveying and Participant Selection [handout]
Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the intervention's Readiness for Dissemination
using three criteria:
- Availability of implementation materials
- Availability of training and support resources
- Availability of quality assurance procedures
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Readiness for Dissemination.
Implementation
Materials
|
Training and Support
Resources
|
Quality Assurance
Procedures
|
Overall
Rating
|
|
2.8
|
2.8
|
2.8
|
2.8
|
Dissemination Strengths The therapist manuals are well written and clearly organized. They contain appropriate information on the qualifications and roles of facilitators, as well as basic guidance for how to set up and facilitate sessions. The corresponding student manuals are easy to follow and use graphics to demonstrate the key concepts and examples. New implementers are required to complete a training provided by the developer's training team before starting program implementation. Trainees must demonstrate proficiency through practice sessions supervised by the trainer. The developer also provides supervisory support after training, either on site or through review of recorded sessions. A detailed observation rating protocol is available to assess how well facilitators adhere to the practice expectations of each of the four personality-specific components. The developer also provides an instrument that can be used to survey students for outcomes after their participation in the program.
Dissemination Weaknesses The therapist manuals contain little guidance specific to the management of group dynamics and on how to integrate the intervention in the intended school settings. The training materials provided for review, including instructions for the administration and interpretation of evaluation instruments, were limited. It is unclear how new implementers should administer the evaluation tools or use the findings obtained using those tools. The process and timeline for scheduling training is unclear. No explicit guidance is provided on how new implementers should administer evaluation tools or on how to use the findings to improve implementation.
|
|
Costs
The cost information below was provided by the developer. Although this cost information
may have been updated by the developer since the time of review, it may not reflect
the current costs or availability of items (including newly developed or discontinued
items). The implementation point of contact can provide current information and
discuss implementation requirements.
|
Item Description
|
Cost
|
Required by Developer
|
|
Student manuals
|
$10-$35 each, depending on the number ordered
|
Yes
|
|
Therapist manuals
|
Included with cost of training
|
Yes
|
|
Additional therapist manuals
|
$100 each
|
No
|
|
2-day, on-site clinical training (includes set of therapist manuals for each participant)
|
$2,000 for 1-5 participants, or $3,000 for 6-10 participants
|
Yes
|
|
3-day, on-site expanded training
|
$4,000 for up to 10 participants
|
No
|
|
1-day, on-site counseling skills training for implementers without clinical background
|
$750 per site
|
No
|
|
4 hours of supervised practice
|
$500 per participant
|
Yes
|
|
Ongoing supervision of treatment sessions or program implementation
|
$160 per hour
|
No
|
|
Substance Use Risk Profile Scale
|
Free
|
Yes
|
|
Fidelity scale
|
Free
|
Yes
|
|
Young & Beck's Cognitive Therapy Scale
|
Free
|
Yes
|
|
Replications
Selected citations are presented below. An asterisk indicates that the document
was reviewed for Quality of Research.
Conrod, P. J., Castellanos, N., & Mackie, C. (2008). Personality-targeted interventions delay the growth of adolescent drinking and binge drinking. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(2), 181-190.
* Conrod, P. J., Castellanos-Ryan, N., & Mackie, C. (2011). Long-term effects of a personality-targeted intervention to reduce alcohol use in adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 296-306.
Conrod, P. J., O'Leary-Barrett, M., Newton, N., Topper, L., Castellanos-Ryan, N, Mackie, C., & Girard, A. (In press). A cluster randomized trial demonstrates the effectiveness of a selective, personality-targeted prevention program for adolescent alcohol misuse. JAMA Psychiatry.
Conrod, P. J., Stewart, S. H., Pihl, R. O., Cote, S., Fontaine, V., & Dongier, M. (2000). Efficacy of brief coping skills interventions that match different personality profiles of female substance abusers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14(3), 231-242.
Lammers, J., Goossens, F., Lokman, S., Monshouwer, K., Lemmers, L., Conrod, P., et al. (2001). Evaluating a selective prevention programme for binge drinking among young adolescents: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 11, 126.
Watt, M., Stewart, S., Birch, C., & Bernier, D. (2006). Brief CBT for high anxiety sensitivity decreases drinking problems, relief alcohol outcome expectancies, and conformity drinking motives: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Mental Health, 15(6), 683-695.
|
|
|
