Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| University of Houston | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Personalized Normative Feedback (PNF), the most widely-used college alcohol intervention approach, suffers from several limitations innovatively remedied in the current proposal through CampusGANDR, a smartphone-based app for college students that delivers alcohol-related PNF within a weekly game centered around testing first-year students' perceptions about the attitudes and behaviors of their peers in a variety of campus-relevant domains. Five pilot studies suggest that CampusGANDR will be significantly more effective at correcting students' normative misperceptions and reducing their alcohol use than standard PNF, especially among heavier-drinking students and those with greater exposure to alcohol on social media, and that these larger effects are driven by the significantly decreased psychological reactance experienced by students when viewing feedback as part of a game about college life rather than as part of an alcohol-focused program. The current project seeks to 1) evaluate the efficacy of CampusGANDR in a large-scale multi-site trial, 2) identify the optimal dosage of alcohol feedback to deliver within CampusGANDR for correcting norms and reducing alcohol use across 12 weeks of gameplay among non-drinking, moderate-drinking, and heavy-drinking students, 3) examine person-level moderators of these effects, and 4) evaluate CampusGANDR engagement and sustainability among students who play voluntarily but are not involved in the randomized controlled trial.
Despite concerted efforts, high risk drinking remains a significant problem on college campuses. Further, the transition into college is an identified critical period in which risky drinking patterns are often established and serious negative consequences occur. Colleges commonly employ Normative Re-Education (NR), a promising intervention approach focused on correcting over-estimated peer drinking norms, to reduce alcohol risk in first-year students. However, the most cost-effective and scalable NR intervention strategy, web-based personalized normative feedback (PNF), has yielded only modest reductions in drinking. Several issues have been identified that may explain these relatively small effects. For example, students often question the credibility of the normative data, the content fails to capture students' attention, and heavy drinkers often react to feedback defensively. These issues are not surprising as, unlike social media and digital gaming applications that capture and sustain young adults' attention, web-based PNF formats lack the sophisticated digital graphics, social interactivity, and other dynamic features to which students have become accustomed. Further, colleges often make participation mandatory or offer incentives to enroll students in current interventions, likely a detriment to student motivation and thus intervention effectiveness. CampusGANDR (Gamified Alcohol Norm Discovery and Re-education) addresses these issues by delivering alcohol PNF within a fun, gamified smartphone app that tests first-year students' perceptions of college life and classmates' attitudes and behaviors on a weekly basis across the first semester of college. Integrating features from popular social media platforms and evidence-based digital game mechanics (e.g., co-presence, a wager-based system of points, and chance-based uncertainty), CampusGANDR also features enhanced PNF and includes several novel features informed by longstanding cognitive and social psychological theories.
Based on extensive pilot work, the current proposal seeks to: 1) evaluate the efficacy of CampusGANDR in a large-scale multi-site randomized controlled trial (RCT); 2) identify the optimal dosage of alcohol feedback to deliver within CampusGANDR for correcting norms and reducing alcohol use among students who differ in alcohol use (non-drinkers, light to moderate drinkers, and heavy drinkers); 3) examine person-level moderators of intervention efficacy; and 4) evaluate CampusGANDR engagement and the sustainability of play among students who use the app but aren't recruited into the evaluation study (RCT).
Incoming first-year students at colleges and universities in California (Loyola Marymount University site) and Texas (University of Houston site) consecutive cohorts of first-year students will be invited to download the CampusGANDR app to test their perceptions of campus life compete against their classmates. Then, among students already playing CampusGANDR, a balanced sub-sample of 1,800 non-drinking, light/moderate drinking, and heavy drinking students will be invited to take part in an evaluation study (RCT). Study participants will play CampusGANDR over the initial 12 weeks of the fall semester and complete 4 surveys assessing their alcohol use, social media use, health behaviors, mental health, and adjustment to college. Study participants will be discretely randomized to receive alcohol feedback 0%, 33%, or 67% of weekly CampusGANDR rounds through a backend manipulation of chance elements. Students not meeting study eligibility criteria and those not electing to take part in the evaluation study will still take part in CampusGANDR. The dosage of alcohol feedback among these non-RCT players receive will be determined at random and their app usage data will be employed to assess app engagement and sustainability of play in the absence of study incentives. This project aims to culminate in a highly engaging, scalable, cutting-edge native smartphone app (IOS, Android) able to dynamically tailor the dosage of alcohol feedback delivered based on students' alcohol experience at the point of matriculation.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control PNF | Placebo Comparator | Personalized Normative Feedback on non-alcohol/health related topics delivered in all weekly rounds (active control) |
|
| Light Dose of Alcohol PNF | Active Comparator | Personalized Normative Feedback on Alcohol Use delivered in 33% of weekly rounds |
|
| Heavy Dose of Alcohol PNF | Active Comparator | Personalized Normative Feedback on Alcohol Use delivered in 67% of weekly rounds |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gamified Personalized Normative Feedback | Behavioral | Each week, all players will answer 3 questions of interest about first-year students' attitudes and behaviors (e.g., drinking, partying, exercising, studying, dorm life, etc.) generated by the student players. They will also guess how the typical same-sex student at their University answered the same questions and wager points on how close to the correct answer (group norm) each of their guesses is. Further, they will rate (e.g., thumbs up/thumbs down) the reported behaviors of other players and, then, submit and vote on questions for subsequent rounds. At the end of each week, players will receive enhanced personalized normative feedback feedback on two of the three questions, and receive feedback on how other students rated the answer they reported (preferred-sex injunctive norms). |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change From Baseline Daily Drinking at 4 Months | The Daily Drinking Questionnaire assessess the number of drinks consumed per week in a typical week over the past three months. | baseline, 4 months |
| Change From Baseline Daily Drinking at 9 Months | The Daily Drinking Questionnaire assesses the number of drinks consumed per week in a typical week over the past three months. | baseline, 9 months |
| Change From Baseline Daily Drinking at 12 Months | Assesses number of drinks consumed during an average week over the past month | baseline, 12 months |
| Change From Baseline Alcohol Consequences at 4 Months | Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ; Read et al., 2006) was used to assess alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month. Participants indicate whether or not they experienced each of 48 alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month (0 = no, 1 = yes). Items are summed to yield a total score reflecting the number of alcohol-related problems experienced. Scores range from 0 to 48, where higher scores indicate a greater number of alcohol-related negative consequences (worse outcome). | baseline, 4 months |
| Change From Baseline Alcohol Consequences at 9 Months | Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ; Read et al., 2006) was used to assess alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month. Participants indicate whether or not they experienced each of 48 alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month (0 = no, 1 = yes). Items are summed to yield a total score reflecting the number of alcohol-related problems experienced. Scores range from 0 to 48, where higher scores indicate a greater number of alcohol-related negative consequences (worse outcome). |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Drinking Norms Rating Form at 4 Months | Assesses perceptions of weekly alcohol consumption among peers over the past month | baseline, 4 months |
| Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Drinking Norms Rating Form at 9 Months |
Not provided
To play CampusGANDR individuals must:
Additional RCT Inclusion Criteria
To take part in the evaluation study participants must:
Exclusion criteria for both:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loyola Marymount University | Los Angeles | California | 90045 | United States |
Study results will be reported in aggregate, so that individual participants will not be identifiable in any research reports or presentations of the proposed study. A de-identified dataset will be made available to researchers 1 year after the initial publication of results. This dataset will include participant demographics and outcome measures assessed at baseline and the follow-up surveys. A data dictionary will be provided.
1 year following the publication of results.
Study materials and data will be made available to the public on a secure web portal.
Not provided
Participants were randomized to study condition follow-up the baseline survey (Started) and prior to any follow-up survey (Waves 2-4). Waves represent when follow-up surveys were collected (number of months post baseline). Follow-up surveys were collected 4-, 9-, and 12-months post baseline.
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Control PNF | Personalized Normative Feedback on non-alcohol/health related topics delivered in all weekly rounds (active control) |
| FG001 | Light Dose of Alcohol PNF | Personalized Normative Feedback on Alcohol Use delivered in 33% of weekly rounds |
| FG002 | Heavy Dose of Alcohol PNF | Personalized Normative Feedback on Alcohol Use delivered in 67% of weekly rounds |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
1143 Participants were assigned to condition.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Control PNF | Personalized Normative Feedback on non-alcohol/health related topics delivered in all weekly rounds (active control) |
| BG001 | Light Dose of Alcohol PNF | Personalized Normative Feedback on Alcohol Use delivered in 33% of weekly rounds |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | This is age measured in years. |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Change From Baseline Daily Drinking at 4 Months | The Daily Drinking Questionnaire assessess the number of drinks consumed per week in a typical week over the past three months. | Descriptive statistics reflect all 893 participants who completed the 4-month follow-up assessment (293 Control, 289 Light Dose, 311 Heavy Dose). Regression analyses included participants with complete data on all covariates. Sample sizes in regression models varied slightly across outcomes due to missing covariate data (approximately 889 participants total across most analyses). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Drinks per week | baseline, 4 months |
|
From enrollment until end of follow-up (13 months).
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Control PNF | Personalized Normative Feedback on non-alcohol/health related topics delivered in all weekly rounds (active control) |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clayton Neighbors | University of Houston | 7137432616 | cneighbors@central.uh.edu |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Oct 7, 2025 | Oct 7, 2025 | Prot_SAP_002.pdf |
| ICF | No | No | Yes | Informed Consent Form | Mar 1, 2020 | Apr 17, 2020 | ICF_001.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000067292 | Alcohol Drinking in College |
| D000066608 | Underage Drinking |
| D000437 | Alcoholism |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000428 | Alcohol Drinking |
| D004327 | Drinking Behavior |
| D001519 | Behavior |
| D000294 | Adolescent Behavior |
Not provided
Not provided
Based on condition assignment, participants could see up to 6 alcohol feedbacks (More Alcohol Feedback; MAF), up to 3 alcohol feedbacks (Less Alcohol Feedbacks; LAF) or 0 alcohol feedbacks (No Alcohol Feedback; NAF).
Not provided
Not provided
Intervention condition is randomly assigned and the intervention delivery is digital, through a smartphone app. Senior members of the research team will have a record of the participants randomized to each condition but the delivery of all intervention content is automated within the mobile app. Junior members of the research team responsible for tracking participants and sending follow-up survey reminders will not be aware of participant condition assignment.
|
|
| baseline, 9 months |
| Change From Baseline Alcohol Consequences at 12 Months | Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ; Read et al., 2006) was used to assess alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month. Participants indicate whether or not they experienced each of 48 alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month (0 = no, 1 = yes). Items are summed to yield a total score reflecting the number of alcohol-related problems experienced. Scores range from 0 to 48, where higher scores indicate a greater number of alcohol-related negative consequences (worse outcome). | baseline, 12 months |
| Change From Baseline Quantity/Frequency/Peak Alcohol Use at 4 Months | We used the Quantity/Frequency/Peak Alcohol measure to assess peak drinks. Participants reported the largest number of drinks they consumed on one occasion in the past 30 days. | baseline, 4 months |
| Change From Baseline Quantity/Frequency/Peak Alcohol Use at 9 Months | Assesses frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption over the past month | baseline, 9 months |
| Change From Baseline Quantity/Frequency/Peak Alcohol Use at 12 Months | Assesses frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption over the past month | baseline, 12 months |
Assesses perceptions of weekly alcohol consumption among peers over the past month |
| baseline, 9 months |
| Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Drinking Norms Rating Form at 12 Months | Assesses perceptions of weekly alcohol consumption among peers over the past month | baseline, 12 months |
| Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Modified Quantity, Frequency, Peak Index at 4 Months | Assesses perceptions of peers' frequency and quantity of drinking over the past month | baseline, 4 months |
| Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Modified Quantity, Frequency, Peak Index at 9 Months | Assesses perceptions of peers' frequency and quantity of drinking over the past month | baseline, 9 months |
| Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Modified Quantity, Frequency, Peak Index at 12 Months | Assesses perceptions of peers' frequency and quantity of drinking over the past month | baseline, 12 months |
| Change From Baseline Injunctive Peer Drinking Norms (Adapted From Baer, 1994) at 4 Months | Perceived Injunctive Norms scale was used to assess participants' estimates of how acceptable other same-sex students at their university find each of 15 drinking behaviors (e.g., drinking to get drunk, drinking alone, driving after drinking). Participants rate the acceptability of each behavior on a scale from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 7 (completely acceptable). Ratings are averaged across all 15 items to yield a total score ranging from 1 to 7, where higher scores indicate greater perceived peer approval of drinking behaviors. | baseline, 4 months |
| Change From Baseline Injunctive Peer Drinking Norms (Adapted From Baer, 1994) at 9 Months | Perceived Injunctive Norms scale was used to assess participants' estimates of how acceptable other same-sex students at their university find each of 15 drinking behaviors (e.g., drinking to get drunk, drinking alone, driving after drinking). Participants rate the acceptability of each behavior on a scale from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 7 (completely acceptable). Ratings are averaged across all 15 items to yield a total score ranging from 1 to 7, where higher scores indicate greater perceived peer approval of drinking behaviors. | baseline, 9 months |
| Change From Baseline Injunctive Peer Drinking Norms (Adapted From Baer, 1994) at 12 Months | Perceived Injunctive Norms scale was used to assess participants' estimates of how acceptable other same-sex students at their university find each of 15 drinking behaviors (e.g., drinking to get drunk, drinking alone, driving after drinking). Participants rate the acceptability of each behavior on a scale from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 7 (completely acceptable). Ratings are averaged across all 15 items to yield a total score ranging from 1 to 7, where higher scores indicate greater perceived peer approval of drinking behaviors; group-level data are summarized using the Mean (Measure Type) and SD (Dispersion Type). | baseline, 12 months |
| BG002 | Heavy Dose of Alcohol PNF | Personalized Normative Feedback on Alcohol Use delivered in 67% of weekly rounds |
| BG003 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Mean |
| Standard Deviation |
| Years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Drinks per week | The Daily Drinking Questionnaire (Collins, Parks, & Marlatt, 1985) was used to assess total drinks consumed during a typical week in the past month. Participants report the number of alcoholic drinks consumed on each of the 7 days of a typical week in the past month (i.e., a separate numeric entry per day). Daily responses are summed to yield an individual-level weekly drink count; group-level data are summarized using the Mean (Measure Type) and SD (Dispersion Type). | Six participants did not complete the baseline measure of drinks per week. | Mean | Standard Deviation | Number of alcoholic drinks per week |
|
| Peak drinks | Quantity Frequency Maximum (QFM) measure was used to assess peak alcohol consumption in the past 30 days. Participants report the largest number of alcoholic drinks consumed on a single occasion during the past 30 days (i.e., a single numeric entry reflecting their heaviest drinking episode). Individual responses are counts of drinks; group-level data are summarized using the Mean (Measure Type) and SD (Dispersion Type). | 7 participants did not complete the assessment of peak drinks. | Mean | Standard Deviation | number of alcoholic drinks |
|
| Alcohol Problems | Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ; Read et al., 2006) was used to assess alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month. Participants indicate whether or not they experienced each of 48 alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month (0=no, 1=yes). Items are summed to yield a total score reflecting the number of alcohol-related problems experienced. Scores range from 0-48, where higher scores indicate a greater number of alcohol-related negative consequences (worse outcome); group-level data are summarized using the Mean (Measure Type) and SD (Dispersion). | 7 participants did not complete the assessment of alcohol problems. | Mean | Standard Deviation | scores on a scale |
|
| Perceived descriptive norm for peak drinks | Participants are asked to estimate the maximum number of alcoholic drinks consumed by the typical same-sex student at their university during one occasion in the past 30 days. | 31 participants either did not complete the item (n=25) or did not provide meaningful responses (n=6). | Mean | Standard Deviation | drinks/occasion |
|
| Perceived descriptive norms for drinks per week | Drinking Norms Rating Form (Baer, Stacy, & Larimer, 1991) was used to assess perceived descriptive drinking norms. Participants estimate the number of alcoholic drinks consumed by the typical same-sex student at their university for each of the 7 days of a typical week in the past 30 days (i.e., a separate numeric entry per day). Daily estimates are summed to yield an individual-level weekly drink count reflecting perceived peer alcohol consumption; group-level data are summarized using the Mean (Measure Type) and SD (Dispersion Type). | 6 participants did not complete the assessment of perceived descriptive norms for drinks per week. | Mean | Standard Deviation | drinks/week |
|
| Perceived injunctive drinking norms | Perceived Injunctive Norms scale was used to assess participants' estimates of how acceptable other same-sex students at their university find each of 15 drinking behaviors (e.g., drinking to get drunk, drinking alone, driving after drinking). Participants rate the acceptability of each behavior on a scale from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 7 (completely acceptable). Ratings are averaged across all 15 items to yield a total score ranging from 1 to 7, where higher scores indicate greater perceived peer approval of drinking behaviors; group-level data are summarized using the Mean (Measure Type | Three participants did not complete this assessment. | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale |
|
| Light Dose of Alcohol PNF |
Personalized Normative Feedback on Alcohol Use delivered in 33% of weekly rounds |
| OG002 | Heavy Dose of Alcohol PNF | Personalized Normative Feedback on Alcohol Use delivered in 67% of weekly rounds |
|
|
|
| Primary | Change From Baseline Daily Drinking at 9 Months | The Daily Drinking Questionnaire assesses the number of drinks consumed per week in a typical week over the past three months. | Descriptive statistics reflect all 881 participants who completed the 9-month follow-up assessment (290 Control, 290 Light Dose, 301 Heavy Dose). Regression analyses included participants with complete data on all covariates. Sample sizes in regression models varied slightly across outcomes due to missing covariate data (approximately 877 participants total across most analyses). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Drinks per week | baseline, 9 months |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Change From Baseline Daily Drinking at 12 Months | Assesses number of drinks consumed during an average week over the past month | Descriptive statistics reflect all 866 participants who completed the 12-month follow-up assessment (289 Control, 282 Light Dose, 295 Heavy Dose). Regression analyses included participants with complete data on all covariates. Sample sizes in regression models varied slightly across outcomes due to missing covariate data (861 participants total for this analysis). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Drinks per week | baseline, 12 months |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Change From Baseline Alcohol Consequences at 4 Months | Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ; Read et al., 2006) was used to assess alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month. Participants indicate whether or not they experienced each of 48 alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month (0 = no, 1 = yes). Items are summed to yield a total score reflecting the number of alcohol-related problems experienced. Scores range from 0 to 48, where higher scores indicate a greater number of alcohol-related negative consequences (worse outcome). | Descriptive statistics reflect all 896 participants who completed the 4-month follow-up assessment (294 Control, 290 Light Dose, 312 Heavy Dose). Regression analyses included participants with complete data on all covariates. Sample sizes in regression models varied slightly across outcomes due to missing covariate data (891 participants total for this analysis). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | scores on a scale | baseline, 4 months |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Change From Baseline Alcohol Consequences at 9 Months | Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ; Read et al., 2006) was used to assess alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month. Participants indicate whether or not they experienced each of 48 alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month (0 = no, 1 = yes). Items are summed to yield a total score reflecting the number of alcohol-related problems experienced. Scores range from 0 to 48, where higher scores indicate a greater number of alcohol-related negative consequences (worse outcome). | Descriptive statistics reflect all 890 participants who completed the 9-month follow-up assessment (295 Control, 291 Light Dose, 304 Heavy Dose). Regression analyses included participants with complete data on all covariates. Sample sizes in regression models varied slightly across outcomes due to missing covariate data (884 participants total for this analysis). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | scores on a scale | baseline, 9 months |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Change From Baseline Alcohol Consequences at 12 Months | Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ; Read et al., 2006) was used to assess alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month. Participants indicate whether or not they experienced each of 48 alcohol-related negative consequences in the past month (0 = no, 1 = yes). Items are summed to yield a total score reflecting the number of alcohol-related problems experienced. Scores range from 0 to 48, where higher scores indicate a greater number of alcohol-related negative consequences (worse outcome). | Descriptive statistics reflect all 870 participants who completed the 12-month follow-up assessment (292 Control, 283 Light Dose, 295 Heavy Dose). Regression analyses included participants with complete data on all covariates. Sample sizes in regression models varied slightly across outcomes due to missing covariate data (865 participants total for this analysis). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | scores on a scale | baseline, 12 months |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Change From Baseline Quantity/Frequency/Peak Alcohol Use at 4 Months | We used the Quantity/Frequency/Peak Alcohol measure to assess peak drinks. Participants reported the largest number of drinks they consumed on one occasion in the past 30 days. | Descriptive statistics reflect all 896 participants who completed the 4-month follow-up assessment (294 Control, 290 Light Dose, 312 Heavy Dose). Regression analyses included participants with complete data on all covariates. Sample sizes in regression models varied slightly across outcomes due to missing covariate data (892 participants total for this analysis). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Peak number of drinks | baseline, 4 months |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Change From Baseline Quantity/Frequency/Peak Alcohol Use at 9 Months | Assesses frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption over the past month | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Peak number of drinks | baseline, 9 months |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Change From Baseline Quantity/Frequency/Peak Alcohol Use at 12 Months | Assesses frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption over the past month | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Peak number of drinks | baseline, 12 months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Drinking Norms Rating Form at 4 Months | Assesses perceptions of weekly alcohol consumption among peers over the past month | Descriptive statistics reflect all 900 participants who completed the 4-month follow-up assessment (295 Control, 294 Light Dose, 311 Heavy Dose). Regression analyses included participants with complete data on all covariates. Sample sizes in regression models varied slightly across outcomes due to missing covariate data (896 participants total for this analysis). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Drinks per week (descriptive norm) | baseline, 4 months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Drinking Norms Rating Form at 9 Months | Assesses perceptions of weekly alcohol consumption among peers over the past month | Descriptive statistics reflect all 891 participants who completed the 9-month follow-up assessment (297 Control, 290 Light Dose, 304 Heavy Dose). Regression analyses included participants with complete data on all covariates. Sample sizes in regression models varied slightly across outcomes due to missing covariate data (888 participants total for this analysis). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Drinks per week (descriptive norm) | baseline, 9 months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Drinking Norms Rating Form at 12 Months | Assesses perceptions of weekly alcohol consumption among peers over the past month | Descriptive statistics reflect all 867 participants who completed the 12-month follow-up assessment (290 Control, 282 Light Dose, 295 Heavy Dose). Regression analyses included participants with complete data on all covariates. Sample sizes in regression models varied slightly across outcomes due to missing covariate data (862 participants total for this analysis). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Drinks per week (descriptive norm) | baseline, 12 months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Modified Quantity, Frequency, Peak Index at 4 Months | Assesses perceptions of peers' frequency and quantity of drinking over the past month | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Peak number of drinks (descriptive norm) | baseline, 4 months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Modified Quantity, Frequency, Peak Index at 9 Months | Assesses perceptions of peers' frequency and quantity of drinking over the past month | Descriptive statistics reflect all 889 participants who completed the 9-month follow-up assessment (296 Control, 290 Light Dose, 303 Heavy Dose). Regression analyses included participants with complete data on all covariates. Sample sizes in regression models varied slightly across outcomes due to missing covariate data (870 participants total for this analysis). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Peak number of drinks (descriptive norm) | baseline, 9 months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Change From Baseline Descriptive Peer Drinking Norms- Modified Quantity, Frequency, Peak Index at 12 Months | Assesses perceptions of peers' frequency and quantity of drinking over the past month | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Peak number of drinks (descriptive norm) | baseline, 12 months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Change From Baseline Injunctive Peer Drinking Norms (Adapted From Baer, 1994) at 4 Months | Perceived Injunctive Norms scale was used to assess participants' estimates of how acceptable other same-sex students at their university find each of 15 drinking behaviors (e.g., drinking to get drunk, drinking alone, driving after drinking). Participants rate the acceptability of each behavior on a scale from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 7 (completely acceptable). Ratings are averaged across all 15 items to yield a total score ranging from 1 to 7, where higher scores indicate greater perceived peer approval of drinking behaviors. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | scores on a scale | baseline, 4 months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Change From Baseline Injunctive Peer Drinking Norms (Adapted From Baer, 1994) at 9 Months | Perceived Injunctive Norms scale was used to assess participants' estimates of how acceptable other same-sex students at their university find each of 15 drinking behaviors (e.g., drinking to get drunk, drinking alone, driving after drinking). Participants rate the acceptability of each behavior on a scale from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 7 (completely acceptable). Ratings are averaged across all 15 items to yield a total score ranging from 1 to 7, where higher scores indicate greater perceived peer approval of drinking behaviors. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | scores on a scale | baseline, 9 months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Change From Baseline Injunctive Peer Drinking Norms (Adapted From Baer, 1994) at 12 Months | Perceived Injunctive Norms scale was used to assess participants' estimates of how acceptable other same-sex students at their university find each of 15 drinking behaviors (e.g., drinking to get drunk, drinking alone, driving after drinking). Participants rate the acceptability of each behavior on a scale from 1 (completely unacceptable) to 7 (completely acceptable). Ratings are averaged across all 15 items to yield a total score ranging from 1 to 7, where higher scores indicate greater perceived peer approval of drinking behaviors; group-level data are summarized using the Mean (Measure Type) and SD (Dispersion Type). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | scores on a scale | baseline, 12 months |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 388 |
| 0 |
| 388 |
| 0 |
| 388 |
| EG001 | Light Dose of Alcohol PNF | Personalized Normative Feedback on Alcohol Use delivered in 33% of weekly rounds | 0 | 374 | 0 | 374 | 0 | 374 |
| EG002 | Heavy Dose of Alcohol PNF | Personalized Normative Feedback on Alcohol Use delivered in 67% of weekly rounds | 0 | 381 | 0 | 381 | 0 | 381 |
Not provided
Not provided
| D019973 |
| Alcohol-Related Disorders |
| D019966 | Substance-Related Disorders |
| D064419 | Chemically-Induced Disorders |
| D001523 | Mental Disorders |
| Male |
|
| Asian |
|
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
|
| Black or African American |
|
| White |
|
| More than one race |
|
| Unknown or Not Reported |
|
| Not Hispanic or Latino |
|
| Unknown or Not Reported |
|
| Negative binomial regression model included all three conditions with Control as the reference group, adjusting for baseline drinking, sex, and site. Analysis used complete case analysis (n=881 with no missing data on covariates). This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Negative binomial regression | 0.750 | Two-tailed test. z =-0.32, p = .0.750. | Incidence Rate Ratio | .935 | 95 | .618 | 1.41 | Superiority |
| Same negative binomial regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Negative binomial regression | Robust standard errors used. | .563 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. z = -0.58, p = .563 | Incidence Rate Ratio | 0.895 | 2-Sided | 95 | 0.614 | 1.304 | Superiority |
| Same negative binomial regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Negative binomial regression | Robust standard errors used. | .361 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. z = 0.91, p = .361 | Incidence Rate Ratio | 1.175 | 2-Sided | 95 | 0.831 | 1.660 | Superiority |
| Same negative binomial regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Negative binomial regression | Robust standard errors used. | .241 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. z = 1.17, p = .241 | Incidence Rate Ratio | 1.221 | 2-Sided | 95 | 0.875 | 1.704 | Superiority |
| Same negative binomial regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. . | Negative binomial regression | Robust standard errors used. | .645 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. z = 0.46, p = .645 | Incidence Rate Ratio | 1.080 | 2-Sided | 95 | 0.779 | 1.498 | Superiority |
| Same negative binomial regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Negative binomial regression | Robust standard errors used. | .494 | Incidence Rate Ratio | 1.120 | 2-Sided | 95 | 0.809 | 1.550 | Superiority |
| Same negative binomial regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Negative binomial regression | Robust standard errors used. | .719 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. z = -0.36, p = .719 | Incidence Rate Ratio | 0.942 | 2-Sided | 95 | 0.681 | 1.304 | Superiority |
| Same negative binomial regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Negative binomial regression | Robust standard errors used. | .931 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. z = 0.09, p = .931 | Incidence Rate Ratio | 1.013 | 2-Sided | 95 | 0.751 | 1.366 | Superiority |
| Same linear regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Regression, Linear | .085 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. t = -1.73, p = .085 | Median Difference (Final Values) | -0.946 | 2-Sided | 95 | -2.022 | 0.129 | Superiority |
| Same linear regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Regression, Linear | .940 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. t = -0.07, p = .940 | Median Difference (Final Values) | -0.041 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.107 | 1.026 | Superiority |
| Same linear regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Regression, Linear | .069 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. t = -1.82, p = .069 | Mean Difference (Final Values) | -1.111 | 2-Sided | 95 | -2.308 | 0.086 | Superiority |
| Same linear regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Regression, Linear | .393 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. t = -0.85, p = .393 | Mean Difference (Final Values) | -0.252 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.832 | 0.327 | Superiority |
| Same linear regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Regression, Linear | .135 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. t = -1.50, p = .135 | Mean Difference (Final Values) | -0.432 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.998 | 0.134 | Superiority |
| Same linear regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Regression, Linear | .108 | Median Difference (Final Values) | -0.473 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.051 | 0.104 | Superiority |
| Same linear regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Regression, Linear | .113 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. t = -1.59, p = .113 | Median Difference (Final Values) | -0.121 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.271 | 0.029 | Superiority |
| Same linear regression model as Statistical Analysis 1. This analysis reports the specific comparison of Heavy Dose versus Control. | Regression, Linear | .086 | Test of Heavy Dose versus Control condition. t = -1.72, p = .086 | Mean Difference (Final Values) | -0.123 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.263 | 0.017 | Superiority |