Please take our brief survey

Blueprints Programs = Positive Youth Development

Return to Search Results

Model Program Seal

Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS)

Blueprints Program Rating: Model

A brief motivational intervention for high-risk college students that uses alcohol screening and feedback to reduce problem drinking, excessive drinking, and binge drinking by enhancing motivation to change, promoting healthier choices, reviewing myths and facts about alcohol, and teaching coping skills to moderate drinking.

  • G. Alan Marlatt, Ph.D., DECEASED
  • University of Washington
  • Department of Psychology
  • Addictive Behaviors Research Center
  • Box 351629
  • Seattle, WA 98195
  • Alcohol

    Program Type

    • Cognitive-Behavioral Training
    • School - Individual Strategies

    Program Setting

    • School

    Continuum of Intervention

    • Selective Prevention (Elevated Risk)
    • Indicated Prevention (Early Symptoms of Problem)

    A brief motivational intervention for high-risk college students that uses alcohol screening and feedback to reduce problem drinking, excessive drinking, and binge drinking by enhancing motivation to change, promoting healthier choices, reviewing myths and facts about alcohol, and teaching coping skills to moderate drinking.

      Population Demographics

      BASICS helps college students ages 18-24 who drink alcohol heavily and have experienced or are at risk for alcohol-related problems such as poor class attendance, missed assignments, accidents, sexual assault, and violence.

      Age

      • Early Adulthood (19-22)

      Gender

      • Male and Female

      Gender Specific Findings

      • Male
      • Female

      Race/Ethnicity

      • All Race/Ethnicity

      Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details

      The program applies to all youth, but the samples of college students likely include few minorities. The program is equally effective for both genders.

      Risk: False consensus bias toward overestimating normative rates of peer heavy drinking

      Protective: Healthy beliefs, problem recognition and motivation to change drinking behavior and coping skills to engage in moderate drinking behaviors or to abstain from alcohol.

      • Individual
      Risk Factors
      • Individual: Substance use*
      • Peer: Peer rewards for antisocial behavior
      Protective Factors
      • Individual: Clear standards for behavior, Coping Skills, Perceived risk of drug use

      *Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program.

      Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention of College Students (BASICS), a Harm Reduction Approach, is a preventive intervention for college students 18 to 24 years old. It targets students who drink alcohol heavily and have experienced or are at risk for alcohol-related problems such as poor class attendance, missed assignments, accidents, sexual assault, and violence. BASICS is designed to help students make better alcohol-use decisions based on a clear understanding of the genuine risks associated with problem drinking, enhanced motivation to change, and the development of skills to moderate drinking. The program is conducted over the course of two brief interviews that prompt students to change their drinking patterns. The program's style is empathetic, non-confrontational or non-judgmental, and aims to (1) reduce alcohol consumption and its adverse consequences, (2) promote healthier choices among young adults, and (3) provide important information and coping skills for risk reduction.

      BASICS, Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention of College Students: A Harm Reduction Approach, is a preventive intervention for college students 18 to 24 years old. It targets students who drink alcohol heavily and have experienced or are at risk for alcohol-related problems such as poor class attendance, missed assignments, accidents, sexual assault, and violence. BASICS is designed to help students make better alcohol-use decisions based on a clear understanding of the genuine risks associated with problem drinking. The program is conducted over the course of two brief interviews that prompt students to change their drinking patterns. The first interview focuses on introducing the student to the program, assessing the student's level of risk of alcohol-related problems, and obtaining the commitment to monitor drinking in the interval between the two sessions. The second interview is a feedback interview in which the student is given a personalized feedback sheet containing information on the frequency of drinking, quantity of alcohol consumed, estimates of typical and highest-reported blood-alcohol content, and comparisons with student drinking norms. In addition, the student is provided with information about risks associated with drinking and myths about alcohol use, and receives advice on how to drink safely. The program's style is empathetic, not confrontational or judgmental, and aims to (1) reduce alcohol consumption and its adverse consequences, (2) promote healthier choices among young adults, and (3) provide important information and coping skills for risk reduction.

      BASICS is based on cognitive-behavioral treatment designed to challenge myths about the effects of alcohol and teach the principles of harm reduction. Although the harm-reduction approach to addictions has been used for many years in European countries, it remains controversial, particularly in the United States, where the disease model of alcoholism is dominant. Harm reduction does not view abstinence from substance use as the only option, but rather focuses on reducing the negative consequences of use, accepting goals of moderate use or use in safer situations. Proponents of harm reduction claim that while abstinence is the ideal, many users of addictive substances will fail in treatments that insist on abstinence or will avoid treatment altogether.

      • Cognitive Behavioral

      The initial study done at the University of Washington (Marlatt et al. 1998; Baer et al 2001) screened high school students intending to attend the university and selected 348 students-to-be who were predicted to be at high risk for drinking problems in college. After random assignment, the treatment group but not the control group underwent the brief intervention during the freshman year. Assessments at baseline, 6 months, 2 years, and 4 years measured both drinking rates and harmful consequences. A separate group of normal students not at high risk was followed for comparison.

      Other studies included:

      • a randomized trial of 60 college binge drinkers selected from an introductory Psychology class and followed for 6 weeks (Borsari and Carey, 2000);
      • a randomized trial of 84 Auburn University undergraduates who reported high levels of drinking, were assigned to one of three groups (the BASICS treatment, an educational intervention, or an assessment-only control group), and were followed for 9 months;
      • a cluster randomized trial of 12 fraternities and 159 participants, with a 1-year follow-up assessment of drinking, alcohol problems, and dependence; and
      • a sample of 1,275 athletes enrolled in a public northeastern and northwestern university were randomly assigned to BASICS, Parent Based Intervention (PBI), BASICS+PBI, or control with assessments conducted at baseline (prior to matriculation) and 10 month after baseline (Turrisi et al., 2009).

      University of Washington Study (Marlatt et al., 1998; Baer et al., 2001): Over a 2-year follow-up period, all sampled high-risk college drinkers drank less and reported fewer alcohol-related problems. However, participants who received the BASICS intervention demonstrated a significantly greater deceleration of drinking rates, harmful consequences of drinking, and alcohol dependence than participants in the control group. A 4-year follow-up found significantly greater reductions in alcohol use and negative consequences of drinking for the treatment than control group. Although the frequency of drinking remained stable for both groups, the treatment group showed fewer dependence symptoms.

      Psychology Class Study (Borsari and Carey, 2000): By the 6-week follow-up, the treatment group drank significantly less than the control group on three indices (number of drinks consumed per week, number of times consuming alcohol in the past month, and frequency of binge drinking in the past month).

      Auburn University Study (Murphy et al. 2001): The program brought little benefit overall, but among heavy drinkers, BASICS participants showed significantly greater three-month decreases in both drinks per week and frequency of binge drinking. Heavier drinking BASICS participants maintained their large reductions across the drinking measures over 9 months.

      West Coast University Study (Larimer et al. 2000): In comparison with students in the control condition, fraternity pledges in the intervention condition reported significantly greater reductions in average drinks per week, but not quantity or frequency. In addition, pledges in the intervention condition reported significantly greater reductions in typical peak blood alcohol contents, but not in alcohol problems.

      Athletes study (Turrisi et al. 2009): Among a sample of athletes enrolled in a public northeastern and northwestern university, BASICS significantly lowered the levels of peak blood alcohol concentration as well as the numbers of drinks consumed on a typical weekend during the first year of college. The program appeared to work somewhat better in combination with a parent-based intervention.

      • Participants at the University of Washington who received BASICS demonstrated a significantly greater deceleration of drinking rates and problems over time in comparison with control participants. These results were sustained at the 2- and 4-year follow-ups.
      • In an introductory psychology class study of binge drinking, at the 6-week follow-up, the treatment group drank significantly less than the control group on all three indices (number of drinks consumed per week, number of times consuming alcohol in the past month, and frequency of binge drinking in the past month).
      • Heavier drinking BASICS participants at Auburn University showed significantly greater 3-month decreases in drinking measures and maintained the reduction at 9 months, but other participants showed no improvement.
      • Fraternity pledges in the treatment condition in a West Coast university showed greater decreases in total weekly alcohol consumption and typical peak blood alcohol concentrations than did pledges in the control condition, but no significant treatment effects were found for quantity of drinks per occasion, frequency of alcohol consumption, or alcohol problems.
      • Among a sample of athletes enrolled in a public northeastern and northwestern university, BASICS significantly lowered the levels of peak blood alcohol concentration as well as the numbers of drinks consumed on a typical weekend during the first year of college. The program appeared to work somewhat better in combination with a parent-based intervention.

      Significant Program Effects on Risk and Protective Factors:

      • Perceptions of typical student drinking was found to mediate the treatment effect on drinking outcomes (number of drinks consumed per week, number of times consuming alcohol past month, and past month frequency of binge drinking) (Borsari and Carey, 2000).

      A mediation analysis presented by Borsari and Carey (2000) found that perceptions of typical student drinking mediated the treatment effect on number of drinks consumed per week, number of times consuming alcohol in the past month, and frequency of binge drinking in the past month. The results supported a hypothesis that changes in norms helped translate the program into reduced drinking.

      Marlatt et al. (1998) reported weak program effects on 2-year drinking measures, ranging from .15 to .20. Borsari and Carey (2000) also reported weak effect sizes ranging from .12 to .28. Murphy et al. (2001) reported medium effect sizes of .46 among the very heavy-drinking subset of subjects at 3 months, but the effect sizes for this subset generally fell at 9 months to the weak range. Larimer et al. (2000) reported medium effect sizes of .42 and .38.

      The BASICS program targets high-risk college drinkers at public universities. The program should be generalizable to other individuals within this population, although it is unknown to what degree the program would be effective outside of this population. There were no significant differences in behavioral outcomes between males and females, indicating that this program is equally effective for both genders. No analysis of effects by race was discussed in any of the evaluations.

      University of Washington Study (Marlatt, et al., 1998; Baer, et al., 2001): Confidence in the representativeness of the sample is potentially limited by the 50% response rate to the initial mailing. Attrition among the high-risk students, prior to and after randomization, was fairly high. The level of drinking among high-risk participants was more extreme than national averages; 79% reported drinking at least 5 to 6 drinks on 1 occasion in the past month at baseline, compared with about 40% reported in other national reports. In addition, this study included students from only one large public university. Given variability in drinking across educational settings potentially based on size, private funding, and entry criteria, the results may not be generalizable to all other student populations.

      (Borsari and Carey, 2000): Given the limited timeframe of the study (six week follow-up), it is not possible to predict whether or not the reported reductions in alcohol use will be sustained at 12-months post-intervention. In addition, the small sample size (n = 59) completing the six-week follow-up is problematic for a number of reasons. By selecting a sample from one undergraduate psychology course with a stated research participation requirement limits generalizability. Similarly, the lack of information on the ethnicity of participants and subsequent lack of analysis by race further limits the possible generalizability of this study. Unlike the 4-year study, no collateral verification of self-reported drinking behavior was obtained, making it impossible to determine if a real reduction in alcohol use took place or if the respondents were merely responding to the questionnaire in what they perceived to be a more socially acceptable manner. Finally, the treatment group in this evaluation demonstrated a decrease in drinking but not a concurrent reduction in drinking-related problems, which was one of the program goals.

      (Murphy, Duchnick, Vuchinich, Davison, Karg, Olson, Smith, and Coffey, 2001): The small sample size and three-group design reduced statistical power to detect small to moderate effect sizes. Moderate attrition in the education and control groups was also present. Unlike the 4-year study, no collateral verification of self-reported drinking behavior was obtained. The follow-up period (9 months) makes it unclear as to whether the reported results will be sustained at 12-months post intervention.

      (Larimer, Turner, Anderson, Fader, Kilmer, Palmer and Cronce, 2000): Despite significant reductions in drinking behavior, BASICS did not appear to differentially impact reductions in alcohol-related consequences or symptoms of alcohol dependence, both stated program goals. In addition, participants were randomized at the level of the organization (fraternity), rather than that of the individual. The 24% loss-to-follow-up rate is of concern, despite the analysis of attrition findings of no difference between completers and non-completers, primarily due to the small sample size within groups. It is also not possible to determine the efficacy of the house-wide versus the individual feedback sessions. Finally, unlike the four-year evaluation, there was no collateral verification of self-reported drinking behavior.

      (Turrisi et al., 2009): A statistical test revealed significant differences in the dropout rate among the four intervention conditions. Low levels of program completion and participation in the interventions was reported (only 53.8% of the teens in the BASICS-only intervention attended the sessions). The study evaluated program effects 10 months after baseline assessment, and thus did not investigate long term effects.

      • Blueprints: Model
      • Crime Solutions: Effective
      • OJJDP Model Programs: Effective
      • SAMHSA: 3.1 - 3.3

      Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D.R., Blume, A. W., McKnight, P., & Marlatt, G. A. (2001) Brief intervention for heavy-drinking college students: 4-year follow-up and natural history. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1310-1316.

      Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2000). Effects of a brief motivational intervention with college student drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 728-733.

      Larimer, M. E., Turner, A. P., Anderson, B. K., Fader, J. S., Kilmer, J. R., Palmer, R. S., & Cronce, J. M. (2001). Evaluating a brief alcohol intervention with fraternities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 370-380.

      Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Dimeff, L. A., Larimer, M. E., Quigley, L. A., ... Williams, E. (1998). Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: Results from a 2-year follow-up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 604-615.

      Murphy, J. G., Duchnick, J. J., Vuchinich, R. E., Davison, J. W., Karg, R. S., Olson, A. M., ... Coffey, T. T. (2001). Relative efficacy of a brief motivational intervention for college student drinkers. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 15, 373-379.

      Turrisi, R., Larimer, M. E., Mallett, K. A., Kilmer, J. R., Ray, A. E., Mastroleo, N. R., ... Montoya, H. (2009). A randomized clinical trial evaluating a combined alcohol intervention for high-risk college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drug, 70, 555-567.

      There are two separate groups that provide training, and costs may differ between them:

      George A. Parks, Ph.D.
      Caring Communication
      5222 150th Place SW
      Edmonds, WA 98026
      (206) 930-1949
      Email: geoaparks@earthlink.net

      Or Contact:
      Jason Kilmer, jkilmer@uw.edu
      http://depts.washington.edu/abrc/basics.htm

      Study 1

      Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Dimeff, L. A., Larimer, M. E., Quigley, L. A., ... Williams, E. (1998). Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: Results from a 2-year follow-up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 604-615.

      Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Blume, A. W., McKnight, P., & Marlatt, G. A. (2001) Brief intervention for heavy-drinking college students: 4-year follow-up and natural history. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1310-1316.

      Study 2

      Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2000). Effects of a brief motivational intervention with college student drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 728-733.

      Study 5

      Turrisi, R., Larimer, M. E., Mallett, K. A., Kilmer, J. R., Ray, A. E., Mastroleo, N. R., ... Montoya, H. (2009). A randomized clinical trial evaluating a combined alcohol intervention for high-risk college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drug, 70, 555-567.

      Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Dimeff, L. A., Larimer, M. E., Quigley, L. A., ... Williams, E. (1998). Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: Results from a 2-year follow-up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 604-615.

      Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Blume, A. W., McKnight, P., & Marlatt, G. A. (2001) Brief intervention for heavy-drinking college students: 4-year follow-up and natural history. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1310-1316.

      Evaluation Methodology

      Design: In the spring of 1990, questionnaires were mailed to all students who were accepted and had indicated an intention to enroll at the University of Washington the following autumn term (by sending in a $50.00 deposit), who were matriculating from high school, and who were not over 19 years of age. Each student was offered $5.00 and entrance into a prize drawing for return of the questionnaire. Of 4,000 questionnaires sent, 2,179 (54%) completed forms were returned. Of these, 2,041 students (51% of the total screening sample) provided usable questionnaires and indicated a willingness to be contacted for future research. A two-step process was used to acquire participants for the study: sample selection and participant recruitment. From the screening pool, a high-risk sample was selected based on the following criteria: (a) reported drinking at least monthly and consuming at least five to six drinks on one drinking occasion in the past month or (b) reported the experience of three alcohol-related problems on three to five occasions in the past three years on the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Inventory (RAPI). The selection criteria identified the top quartile 25% of the screening sample (n = 508) as high risk. An additional normative comparison sample was randomly selected from the pool of 2,041 responders (n = 151); as this sample was selected to represent normative practices, it included students at all risk levels, including those previously screened as high risk (n = 33, 22%).

      On arrival on campus for the fall term, these students were invited by means of a personal letter to participate in a 4-year longitudinal study of alcohol use and other lifestyle behaviors, including a 45 minute interview and completion of questionnaires for a $25.00 payment. Receipt of the letters was confirmed by telephone. Students in the high-risk group also agreed to be randomly assigned to participate in the intervention program or to the no-treatment control condition. All participants agreed to additional paid follow-up questionnaire assessments and to provide the names and addresses of two collateral reporters who could be called to confirm the drinking practices of participants. Of the 508 high-risk students, 366 (72%) were successfully recruited, and 151 (76%) of the normative sample was recruited, and 108 agreed to participate. There were no differences on screening measures between those recruited and those not recruited. Of the 366 high-risk students, 11 were removed because of extreme levels of drinking and given immediate attention, and 7 returned questionnaires too late to be randomized. The remaining 348 high-risk students were randomized to the intervention or assessment control conditions.

      Follow-up assessments occurred at six-months post-baseline, and then annually by mail each subsequent fall term. All collateral reporters were telephoned after each participant assessment, and collateral assessments were successfully completed for approximately 50% of subjects at each assessment point. Of the 456 combined high-risk and normative students invited to participate at baseline, 403 (88%) provided data at the 2-year follow-up; of these, 379 (83%) provided complete data at both the 1- and 2-year follow-ups. Complete data sets at baseline and all 4 follow-up periods (baseline through the four-year follow-up) were provided by 328 participants (76%). Missing data were replaced by a multiple imputation method using maximum likelihood estimation. Similarly, no significant differences were observed between prevention and control condition for alcohol consumption, related consequences, or demographic and individual differences. Attrition rates at the four-year assessment did not differ significantly between high-risk and normative comparison groups, or between randomized high-risk group conditions.

      Sample: The high-risk sample was 55% female and 84% Caucasian, while the normative comparison sample was 54% female and 78% Caucasian. High-risk drinkers reported drinking about twice a week, consuming almost 11 drinks a week, reaching an estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .12 weekly, .18 on peak episodes. Normative comparison students reported drinking about 5.5 drinks per week during one drinking occasion, reaching a typical estimated peak blood alcohol level of .08%.

      Measures: The initial four-page screening questionnaire asked participants to rate their frequency of alcohol consumption, typical quantity of alcohol consumed on weekend evenings, and the most alcohol consumed on one occasion over the past three months. The Brief Drinker Profile, a one-hour structured interview, was administered at baseline to measure family history of alcohol problems, history of conduct disorder, and personal drinking history. The Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ) was used to measure the actual number of drinks for each day of a typical drinking week, yielding drinking days per average week and average drinks per drinking day. The 23-item Rutgers Alcohol Problem Inventory (RAPI) was included as a measure of alcohol-related problems over the previous three years. In addition, the Alcohol Dependency Scale (ADS) was used to measure the severity of drinking problems. An additional questionnaire packet was administered containing measures of drinking and drug use, problems associated with alcohol abuse and dependence, and a variety of psychosocial measures. Collateral assessments to corroborate self-reported drinking behavior and consequences were conducted by phone.

      Analysis: At the two-year follow-up, the effects of treatment on drinking over time were assessed using multivariate repeated measures MANOVAs. Short-term results (baseline to 6-month follow-up) were analyzed only for drinking patterns, while long-term results were also analyzed for all dependent variables at the annual assessments. For both short- and long-term outcomes, separate repeated measures analyses were completed for sets of related dependent measures. Individual factors such as gender, family history of alcoholism, conduct history, and residence type were evaluated in separate MANOVAs on a post-hoc basis. At the four-year follow-up, three distinct mixed model analyses provided hypothesis tests with restricted maximum likelihood parameter estimates for the effects of group and time on the three major outcome factor scores: frequency, quantity, and negative consequences. The mixed models included specifications for a priori contrasts for adjacent time points (baseline vs one-year follow-up, one-year vs two-year follow-up, etc.), repeated measures effects for time, time-by-treatment interactions, and random-effects estimates for subjects.

      Outcomes

      Short-term: (Marlatt, Baer, Kivlahan, Dimeff, Larimer, Quigley, Somers, and Williams, 1998)

      There was a significant short-term treatment effect at the six-month follow-up in each of the dependent measures when analyzed separately. In comparison with those in the control condition, those in the treatment group reported drinking less frequently over time, less quantity over time, and less peak quantity over time. Analysis of responses to the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ) revealed a similar pattern. Multivariate repeated measures analysis of two scores derived from the DDQ, drinking frequency and average drinks per drinking day, also revealed a significant multivariate effect for time and a significant multivariate treatment X time interaction, which was associated with both average quantity of drinking and drinking frequency estimates.

      Long term: In general, drinking and related problems tended to decline over the two year period. Individuals in the treatment condition demonstrated significantly greater reductions in drinking rates and problems than did those in the control condition. Compared to individuals in the control condition, individuals in the treatment condition reported drinking less frequently over time, less quantity over time, and less peak quantity over time. Each of these differences was significant, although the magnitude of the effect sizes was modest. A significant effect for time and a significant treatment X time interaction were noted in the analysis of drinking frequency and average drinks per day as measured by the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ). A significant interaction among treatment, time, and drinking quantity and frequency indicated that the treatment X time effect was differentially associated with average quantity of drinking. Again, the magnitude of the treatment effects was modest.

      Analysis of alcohol related problems revealed similar significant effects for time and treatment X time favoring those receiving the brief intervention. The magnitude of treatment effects for alcohol related problems was larger than those noted among drinking rate measures. Similar effects were noted with the measure of alcohol dependence (ADS), with significantly fewer individuals in the treatment group showing mild alcohol dependence as compared to the no-treatment control group. Despite a developmental trend of fewer problems over time for all participants, analyses of a composite score combining the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Inventory (RAPI) and ADS scores significantly favored the treatment group.

      Four-year follow-up: (Baer, Kivlahan, Blume, McKnight, and Marlatt, 2001)

      Significant prevention group X time interactions over four years were observed with respect to negative drinking consequences and for drinking quantity. In general, drinking problems declined significantly over time, and the treatment produced significant differences in alcohol use and related problems over four years, favoring the treatment group. Individual change analyses suggest that the dependence symptoms of those receiving the treatment are more likely to decrease and less likely to increase when compared to those in the control group.

      Brief Bullets

      • Participants who received the BASICS intervention demonstrated significantly greater deceleration of drinking rates and problems over time in comparison with participants in the control group. These results were sustained at the two- and four-year follow-ups.

      Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2000). Effects of a brief motivational intervention with college student drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 728-733.

      Design: Participants were recruited from an undergraduate introductory psychology class. Participants who reported drinking five or more drinks (four or more for women) on one occasion two or more times in the past month were eligible to participate in the study. Of the 109 individuals screened, 63 (58%) met the selection criteria, and 60 were telephoned and asked to participate. All 60 students agreed to participate in the study and were randomized into either the treatment or control groups. Students received credit toward their research experience requirement as compensation for their participation. Most participants (52/60) lived in on-campus dormitories. A total of 29 students were randomized to the treatment group and received the BASICS brief alcohol intervention, while 31 were randomized to the no-treatment control group. All participants completed a baseline assessment prior to the onset of the intervention and a six-week follow-up assessment after completion of the intervention. Students in the treatment group also completed participant evaluations after completion of the feedback session. One student in the control group did not complete the follow-up assessment. See the original BASICS write-up for a detailed description of this brief intervention. No baseline differences existed between groups on any demographic, outcome, or hypothesized mediators.

      Sample: The treatment group had a mean age of 18.45 years, was 59% female, and consisted of 14% minorities. The control group had a mean age of 18.71 years, was 55% female, and consisted of 10% minorities. No specific details were provided on which minority groups were represented in this study.

      Measures: At baseline, all participants completed the Drinking Norms Rating Form (DNRF) to assess average and heaviest weekly drinking, as well as that of close friends, fraternity/sorority members and the typical student. A version of the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ) evaluated typical alcohol consumption in the past 30 days. The Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI) quantified alcohol-related problems experienced in the past 30 days. Finally, expectancies regarding heavy alcohol use were measured using the Cognitive Appraisal of Risky Events (CARE). At the end of the brief intervention, participants in the treatment group also completed an evaluation of the feedback session and rated how satisfied they were with the session, whether the information used in the session reflected their actual drinking, whether they would recommend a session to a student like themselves, and whether they would recommend a session to a friend having a problem with alcohol.

      Analysis: The three drinking variables (number of drinks consumed per week, number of times consuming alcohol in the past month, and frequency of binge drinking in the past month) were analyzed separately for two reasons. First, these variables were indicative of different high-risk drinking styles, and second, all three drinking indices were specifically addressed in the intervention, so differential changes might have been evident. A series of t -tests were conducted on the outcome variables at follow-up. Multiple regression was used to control for demographic variables known to influence alcohol use. A three-stage regression was used to model reductions in drinking. At step one, demographics were entered; at step two, group membership was entered; and at step three, hypothesized mediators were examined.

      Outcomes

      Post-test: The treatment group drank significantly less than the control group on all three indices (number of drinks consumed per week, number of times consuming alcohol in the past month, and frequency of binge drinking in the past month) at follow-up. There was no between-group difference on The Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI) scores.

      Mediation outcomes: Four follow-up variables were predicted to mediate the relationship between group membership and drinking at follow-up: estimated weekly drinking of friends, estimated weekly drinking of a typical student, and positive and negative expectancies of heavy drinking. Each potential mediator was examined separately for each criterion variable. Only the estimate of the typical student's drinks per week mediated the relationship between group membership and follow-up drinking.

      Participant evaluations: Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the intervention and agreed that the information reflected their actual drinking, they would recommend such a session to a student like themselves, and they would recommend the session to a friend with a drinking problem.

      Long-term: No long-term data was collected or analyzed in this study.

      Outcomes - Brief bullets

      • At follow-up, the treatment group drank significantly less than the control group on all three indices (number of drinks consumed per week, number of times consuming alcohol in the past month, and frequency of binge drinking in the past month).

      Generalizability

      This evaluation of BASICS was conducted with a self-selected sample of undergraduates enrolled in a large introductory psychology class. It is unknown to what degree the results of this evaluation are generalizable to students outside of this population, including upper-classmen, students attending private institutions, or students enrolled in smaller classes.

      Limitations

      Limited timeframe of the study (six week follow-up), leaves the question of whether or not the reported reductions in alcohol use at the 12-month post-intervention will be sustained. The small sample size (n = 59) is also problematic. By selecting a sample from one undergraduate psychology course with a stated research participation requirement, it is possible that selection bias occurred. Similarly, the lack of information on the race of participants and subsequent lack of analysis by race further limits the possible generalizability of this study. Finally, the treatment group in this evaluation demonstrated a decrease in drinking but not a concurrent reduction in drinking-related problems, which was one of the program goals.

      Murphy, J. G., Duchnick, J. J., Vuchinich, R. E., Davison, J. W., Karg, R. S., Olson, A. M., ... Coffey, T. T. (2001). Relative efficacy of a brief motivational intervention for college student drinkers. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 15, 373-379.

      Design: Auburn University undergraduate students (n = 299) completed a series of screening questionnaires in exchange for extra course credit. No specifics regarding which courses were selected, or what criteria were used to select these courses were provided. Participants (n = 99) who were in the upper 33% of the screening sample in terms of reported drinks per week, as measured by the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ), and who endorsed two or more alcohol-related problems on the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Inventory (RAPI), were randomly assigned to one of two interventions (BASICS or education) or a control group. Randomization was conducted separately by gender and was stratified by drinks per week and RAPI score. See the original write-up for the specifics of the BASICS intervention. Participants assigned to the education condition watched "Eddie Talks," a 30-minute video consisting of a male college student discussing the negative interpersonal and academic consequences resulting from his alcohol abuse. Students in this group then participated in an individual discussion with a clinician that focused on their reaction to the video and to a sheet containing generic information about the risks of heavy alcohol consumption among college students. The 20-minute discussion focused on the student's thoughts about college student drinking in general, rather than on his or her personal alcohol consumption.

      Of the 99 selected students, 84 (85%) completed one of the two interventions (BASICS: n = 30, education: n = 29) or participated as a control (n = 25). Of the 84 participants in all three groups, 79 (94%) completed one or both of the follow-up assessments; one control, four education, and 0 BASICS participants did not complete either follow-up. There were no significant differences on drinking variables between completers and those lost to attrition. Similarly, there were no significant differences on drinking variables between randomized participants who completed the intervention phase and those who did not. Finally, there were no significant differences between participants in the BASICS, education, or control groups on any demographic or baseline drinking variables.

      Sample: The participants were 54% female, 94% were Caucasian, 83% were freshmen or sophomores with a mean age of 19.60 years. Participants averaged 2.6 binge drinking days per week and 21.9 total drinks per week.

      Measures: All drinking-related measures other than the Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS) were administered at screening and at the three- and nine-month follow-up assessments. The ADS was administered at screening and nine-month assessments. The timeframe covered by drinking measures at each assessment was the previous two months. Alcohol consumption was assessed with the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ). Alcohol-related problems were measured by the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Inventory (RAPI). In addition, students in the BASICS and education groups completed an intervention evaluation at post-test, and assessed whether or not the program had a "significant impact" on their drinking at the three-month follow-up. Finally, at both the three- and nine-month follow-ups, all participants were asked if their drinking had stayed the same, decreased, or increased relative to their initial assessment level of drinking.

      Analysis: Within-group effect sizes were calculated by dividing the within-group difference between the baseline and follow-up mean by the pooled, weighted pre-post standard deviation. The between-group effect sizes were calculated by dividing the difference between adjusted group means by the pooled, weighted between-group standard deviation. Changes in drinking variables from baseline to three- and nine-months were calculated using multivariate analysis of covariance, with the baseline scores as the covariates.

      Outcomes

      Post-test: At the three-month follow-up, a significant group effect was noted. In addition, for the analyses of covariance that compared group changes in drinks per week and frequency of binge drinking, the tests for homogeneity of pre-post regression were significant. Specifically, among participants who consumed at least 25 drinks per week at baseline (29% of the total sample), BASICS participants showed greater 3-month reductions in drinks per week than did education participants. The BASICS condition also demonstrated a significant advantage over the control condition among participants who consumed at least 26 drinks per week at baseline (26% of the total sample). Among participants with at least 3 binge nights per week (49% of the total sample), the BASICS intervention yielded significant reductions in binge drinking relative to control values. The BASICS intervention was also superior to the educational intervention among participants with 4 or more binge nights per week (19% of the total sample). There were no significant group differences on frequency of drinking or RAPI score, but BASICS participants demonstrated more change than control and education participants on frequency of drinking and more change than control participants on RAPI score. Education participants showed slightly greater RAPI decreases than BASICS participants.

      Long-term: At the nine-month follow-up, there was no significant multivariate effect of group, although BASICS participants showed small to moderate advantages over control and education participants on drinks per week, drinking days per week, and binge days per week. BASICS participants also demonstrated slightly more change than control participants on the RAPI and the ADS. Education participants showed a slight advantage over BASICS participants on the ADS, but the two groups showed a similar amount of change on the RAPI.

      In general, at the nine-month follow-up, BASICS participants maintained their moderate reductions in drinking variables from the three-month follow-up, but control and education participants had also improved on their three-month outcomes at nine months. Heavier drinking BASICS participants maintained their large reductions across the drinking measures.

      Participant evaluations: Participants in the BASICS group generally gave more favorable reviews to the program than did participants in the education group. At the three-month follow-up, more than half of BASICS participants indicated that the intervention they completed had a "significant impact" on their drinking, compared to only 20% of education participants. At three-months, a greater percentage of BASICS participants (69%) than education (24%) or control (17%) participants indicated a decrease in their drinking. Similar results were obtained at nine-months: 63% of BASICS participants indicated a decrease in their drinking compared to 29% of education and 40% of control participants.

      Outcomes - Brief bullets

      • Heavier drinking BASICS participants showed significantly greater 3-month decreases in both drinks per week and frequency of binge drinking than did heavier drinking education or control participants.
      • At the 3-month follow-up, 69% of BASICS participants indicated that their drinking had decreased, compared to only 24% of students in the education condition and 17% of control participants.
      • BASICS participants maintained reductions in drinking at 9-months.

      Generalizability

      The sample was self-selected from a population of 299 Auburn University undergraduate students; the authors do not inform the reader how this population was determined. It is unknown whether the results can be generalized outside of the given population.

      Limitations

      The small sample size and three-group design reduced statistical power to detect small to moderate effect sizes. Moderate attrition in the education and control groups was also present. No collateral verification of self-reported drinking behavior was obtained. The follow-up period (9 months) leaves unanswered whether the reported results will be sustained at 12-months post intervention.

      Larimer, M. E., Turner, A. P., Anderson, B. K., Fader, J. S., Kilmer, J. R., Palmer, R. S., & Cronce, J. M. (2001). Evaluating a brief alcohol intervention with fraternities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 370-380.

      Design: Participants were recruited from the incoming pledge classes of 28 fraternities at a large West Coast university as part of a larger study investigating the effectiveness of alcohol-based intervention programs in Greek-letter organizations. The presidents of all fraternity houses received written and telephone requests from project staff asking if they would be willing to participate in an evaluation of an alcohol education program. Twenty-one fraternities expressed an interest in participating. Each house completed an initial screening of house-wide drinking rates and related consequences. Fraternities with fewer than ten incoming pledge class members were removed from further consideration. Of the remaining fraternities, 12 were randomly selected to participate further in the study. Individual pledge-class members of the selected fraternities were recruited using posters, personal letters, and announcement made during house dinners and meetings. Of the 224 potential pledge class members, 166 (74%) chose to participate in the study and completed a baseline assessment. Of these, seven members were identified by a clinical review committee as having endorsed extensive alcohol dependence or psychiatric symptoms and were removed from participation. Of the 159 eligible fraternity members, 120 (75%) completed a 1-year follow-up assessment.

      Each fraternity was randomly assigned to either the intervention condition (n = 6 houses, 77 participants) or the assessment only/treatment-as-usual control group (n = 6 houses, 82 participants). Participants assigned to the intervention condition received the BASICS program, described in detail in the original write-up, administered by either a trained college-aged peer or a professional staff member. Intervention houses also received a one-hour house-wide feedback program. These programs were similar to the individual feedback sessions in terms of their approach and content, but were focused on identifying house drinking norms; the wide variety of drinking patterns; organizational consequences associated with drinking; and encouraging house-wide change. Programs were conducted on site at individual fraternities and attendance by 80% of members was required. Of the 82 participants in the intervention condition, 64 (78%) completed the individual interview. Participants in the assessment only/treatment-as-usual comparison group did not receive any feedback, but each house was required by university policy to receive at least one didactic presentation regarding alcohol use. All houses were paid $100 for participating in the study.

      Individual study participants completed a baseline packet of questionnaires assessing current drinking rates, the prevalence of alcohol-related consequences, symptoms of alcohol dependence, and perceptions of drinking norms within their houses during the fall or winter quarter of their first year of fraternity membership. Follow-up assessments were completed one-year later. Individual participants were paid $20 for both the baseline and follow-up assessments. No significant differences were found between the two conditions for the average number of drinking days per week, the average number of drinks per occasion, or estimates of peak blood alcohol content (BACs), based on self-reported drinking. Analyses of those who completed the follow-up with those who did not revealed no significant differences on 17 measures of baseline drinking and alcohol-related consequences.

      Sample: The sample reported a mean age of 18.8 years, was 81.1% Caucasian, 1.3% Native American, 1.3% Hispanic, 12.6% Asian, and 3% did not identify an ethnic group. The demographic distribution of the sample was representative of the fraternity population on the campus.

      Measures: The Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ) measured average alcohol consumption over the past three months. The quantity-frequency/peak alcohol use indices was used to measure the number of drinks and amount of time spent drinking on a typical and a peak occasion during the past month. This scale produced estimates of typical and peak blood alcohol concentrations (BACs). The 23-item Rutgers Alcohol Problems Index (RAPI) was used to evaluate the frequency and severity of alcohol-related problems. The Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS) was used to assess symptoms of physical dependence on alcohol, while the Drinking Norms Rating Form (DNRF) was used to measure individual perceived norms of alcohol use. The Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test for mother and father (SMAST) was used to assess the lifetime incidence of problematic drinking behavior. The University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) was used to measure readiness to change alcohol use behavior. Finally, the Alcohol Perceived Risk Assessment (APRA) was used to evaluate perceptions of the risk of experiencing negative consequences as a result of drinking.

      Analysis: All 120 participants who completed follow-up assessments were included in all analyses. Outlier analyses identified one participant with substantially elevated average quantity and total average use. Therefore, data were removed for these drinking scales. The effects of treatment on alcohol use and consequences over time were assessed using multiple univariate repeated measures ANCOVA. Individual student perceptions of pledge class drinking norms were entered as a covariate. Univariate F -tests of time and treatment effects were also performed. Chi-square analysis was used to examine differences in follow-up participation among individuals who received peer or professional interviews.

      Outcomes

      Post-test: No immediate post test data were analyzed in this evaluation.

      Long-term: All data collected were analyzed at the one-year follow-up.

      Drinking outcomes: A significant treatment effect was observed for total average use. In comparison with students in the control condition, students in the intervention condition reported significantly greater reductions in average drinks per week. No significant treatment interactions emerged for either the quantity per occasion or frequency of alcohol consumption. A significant main treatment effect was observed for typical peak blood alcohol concentrations (BAC). In comparison with students in the control condition, students in the intervention condition reported significantly greater reductions in typical peak BACs. Analysis of alcohol problems produced no significant results for either negative consequences (RAPI) or symptoms of dependence (ADS). Students did not report lower levels of problems over time or differential reductions in problems based upon treatment condition.

      Peer versus professional interviewers: No significant difference in follow-up participation was observed between the two groups. A significant group effect was observed, however, for typical peak BAC. Students who received their individual interviews from college-aged peers reported significantly greater reductions in typical peak BACs than did students who received their interviews from professional staff members. Baseline differences between interview conditions were substantial, although not statistically significant.

      Risk factors associated with treatment: The predicted mediators of the treatment, family history of alcohol problems, motivation to change drinking behaviors, and perceived risk for personal problems, were unrelated to the outcome.

      Outcomes - Brief bullets

      • Fraternity pledges in the treatment condition showed greater decreases in total weekly alcohol consumption and typical peak blood alcohol concentrations than did pledges in the assessment only/treatment-as-usual control condition.
      • Fraternity pledges in the intervention condition who received feedback from peer providers reported significantly greater reductions in typical peak blood alcohol concentrations than did students who received their feedback from professional staff members.
      • No treatment effects were found on quantity or frequency of drinking, alcohol problems, or the predicted mediators of treatment (family history of alcohol problems, motivation to change drinking behaviors, and perceived risk for alcohol problems).

      Generalizability

      This evaluation was conducted with first-year fraternity pledges at a large West Coast University. Due to obvious differences in the composition of the vast number and variety of U.S. college campuses, drinking norms and patterns may vary across this population, thus it is impossible to generalize the results beyond the group described.

      Limitations

      Despite significant reductions in drinking behavior, BASICS did not appear to differentially impact reductions in alcohol-related consequences or symptoms of alcohol dependence, one of the stated program goals. In addition, participants were randomized at the level of the organization (fraternity), rather than that of the individual. The 24% loss-to-follow-up rate is of concern, despite the analysis of attrition findings of no difference between completers and non-completers, primarily due to the small sample size within groups. It is also not possible to determine the efficacy of the house-wide versus the individual feedback sessions. There was no collateral verification of self-reported drinking behavior. Finally, all fraternities irrespective of treatment group placement received some form of alcohol awareness training per University policy, which may have affected the impact of the BASICS program.

      Turrisi, R., Larimer, M. E., Mallett, K. A., Kilmer, J. R., Ray, A. E., Mastroleo, N. R., ... Montoya, H. (2009). A randomized clinical trial evaluating a combined alcohol intervention for high-risk college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drug, 70, 555-567.

      This study tests the effects of BASICS in combination with a more recently developed Parent Based Intervention (PBI) to reduce college drinking. The specific focus of this study is on high-school athletes as a high-risk group for heavy drinking. With a sample of n = 1,275 randomized to BASICS, PBI and a control group this study uses a considerably larger sample than all prior evaluations of BASICS (maximum n = 348). The major drawback of this study is that it did not investigate long-term effects.

      Methodology
      Design:
      Recruitment/Sample size/Attrition:
      Participants were incoming freshmen at a large public northeastern (site A) and a northwestern (site B) university. Participants were randomly selected from the registrar’s database of incoming freshmen. At site A, 2,328 students were selected, and at site B, 1,672, resulting in a total of 4,000 students. These students were contacted by mail and 1,796 consented to participate and completed the Web-based screening assessment, yielding a 45% response rate. Of those who completed the screening survey, 1,419 met inclusion criteria (participation in high school or club team athletics). Of these individuals, 1,275 completed the baseline assessment and 1,090 (85.5%) completed the follow-up assessment. Following completion of baseline assessment, the parents of all students were invited to participate, but did not provide assessment data on their child's drinking.

      Study type/Randomization/Intervention:
      The study employed a randomized controlled trial design. Pre-screened high school athletes who had completed the baseline assessment (n = 1,275) were randomized to one of four study conditions: (1) BASICS-only (n = 277), (2) Parent Based Intervention-only (PBI-only, n = 316), (3) combined BASICS and PBI (PBI+BASICS, n = 342), and (4) control group (n = 340). BASICS interventions were 45-60 minutes and were conducted one-on-one with a trained peer facilitator. PBI is a handbook-based intervention designed to raise parental awareness of alcohol abuse and consequences among college students and to increase parental effort to address this issue with their teen. The 35-page handbook was mailed to parents in the summer (May–August) prior to college matriculation. Parents were requested to work through the material and to discuss the topics with their child. Students in the control group did not receive any intervention but completed the assessments.

      Assessment:
      All study participants completed the baseline assessment during the summer of 2006 before college matriculation. The post-test assessment was conducted approximately 10 months after baseline (spring semester 2007).

      Sample characteristics:
      Participants (mean = 17.92 years) were 44.4% male (n = 566) and 55.6% female (n = 709); 4.5% identified as Hispanic, 79.8% as white, 10.1% as Asian, 3.7% as multiracial, 2.0% as black or African American, 0.5% as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 0.2% as American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 3.2% as other; 0.4% did not identify race/ethnicity.

      Measures:
      Validity of measurements:
      All items and scales have been used in prior published research and validity and reliability has been established.

      Primary outcomes:

      • Alcohol use: Peak blood alcohol content (peak BAC) was calculated using participant’s responses to a question regarding maximum drinks consumed on an occasion within the past 30 days and the number of hours they spent drinking on that occasion. Using the Daily Drinking Questionnaire participants were also asked to indicate the number of drinks consumed on a typical weekday and typical weekend.
      • Alcohol-related consequences: The 23-item Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI) was used to assess alcohol-related consequences within the past 3 months (alpha = .848).

      Secondary outcomes:

      • Descriptive drinking norms: 2 items from the Core Institute’s Campus Assessment of Alcohol and Other Drug Norms were summed to create a composite descriptive norms variable (alpha = .858).
      • Injunctive norms: Injunctive norms were assessed with respect to participants’ closest friends and parents (alpha = .710; alpha = .897).
      • Beliefs about alcohol: Positive vs. negative beliefs about alcohol were assessed with 4 items (alpha = .837).
      • Attitudes toward drinking: 2 items assessing attitudes toward drinking (alpha = .871)

      Analysis:
      The study employed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to examine drinking outcome mean differences at post-test by treatment condition, controlling for baseline drinking and gender.

      Intention-to-treat: The study followed the intent-to-treat principle. Missing data for attritors were imputed using a maximum likelihood approach.

      Outcomes

      Implementation fidelity:
      Facilitators of the BASICS intervention were trained (10 weekly meetings) by clinical psychologists and counselors specializing in interventions for college student drinking. In addition, peer facilitators were monitored through coding random 20-minute segments of every session, using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding system. Facilitators demonstrated sufficient proficiency levels (4.49).

      For the PBI intervention, attempts were made to ensure that parents read the materials. Parents were asked to evaluate the handbook through notes and a brief questionnaire and return it to the researchers. In the PBI-only group, 63% (n = 199) of the parents returned the handbook, the evaluation, or both. For 21 of the 26 topics covered on drinking, more than 85% of the parents indicated that they discussed the material with their teens. In the BASICS-only group, 53.8% (n = 149) of the teens attended BASICS, and 68.2% (n = 189) of the parents returned the consent form or the brief survey, yielding 112 (40.4%) participants in this group who met both criteria. In the combined group, 53.8% (n = 184) of the teens attended BASICS, and 59.9% (n = 205) of the parents returned the handbook, the evaluation, or both (59.9%, n = 205), yielding 112 (32.7%) participants in this group who met both criteria. In the control group, 70% (n = 238) of the parents returned the brief survey.

      Baseline Equivalence:
      A test for baseline equivalence revealed no significant differences between groups on all outcome measures and the majority of socio-demographic controls. Only one significant difference was observed between conditions for gender (F = 9.170, p < .05). Therefore, gender was included as a covariate in all models.

      Differential attrition:
      A statistical test for differential attrition indicated no significant differences between groups on demographic characteristics (gender, ethnicity), as well as on outcome measures. However, the results revealed a small but significant difference in the participant dropout rate among the four intervention conditions (Chi-square = 14.00, p < .01). The control group had the highest number of follow-up survey completers (89.7%), compared with those in the parent condition (88.3%), the BASICS condition (82.3%), and the combined condition (81.3%).

      Post-test:
      PBI-only: At post-test, ANCOVAs showed no significant difference between the Parent Based Intervention (PBI) and the control group on any of the four outcome measures (peak blood alcohol concentration, drinks per weekend, drinks per week, Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index).

      BASICS-only: Out of 4 tests, 2 (50%) were significant, demonstrating beneficial program effects. Compared to the control group, BASICS-only significantly lowered the levels of peak blood alcohol concentration (.107 vs.122, p<.05) as well as the numbers of drinks consumed on a typical weekend (5.8 vs. 6.6, p<.05). However, no effects were observed for drinks per week and alcohol related problems.

      PBI+BASICS: The strongest results, however, were revealed for the combined PBI+BASICS intervention (4 out of 4 tests were significant). The combined intervention led to a significant decrease in peak blood alcohol concentration (.096 vs.122, p<.05, d=.26), significantly lower numbers of drinks consumed on a typical week (7.3 vs. 8.4, p<.05, d=.16) or weekend (5.6 vs. 6.6, p<.05, d=.20), as well as a significant reduction in the self-reported number of alcohol-related problems (2.8 vs. 3.5, p<.05, d=.20).

      Mediator analysis:
      A mediator analysis conducted by Turrisi et al. (2009) revealed that descriptive and injunctive peer norms were significant mediators between the combined intervention (BASICS+PBI) and all drinking outcomes. Relative to participants in the control group, those who received the combined intervention perceived that typical college students drink less and perceived their peers to be less favorable toward their drinking behaviors, and, in turn, they reported lower peak blood alcohol concentration, fewer drinks per week and weekend, as well as lower numbers of alcohol related consequences. In addition, alcohol beliefs mediated the relationship between intervention and peak blood alcohol concentration and alcohol-related negative consequences.

      Long-term effects:
      Long-term effects were not assessed in this study.

      Outcomes – Brief bullets

      • Among a sample of athletes enrolled in a public northeastern and northwestern university, BASICS significantly lowered the levels of peak blood alcohol concentration as well as the numbers of drinks consumed on a typical weekend during the first year of college.

      Limitations

      A statistical test revealed significant differences in the dropout rate among the four intervention conditions. Low levels of program completion and participation in the interventions was reported (only 53.8% of the teens in the BASICS-only intervention attended the sessions). The study evaluated program effects 10 months after baseline assessment, and thus did not investigate long term effects.