PRIME For Life ADSAP - Prevention Research Institute

PRIME For Life
ADSAP
Prepared by
Prevention Research Institute, Inc.
January 2003
PRIME For Life
Executive Summary
PRIME For Life (PFL) is a research-based prevention and intervention program mandated for court-referred offenders
convicted of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in South Carolina, delivered through the regional ADSAP programs.
The immediate objective of PFL/ADSAP is the formation of an accurate perception of risk associated with drinking
choices. The long-term objectives are to reduce consumption among the non-dependent and increase treatment seeking
among dependent offenders. Research demonstrates that higher perception of risk is associated with less drinking and
drug use both in adolescents and adults. (Bachman, Johnston, & O’Malley, 1988; Bachman, Johnston, & O’Malley,
1998; Feldman, Harvey, Holowaty & Shortt, 1999; Brown, Goldman, & Christiansen, 1985) Higher perception of risk
is also associated with less drinking and driving (Engen, Richards, & Patterson, 1995; Nelson, et al. 1999; Greenfield
and Rogers, 1999; Agostenelli and Miller, 1994) and it motivates treatment-seeking behavior in those who are alcohol
or drug dependent (Hingston, Mangione, Meyers, and Scotch, 1982).
This report is on 3,809 participants who completed the PFL program between April 2000 and October 2001, and
for whom matched pre and post-tests were available. The pre-test was completed before attending the 16-hour PFL
program and the post-test was completed after class . Participation was voluntary and confidential.
Perception of Risk
Analyses revealed statistically significant and desired changes on four measures of perception of risk. It is worth noting that
these changes occurred in those who were not dependent, those who are dependent, and among those with indications of
physiological dependence under DSM-IV. After completing the PFL program, participants:
• Endorsed fewer risky beliefs regarding alcohol.
• Realized that their drinking choices could affect their ability to get or keep things they valued.
• Understood that their current drinking choices could result in alcoholism.
• Assessed their risk for developing alcoholism significantly higher.
Drinking Choices
At the conclusion of the program and having learned a specific definition regarding low-risk drinking choices, participants were
able to examine past drinking choices and state their intentions regarding future drinking choices:
• 74% of participants intended to never make high-risk drinking choices in the future.
• 67% were “very sure” that they would follow their low-risk guidelines.
• 64% were in strong agreement that the things they learned in class to follow their low- risk guidelines
would work in the “real” world.
1
Introduction
PRIME for Life (PFL) is a research-based prevention and intervention program mandated for court-referred
offenders convicted of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in South Carolina. This report contains evaluation
results for the PFL program.
PFL is based on the Lifestyle Risk Reduction Model developed by Prevention Research Institute (PRI). This
model holds that increasing personal perception of risk is a key step in encouraging behavior change. Personal
perception of risk is a measure of the chance of loss or peril that people associate with their behavior. In
other words, is the pleasure associated with the behavior worth the possible consequences associated with the
behavior? The perception of how real and imminent the risk is can form a motivation for either continuing or
changing that behavior.
Participants in the PFL program are presented research-based content on alcohol and drugs and participate in
a variety of therapeutic activities to facilitate changes in risk perception and commitment to behavior change.
Participants learn to assess their personal level of risk for alcoholism and their location in the progression
of alcoholism indicated by their current drinking behavior. After this assessment, participants learn how
to decrease their risk for alcohol problems and/or alcoholism by making low-risk drinking choices (i.e., in
terms of setting personal standards for the quantity and frequency of drinking that avoid impairment or health
problems) for those who are not dependent, or abstinence and recovery for those who are dependent.
Research has demonstrated that higher perception of risk is associated with less drinking and drug use, both
in adolescents (Bachman, Johnston, & O’Malley, 1988; Bachman, Johnston, & O’Malley, 1998; Feldman,
Harvey, Holowaty, & Shortt, 1999; Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1998) and adults (Brown, Goldman, &
Christiansen, 1985; Fromme, Katz, & D’Amico, 1997; Roizen, 1983). More specific to this audience, lower
perception of risk is associated with more drinking and driving (Agostinelli, Brown, & Miller, 1995), less
planning to avoid drinking and driving (Nelson, Hirsch, Pendergast, & Glavy, 1999), higher rates of injury
(Cherpitel, 1993) and higher rates of recidivism among DUI offenders (Engen, Richards, & Patterson, 1995).
Conversely, higher perception of risk has also been associated with increased likelihood of seeking treatment
(Hingston, Mangione, Meyers, & Scotch, 1982). Such findings lend support to the program’s effort to alter
personal perception of risk associated with high-risk drinking and drug use.
The immediate objective of the program is the formation of an accurate perception of risk associated with
drinking choices. To measure changes in perception of risk, pre-intervention and post-intervention views were
compared.
2
Methodology
Participants in the PFL program completed two surveys that were developed by PRI. One survey (pre-test)
was completed before attending the 16-hour PFL class and a second survey (post-test) was completed after
the final class. Surveys contained demographic information, measures of alcohol beliefs and perception of
risk, and indicators of problem use. In addition, the post-test contained items assessing intentions for future
alcohol use. Participation was voluntary and confidential.
There were 4,580 participants who attended the PFL program between April 2000 and October 2001. There
were 3,809 participants with a matched pre-test and post-test. Only participants with matched surveys were
included in this report.
Measures
Risky Beliefs
This measure addressed beliefs regarding alcohol and drugs. Scores ranged from 7 to 35 with lower
scores indicating riskier beliefs.
Risk of Losing Valued Things
This measure addressed participants’ personal perception of risk for their current drinking choices
interfering with getting or keeping the things they value. Responses ranged from 1 to 5 with lower
scores indicating a higher perception of risk.
Risk For Alcoholism at Current Drinking Level
This measure addressed participants’ personal perception of risk for developing alcoholism as a
result of their current drinking pattern. Responses ranged from 1 to 5 with lower scores indicating a
higher perception of risk.
Personal Perception of Risk For Alcoholism
This item assessed participants’ overall perception of personal risk for developing alcoholism.
Participants rated their risk on a 10-point scale with higher scores indicating greater risk.
For further descriptions of these measures, see Appendix A.
3
Measures (cont’d)
Drinking Choices
After completing the class, students were asked how often they had made high-risk drinking
choices in the last year.
Behavioral Intentions
After completing the class, participants were asked how often they intended to make high-risk
drinking choices in the future. Participants were also asked to indicate their level of certainty that
they would follow the low-risk guidelines and if the skills they learned in class for following the
guidelines would work.
For further descriptions of these measures, see Appendix A.
Demographics
Of 4,580 matched pre-tests and post-tests, 3,809 (83.2%) contained complete data for the demographic
and outcome variables included in this report. This report contains the results for those 3,809 participants
completing the PFL program between April 2000 and October 2001.
1%
17%
1%
21%
77%
83%
Women
Men
African-American
Hispanic
Other
Caucasian
The majority, 61%, of offenders were Caucasian males which is consistent with the published research on DUI
offenders. The majority of women were Caucasian, only 2% of the sample were minority women. For further
descriptions of the population (education, dependency status, etc.) see Appendix B.
4
Results
Changes in Perception of Risk
One composite measure (risky beliefs) and three single items were used to measure change in perception
of risk. A series of paired sample t-tests were performed comparing the students’ average pre-test score to
the average of their post-test scores (see Table 1). These tests revealed whether or not participants showed a
statistically significant change over the course of the program.
Table 1. Pre-test and post-test means (with standard deviations) for the four risk perception measures:
Pre-test
Mean
Post-test
Mean
t-test
29.4
30.5
-18.3
p<.001
Risk of Losing Valued Things
3.5
2.7
39.2
p<.001
Risk For Current Drinking Level
3.1
2.2
29.9
p<.001
Perception of Personal Risk
3.2
4.1
-20.2
p<.001
Risky Beliefs
Key Points
• Students showed statistically significant and desired changes on all four outcome measures.
After completing the PFL program, participants:
•
•
•
•
Endorsed fewer risky beliefs associated with high-risk drinking.
Agreed that their current drinking could pose a risk for getting or keeping the things they valued.
Agreed that their current drinking posed a risk for developing alcoholism.
Increased their personal perception of risk for developing alcoholism.
5
Results
Charts Depicting Changes in Perception of Risk
Risky Beliefs
For this outcome, participants were asked their level of agreement (on a scale of 1 to 5) with 7 beliefs regarding
substance use. For Chart 1, average scores were divided by 7 to illustrate the change in agreement from pre-test to posttest.
Chart 1. Pre-test and Post-test Percentages for Response Categories for Risky Beliefs
100%
63%
50%
50%
Pre-test
44%
Post-test
29%
25%
7%
0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
5%
1% 1%
Agree
Uncertain
1%
1%
Strongly
Agree
Key Point
There was an increase in the percentage of participants who strongly disagreed with beliefs such as
people are born with alcoholism, getting drunk is just part of having fun and people who drink alcoholic
beverages are more fun than people who don’t.
6
Results
Charts Depicting Changes in Perception of Risk
Perception of Risk For Losing Valued Things
Chart 2. Pre-test and Post-test Percentages for Response Categories for
“My current drinking choices could interfere with getting or keeping the things I value.”
50%
Pre-test
34%
27%
29%
28%
25%
Post-test
22%
16%
16%
10%
13%
5%
0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Key Point
In Chart 2, it can be seen that at pre-test, 29% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that their current
drinking choices could increase their risk of losing valued things. However, at post-test, 57% agreed or
strongly agreed that their current drinking choices could be risky.
7
Results
Charts Depicting Changes in Perception of Risk
Perception of Risk For Current Drinking Levels
Chart 3. Pre-test and Post-test Percentages for Response Categories for
“If I don’t change my drinking, I could develop alcoholism.”
50%
37%
36%
Post-test
30%
25%
17%
21%
17%
15%
13%
8%
0%
Strongly
Disagree
Pre-test
6%
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Key Point
Nearly half, 47%, of participants disagreed or strongly disagreed that their current drinking pattern was
risky at pre-test. However, at post-test, 73% agreed or strongly agreed that their current drinking level
posed a risk for developing alcoholism.
8
Results
Charts Depicting Changes in Perception of Risk
Personal Perception of Risk For Alcoholism
For this outcome, participants were asked to estimate their overall risk for developing alcoholism on a 10-point scale
with “1” being low risk and “10” being high risk.
For Chart 4, response categories were collapsed to illustrate the change from pre-test to post-test. The low-risk group
represents participants who rated their risk of developing alcoholism as 1-3. The medium-risk group represents
participants who rated their risk of developing alcoholism as 4-7. The high-risk group represents participants who rated
their risk of developing alcoholism from 8-10.
Chart 4. Pre-test and Post-test Percentages for Combined Response Categories for
“I think my risk for developing alcoholism.”
75%
66%
55%
Pre-test
50%
Post-test
23%
25%
24%
21%
11%
0%
Low-Risk
Medium-Risk
High-Risk
Key Point
There was a decrease in the percentage of participants who rated their risk as low, a slight increase in the
medium category and a substantial increase in the high risk category.
9
Results
Impact of PFL Based on Dependence Status
Does the PFL program work for participants who report symptoms of alcohol dependence?
A MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) with repeated measures was used to determine whether
PFL works for clients who report symptoms of alcohol dependence. A list of the symptoms can be found in
Appendix A. Based on the number of symptoms endorsed, 39% of participants were in the not dependent
group, 20% were in the dependent group and 41% were in the dependent with physiological dependence
group.
This analysis compares the answers of three dependence groups and reveals whether the program works for
some groups better than others.
Dependency and Risky Beliefs
The risky beliefs scale is a measure of endorsement of high-risk beliefs (e.g., people are born with
alcoholism, tolerance is good, people who drink are more fun than people who don’t). The higher the score,
the fewer risky beliefs the student endorsed. All groups experienced similar rates of change from pre-test to
post-test as shown by the nearly parallel lines on Chart 5.
Chart 5. Change in Risky Beliefs by Dependence Group
31.5
30.5
29.5
28.5
Post-test
Pre-test
Not Dependent
Dependent
Dependent with Physiological Dependence
Key Point
Dependency status was associated with risky beliefs. As would be expected, participants who
were not dependent endorsed significantly fewer high-risk beliefs at both pre-test and posttest. Students who were dependent with physiological dependence endorsed the most high-risk
beliefs.
• PFL had a similarly positive impact on all groups regardless of
dependence status.
10
Results
Impact of PFL Based on Dependence Status
Dependency and the Perception of Risk For Losing Valued Things
Participants were asked if their current drinking could interfere with getting or keeping the things they
valued. Higher scores indicated disagreement that current drinking was risky and lower scores indicated
agreement that current drinking was risky (Chart 6).
Chart 6. Change in Risk of Losing Valued Things by Dependence Group
4
3
2
Post-test
Pre-test
Not Dependent
Dependent
Dependent with Physiological Dependence
Key Point
At pre-test, participants who were not dependent were the least likely to agree that their
current drinking choices could interfere with the things they valued whereas the participants
who were dependent with physiological dependence were the most likely to agree. Participants
in the dependent group fell between the non-dependent and physiologically dependent groups.
• PFL had a similarly positive impact on all groups regardless of
dependence status, though the change was greatest in the not dependent group.
11
Results
Impact of PFL Based on Dependence Status
Dependency and Perceived Risk of Developing Alcoholism
This measure addressed participants’ personal perception of risk for developing alcoholism as a result of
their current drinking pattern. Scores ranged from 1-5 with lower scores indicating greater agreement with
the risk item.
Chart 7. Change in Risk for Current Drinking Level and Alcoholism
by Dependence Group
4
3
2
1
Pre-test
Not Dependent
Post-test
Dependent
Dependent with Physiological Dependence
Key Point
At pre-test, dependence groups differed significantly in how they perceived their risk
of developing alcoholism. Students who were non-dependent were the least likely to
agree that they could develop alcoholism if they didn’t change their current drinking
choices whereas the participants who were dependent with physiological dependence
were the most likely to agree. Participants in the dependent group fell between the
non-dependent and physiologically dependent groups.
• Each group changed in the desired direction at a statistically significant
level. Participants in the non-dependent group and the dependent group
showed greater change than the physiologically dependent group.
12
Results
Impact of PFL Based on Dependence Status
Dependency and Perceived Risk of Developing Alcoholism
This measure assessed participants’ overall perception of risk for developing alcoholism. Scores ranged from
1-10 with higher scores indicating a greater personal perception of risk for developing alcoholism.
Chart 8. Change in Personal Perception of Risk for Developing
Alcoholism by Dependence Group
10
1
Pre-test
Not Dependent
Post-test
Dependent
Dependent with Physiological Dependence
Key Point
Participants varied at pre-test on how they perceived risk. Those who were not dependent rated their risk for developing alcoholism the lowest and the participants
who were dependent with physiological dependence rated their risk the highest. Risk
ratings for the participants in the dependent group fell between the non-dependent
and physiologically dependent groups. All groups showed similar increases in their
perception of risk for developing alcoholism regardless of dependency status.
• PFL increases perception of risk regardless of dependency
status.
13
Results
Past Drinking Behavior and Intentions For Future Drinking
Intentions
After completing the class, participants were asked how often they had made high-risk drinking choices in
the past and how often they intended to make high-risk drinking choices in the future.
Chart 9. Participants’ Description of High-risk Drinking in the Past Year and Future Intentions
74%
80%
70%
Past Year
60%
44%
50%
Future
40%
30%
20%
21%
13%
18%
16%
5%
10%
0%
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
1%
A lot
4%
1%
Almost
Always
3%
Always
Key Points
• In the last year, 60% of students claim to have made high-risk drinking choice
sometimes or a lot.
• After completing the PFL class, 74% of participants planned to make never make
high-risk drinking choices in the future.
• Οverall, students planned to make fewer high-risk drinking choices.
14
3%
Results
Past Drinking Behavior and Intentions For Future Drinking
Certainty
Participants were asked to indicate how sure they were about their ability to follow their low-risk guidelines.
Chart 10. Participants’ Certainty of Following Low-risk Guidelines
75%
67%
50%
25%
16%
13%
1%
0%
Very Sure
Somewhat
Sure
Sure
Unsure
3%
Very Unsure
Key Points
•
Two-thirds of participants were very sure that they would follow their low-risk
guidelines.
•
A small percentage, 4%, expressed uncertainty regarding their ability to follow their
low-risk guidelines.
15
Results
Past Drinking Behavior and Intentions For Future Drinking
“Real World Application”
Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with the statement “The things I learned to do in class to
meet the low-risk guidelines that apply to me will work in the real world.”
Chart 11. Participants’ agreement with “The things I learned to do in class to meet the low-risk
guidelines that apply to me will work in the real world.”
75%
64%
50%
31%
25%
3%
1%
1%
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
0%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Key Points
•
64% of participants strongly agreed that the things they learned in class would
apply in the real world.
•
Over 90% agreed or strongly agreed that the things they learned in class would
apply in the real world.
16
Summary and Conclusion
After completing the PFL program, participants:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Endorsed fewer high-risk beliefs.
Increased their perception of risk for their current drinking for both losing things they valued and
for developing alcoholism.
Increased their perception of risk for developing alcoholism.
Intended to make fewer high-risk drinking choices in the future
Expressed certainty about their ability to follow their low-risk guidelines
Strongly agreed that the skills they had learned in class would work
The immediate changes in participants’ risky beliefs and perception of risk were specifically assessed in this
report. After exposure to the 16-hour PFL ADSAP curriculum, participants showed statistically significant and
desirable changes in their risky beliefs and perception of risk. Participants endorsed fewer beliefs associated
with high-risk drinking choices and increased their perception of risk for alcoholism and alcohol-related
problems.
Differences in risky beliefs were found between groups of participants at pretest, based on alcohol
dependence status. Participants who were not dependent on alcohol held the fewest high-risk beliefs at pretest. In contrast, participants who endorsed enough DSM-IV symptoms to indicate alcohol dependence with
physiological dependence endorsed the most high-risk beliefs. Participants who were alcohol dependent
without physiological dependence fell in-between the non-dependent and physiologically dependent groups.
These differences in risky beliefs were not unexpected as these beliefs should be associated with increased
alcohol use. In other words, participants who hold the riskiest beliefs would be expected to be making
the riskiest drinking choices. Results indicate that regardless of dependence status, participants showed
statistically significant decreases in risky beliefs over the course of the intervention.
The same pattern between dependence groups was found for the remaining three measures that focused
on personal perception of risk. These risk measures were specific to the participant and the participant’s
drinking choices. Non-dependent participants held the lowest perception of risk, dependent with physiological
dependence participants held the highest perception of risk and dependent participants fell between the two.
Overall, participants came to see that their drinking choices could affect their ability to get or keep things
they valued and that their drinking choices could result in alcoholism. However, there were some differential
patterns of change based on dependence status.
Nondependent participants started out with less awareness of, and subsequently showed a greater increase
in perception of risk for losing the things they valued compared to either dependent or physiologically
dependent participants. Both non-dependent and dependent participants showed greater increases in
perception of risk for developing alcoholism as a result of their current drinking choices. The PFL curriculum
defines a series of phases in the progression towards alcoholism. The characteristics of these phases are
defined for participants and it may be that participants in the earlier phases are just beginning to experience
alcohol-related problems (such as a DUI) and may not have viewed their drinking choices as risky until the
links between problems and drinking were elucidated in class. The more seriously dependent clients entered
with greater awareness of these risks and this awareness increased with exposure to the program.
17
Summary and Conclusion
Taken together, the results of the analysis by dependence groups indicate that participants exit the class with
a higher perception of risk and that the perception of risk corresponds with the alcohol-related symptoms they
report at pre-test. Put simply, participants appear to be not only be increasing their perception of risk overall,
but also increasing the accuracy of the perceived risk.
Both traditional wisdom in the addictions field and a number of previous studies indicate that educational
interventions may not be effective with those who are dependent. Yet the above findings demonstrate that
PFL is effective in changing perception of risk even with the dependent and the physiologically dependent
population. This supports the use of PFL as therapeutic education for those needing out patient services or as
the educational component of a larger therapeutic experience.
With a specific definition regarding what constitutes low-risk drinking choices, participants were able to
examine past drinking choices and state their intentions regarding future drinking choices. Almost threefourths of the participants intended to never make high-risk drinking choices and two-thirds expressed
confidence regarding their ability to follow their low-risk guidelines.
18
Appendix A - Measures
Family History
Participants who reported a parent, sibling or grandparent with alcoholism or a serious “drinking problem” were grouped
as having a positive family history for alcohol problems. Participants were grouped as having a negative family history,
if they indicated no knowledge of any relatives with alcohol problems.
Alcohol Dependence
Seven questions were asked at pre-test to identify symptoms of alcoholism or increased risk for alcoholism. The DSMIV criterion for substance dependence is the presence of 3 or more symptoms of 7 in a 12-month period. The symptoms
follow: (a) tolerance (b) withdrawal (c) use of alcohol in larger amounts of over a longer period of time than was
intended (d) persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control use (e) great deal of time spend in activities
to obtain or recover from its effects (f) important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced due
to use and (g) substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological
problem likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance.
Three groups were formed based on number of symptoms that were coded positive and whether tolerance or withdrawal
was indicated. If participants indicated experiencing less than three symptoms, they were classified as not dependent.
Participants who endorsed three or more symptoms but did not endorse the tolerance or withdrawal items were classified
as dependent. If three items or more were marked and any one of them was tolerance or withdrawal, the classification
was physiologically dependent. In other words, it is not necessary to have both tolerance and withdrawal identified to get
a physiologically dependent categorization. These groups represented the three categories called dependence status.
Perception of Risk
Four measures of risk perception were used in the analysis. There was one composite risky beliefs measure and three
measures of personal perception of risk.
Risky beliefs.This measure addressed participants’ general beliefs regarding substance use. This scale was comprised of
the following seven items:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Only people born with alcoholism can get it.
It is okay to use drugs if you can handle it.
It is good to be able to drink more than other people before getting drunk.
Getting drunk is just part of having fun.
It is okay to drive after smoking marijuana.
People who drink alcoholic beverages are more fun than people who don’t.
People are not really drinking if they have only 1 or 2 drinks.
Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5).
Items were summed to produce a score ranging from 7 to 35 (Cronbach’s alpha= .73).
Risk of losing valued things. This measure addressed participants’ personal perception of risk regarding possible
consequences associated with their current drinking choices. Responses ranged from strongly agree (1) to strongly
disagree (5).
Risk for current drinking level and alcoholism. This measure addressed participants’ personal perception of risk for
developing alcoholism as a result of their current drinking pattern. Responses ranged from strongly agree (1) to strongly
disagree (5).
19
Appendix A - Measures
Personal perception of risk for alcoholism. This item assessed participants’ overall perception of personal risk for
developing alcoholism. In response to the item “I think my risk for developing alcoholism is:” participants rated their
risk on a 10-point scale anchored at the endpoints as low (1) and high (10).
Drinking choices in the past year. After completing the class, participants were asked to respond to the item “In the
past year, I made high-risk drinking choices.” Participants chose from six responses: never, rarely, sometimes, a lot,
almost always and always.
Behavioral intentions. After completing the class, students were asked to respond to the item “Based on everything
I have learned about risks and what is important to me, I have decided to make high-risk drinking choices.” Students
chose from six responses: never, rarely, sometimes, a lot, almost always and always.
Participants were asked “How sure are you that you will follow the low-risk guidelines that apply to you?” Participants
chose from five responses: very sure, somewhat sure, sure, unsure and very unsure.
Participants were asked to indicated their level of agreement from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5) with the
statement: “ The things I learned to do in class to meet the low-risk guidelines that apply to me will work in the real
world.”
20
Appendix B - Demographics
Age
Age ranged from 16 years to 75 years of age with an average age of 36.2 and a standard deviation of 10.9.
Approximately 50% of the sample was 36 or younger and 90% of the sample was under the age of 50.
Education
High school graduates were the largest educational category. Approximately one-fourth of students had less than a high
school education. Less than 10% of the sample held a college or advanced degree.
Chart A1. Percentage of Participants by Education
60%
40%
36%
22%
20%
22%
7%
6%
5%
2%
0%
Grade 1-8
(n=194)
Some HS
(n=194)
HS Grad
(n=1377)
Some College Votech Grad
(n=833)
(n=232)
College Grad
(n=277)
Grad Degree
(n=194)
Additional points
Analysis revealed that women were more likely to hold an advanced degree and less likely to report a grade school
education than men, χ2 (6, N = 3,809) = 23.9, p < .001. Only 1.6% of the male participants held a graduate degree
compared to 3.5% of female participants. In contrast, 5.5% of men reported a grade school education compared to 3.1%
of women.
Marital Status
Chart A2 reveals the percentage of participants by marital status. Never married participants were the largest marital
status group with 32% of the sample. Approximately one-third, or 30%, of participants were married and 21.1% were
divorced.
Chart A2. Percentage of Participants by Marital Status
40%
32%
30%
30%
21%
20%
6%
9%
2%
0%
Never Married
(n=1218)
Married
(n=1144)
Divorced
(n=803)
Co-habitating
(n=224)
Separated
(n=343)
Widowed
(n=77)
Additional points
Analysis revealed differences in marital status by gender, χ2 (5, N = 3,809) = 49.4, p < .001. Women were more likely
to be separated or divorced than men; 38.5% of women fell into these two groups as compared to 28.4% of men. Men
were more likely to be single than women; 33.2 % of men reported having never been married as compared to 26.0% of
women.
21
Appendix B - Demographics
Dependence Status
Based on data taken at pre-test (before the intervention), there were 1,493 (39.2%) participants in the non-dependent
group, 752 (19.7%) in the dependent group and 1,564 (41.1%) in the physiologically dependent group (Chart A3.). These
groupings are based on the answers to seven questions covering DSM-IV symptoms and are an approximation, not an
actual diagnosis.
Chart A3. Percentage of Participants, Male and Female Participants by DUI Offender Status
60%
40%
41%
39%
20%
20%
0%
Nondependent
(n=1493)
Dependent
(n=752)
Dependent with
Physiological Dependence
(n=1564)
Additional points
Analysis revealed differences in dependence status by gender, χ2 (2, N = 3,809) = 74.2, p < .001.
Women endorsed significantly fewer DSM-IV type symptoms than men. Half of the women in the sample fell into
the nondependent group as compared to 37% of men. While 44% of men were in the dependent with physiological
dependence group, only 26% of women were in this group.
Family History
Half of participants indicated that they had at least one biological family member who they believed had alcoholism or
a serious “drinking problem.” There were 1,933 (50.7%) participants who reported relatives with alcohol problems and
1,876 (49.3%) participants who reported no relatives with alcohol problems.
Figure A1. Percentage of Participants by Family History of Alcohol Problems
49%
51%
No Family History
22
Positive Family History
Appendix B - Demographics
Family History
Additional points
The relationship between dependence status and family history is shown in Chart A4. Participants with a positive family
history were significantly more likely to be in the dependent with physiological dependence category and less likely to
be in the not dependent category, χ2 (2, N = 3,809) =111.9, p < .001
Chart A4. Percentage of Students in the Family History Categories within Dependence Groups
60%
49%
47%
40%
33%
32%
20%
20%
20%
0%
Not Dependent
(n=1493)
Dependent
(n=752)
Dependent with
Physiological Dependence
(n=1564)
Negative (n=1876)
Positive (n=1933)
23
References
Agostinelli, G., Brown, J.M., & Miller, W.R. (1995). Effects of normative feedback on consumption
among heavy drinking college students. Journal of Drug Education, 25:1, 31-40.
Bachman, J. G., Johnston, L. D., & O’Malley, P. M. (1988). Explaining the recent decline in
marijuana use: differentiating the effects of perceived risks, disapproval, and the general lifestyle factors.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 92-112.
Bachman, J.G., Johnston, L. D., & O’Malley, P. M. (1998). Explaining recent increases in students’
marijuana use: Impacts of perceived risk and disapproval, 1976 through 1996. American Journal of Public
Health, 88, 887-892.
Brown, S. A., Goldman, M. S., & Christiansen, B. A. (1985). Do alcohol expectancies mediate
drinking patterns of adults? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 512-519.
Cherpitel, C. J. (1993). Alcohol, injury, and risk-taking behavior: Data from a national sample.
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 17, 762-766.
Engen, H., Richards, C., & Patterson, A. M. (1995). An evaluation of the state of Iowa’s drunk driver
education curriculum: Final Report. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa: Iowa Consortium for Substance
Abuse Research and Evaluation.
Feldman, L., Harvey, B., Holowaty, P., & Shortt, L. (1999). Alcohol use beliefs and behaviors among
high school students. Adolescent Health, 24, 48-58.
Fromme, K., Katz, E., & D’Amico, E. (1997). Effects of alcohol intoxication on the perceived
consequences of risk taking. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5, 14-23.
Hingston, R., Mangione, T., Meyers, A., & Scotch, N. (1982). Seeking help for drinking problems: A
study in the Boston metropolitan area. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 43, 273-288.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1998). National survey results on drug use from
the monitoring the future study, 1975-1995. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Nelson, J.L., Hirsch, J.A., Pendergast, D.R., & Glavy, J.S. (1999). Factors associated with planned
avoidance of alcohol-impaired driving in high-risk men. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 407-412.
Roizen, R. (1983). Loosening up: General-population views of the effects of alcohol. In Room, R.
and Collins, G. (Eds.) Alcohol and Disinhibition: Nature and Meaning of the Link. NIAAA Research
Monograph No. 12, DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 83-1246, Washington: Government Printing Office, .
236-257.
24