Who Opts In to Alcohol Feedback and How Does That Impact Behavior? A Pilot Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Personalized feedback interventions are effective in reducing alcohol consumption and related problems. However, little is known about the role of choice in outcomes. The current study sought to (a) characterize individuals who opt in for brief alcohol-related feedback, (b) assess participants' consistency in that choice over two time points, and (c) evaluate changes in peak alcohol consumption among those who did and did not receive feedback. METHOD: Participants reporting past-12-month alcohol consumption were recruited through Prolific. At the outset of the survey, participants were asked if they would like to receive feedback on their drinking at the end of the survey ("opt in"). Participants at Time 1 (T1; N = 732) were 41% female, 91% White, and 8% Hispanic (mean age = 36, SD = 12.25, range: 18-80). A subset was invited back for a 30-day retest (Time 2 [T2]; n = 234). RESULTS: Those reporting higher maximum drinks and more drug use were more likely to opt in to feedback than those with lower use. Further, 85% of participants were consistent in their choice of whether to receive feedback across T1 and T2 (κ = .65). Among heavy drinking participants with T1 and T2 data (n = 163), there was an effect of feedback on intensity of consumption at T2. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who engage in heavy alcohol use are more likely to opt in to personalized alcohol feedback, and most do so consistently. Among heavy drinkers, feedback at T1 reduced intensity of consumption at T2, but the effect was small and requires future replication in more diverse samples.

Thinking twice about sum scores.

A common way to form scores from multiple-item scales is to sum responses of all items. Though sum scoring is often contrasted with factor analysis as a competing method, we review how factor analysis and sum scoring both fall under the larger umbrella of latent variable models, with sum scoring being a constrained version of a factor analysis. Despite similarities, reporting of psychometric properties for sum scored or factor analyzed scales are quite different. Further, if researchers use factor analysis to validate a scale but subsequently sum score the scale, this employs a model that differs from validation model. By framing sum scoring within a latent variable framework, our goal is to raise awareness that (a) sum scoring requires rather strict constraints, (b) imposing these constraints requires the same type of justification as any other latent variable model, and (c) sum scoring corresponds to a statistical model and is not a model-free arithmetic calculation. We discuss how unjustified sum scoring can have adverse effects on validity, reliability, and qualitative classification from sum score cut-offs. We also discuss considerations for how to use scale scores in subsequent analyses and how these choices can alter conclusions. The general goal is to encourage researchers to more critically evaluate how they obtain, justify, and use multiple-item scale scores.

A naturalistic study exploring mental health outcomes following trauma-focused treatment among diverse survivors of crime and violence.

BACKGROUND: Although considerable research has tested evidence-based practices in clinical trials, research is needed on the use of trauma-focused treatments by victims of crime and violence in naturalistic settings. This study investigated four trauma-focused treatments, prolonged exposure therapy (PE), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), eclectic therapy, and person-centered therapy (PCT), and assessed treatment dropout and symptom improvement over five assessment time-points. METHODS: Descriptive comparisons and pattern mixture multigroup growth models were used to assess differences between treatments on time in treatment, rate of dropout, and improvement in posttraumatic stress (PTSD) and depression symptoms in an outpatient sample of 526 clients seeking routine clinical care. RESULTS: PCT was significantly associated with the highest number of therapy sessions completed and the lowest rate of dropout (41.75%) compared to CBT and eclectic treatments. All treatment groups reported PTSD symptom improvement with no significant differences based on therapy type. For depression, the rate of improvement for clients in PCT who dropped out of treatment after session 3 was significantly steeper than the rate of improvement for clients in eclectic treatment who dropped out of treatment after session 3. Clients who stayed in treatment longer generally had larger decreases in symptoms compared to those who dropped out earlier. LIMITATIONS: The small sample size in each of the treatment groups may have limited power to detect change. CONCLUSIONS: Several trauma-focused treatments offered in a community-based setting may result in significant symptomatic improvement.