Timing Personalized Feedback After Alcohol Health Education
Phase: PHASE1
Conditions: College Student Drinking
Sponsor: Abby Braitman

 
 
Study Protocol 
 
 
Timing Personalized Feedback after Alcohol Health Education 
 
NCT04453007 
June 23, 2022 
 
 

Principal Investigator: 
 
 
 
 
Abby L. Braitman, Ph.D. 
 
Description and Purpose of the Project 
Heavy episodic alcohol use within the college student population is widespread, creating 
problems for student drinkers, their peers, and their institutions. Negative consequences from 
heavy alcohol use can be mild (e.g., hangovers, missed classes), to severe (e.g., assault, even 
death). Although online interventions targeting college student drinking reduce alcohol 
consumption and associated problems, they are not as effective as in-person interventions. 
Online interventions are cost-effective, offer privacy, reduce stigma, and may reach individuals 
who would otherwise not receive treatment. In a recently completed randomized, controlled trial, 
an emailed booster with personalized feedback improved the efficacy of a popular online 
intervention (Braitman & Henson, 2016). A second randomized, controlled trial confirmed 
efficacy for students of legal drinking age for a longer timeline (Braitman & Lau-Barraco, 2018). 
Although promising, the booster incorporated in the study needs further empirical refinement. In 
particular, it is not known if boosters are most efficacious if administered when the intervention 
effect is still strong, or as the intervention effect begins to wane. Thus, an empirical question is 
the optimal timing of the second dose.. [Findings from Study 2 should elucidate students’ peak 
receptivity by identifying the delivery timing with the highest efficacy.] 
 
Primary Aims 
The current project seeks to build on past progress by further developing and refining the 
booster. In particular, to identify the most efficacious timing for sending the feedback. The 
content will be similar across conditions, but will be disseminated at different times to identify 
the most impactful timeline. This study compares booster delivery at 2 weeks after the 
intervention (known to be effective; Braitman & Henson, 2016; Braitman & Lau-Barraco, 2018) 
to delivery at week 14 (known to be the window when intervention effects wane based on meta-
analysis; Carey et al., 2012), and delivery at weeks 6 or 10 (the midpoints between these two 
empirically-supported times). A fifth group will receive the booster at all four delivery times as a 
repeated administration comparison. Finally, an intervention-only control group will also be 
used. Thus, there will be 6 study conditions: those who receive the emailed feedback 2, 6, 10, or 
14 weeks after baseline, or at all of those times, or not at all (control). Thus, the aim of the 
current study is to identify optimal timing for sending the tailored booster feedback via booster 
email. 
 
Participant population 
 
Eligible participants must 1) have consumed at least 1 drink containing alcohol within 2 
weeks prior to participation; 2) be between the ages of 18-24 years old; 3) must be an 
undergraduate student at the host institution; and 4) [prior to 3/29/21] were enrolled in classes 
that were in-person or hybrid [had an in-person component] OR [after 3/29/21] have consumed 
alcohol in person with others in the past 30 days. Note that this last criterion was developed in 
response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Attending classes in person was viewed as a proxy 
for willingness to gather with others in person, potentially drinking with others in person as well. 
However, study enrollment was slow, and relatively few students were taking classes in person. 
Thus, we decided to switch to a more direct assessment of social drinking, including enrolling 

online students in the study if they reported drinking alcohol with others in person. Power 
analyses were conducted using Monte Carlo simulation methods within Mplus (version 5.21, 
Muthén & Muthén). Effect sizes, variance, and covariances used were based on data from a 
preliminary study with similar eligibility criteria using the same booster content (Braitman & 
Henson, 2016; Braitman & Lau-Barraco, 2018). We estimated a retention rate of 76%, the 
average reported in a meta-analysis of RCTs assessing alcohol interventions for first-year college 
students (Scott-Sheldon et al., 2014). Monte Carlo simulation methods indicated that for the 
effect size expected (b = 6.57, β = 0.537) and for the expected 24% attrition, a sample size of N = 
180 total students should yield sufficient power (.80+) to detect booster effects. 
 
Recruitment Procedure 
An email describing the study is sent to undergraduate students at ODU ages 18-24 who 
have enrolled in at least 1 credit hour, and includes a link to a screener survey. In addition to 
eligibility criteria (age, student status, if they drink with others, and alcohol consumed) 
additional irrelevant questions are included in the screener survey to discourage ineligible 
participants from re-taking the screener survey with different answers. Eligible participants can 
provide their contact information (name, email, and phone number) and are linked to Calendly to 
schedule their participation in the baseline protocol via Zoom.  
 
Study Procedure 
Emerging adult college drinkers are recruited via email as described above. After 
completing the screener to verify eligibility, participants schedule their participation time 
through an online time management system (Calendly). They receive an email reminder from the 
Calendly system 24 hours before their assigned timeslot. After participating in the fully remote 
baseline session via Zoom, participants are be paid $20. They are also be invited to complete 
follow-up surveys for additional money. Participants are invited to complete 1-, 3-, 6-, and 9-
month assessments, and receive $10 for each completed follow-up survey. As an additional 
incentive, participants who complete all assessments will be given a $10 bonus (yielding a $70 
total for the study if all follow-ups are completed). All monetary compensation is provided via 
online gift card to Amazon. 
Baseline: Participants sign on to Zoom via the link provided during their assigned 
timeslot. Upon signing into the Zoom meeting, the research assistants provide a link (using the 
chat function) directing them to a Qualtrics survey. Participants read and view videos of the 
study procedures on the first page of this website. The videos have been created in Powtoon, 
using voiceover and images that are not related to a specific gender or race/ethnicity. After 
reviewing the videos, participants are provided with the informed consent document (on a 
subsequent page of the survey), will have the opportunity to ask questions during the live Zoom 
session with the research assistant. After consenting to participate, they are directed to complete 
the baseline survey (approximately 30-45 minutes). All participants will complete this 
computerized survey that assesses alcohol use, alcohol-related problems, protective behavioral 
strategies for drinking and their perceived effectiveness, motives and expectancies for alcohol 
use, anonymized social network characteristics, context of their most recent drinking occasion, 
marijuana and tobacco use, COVID-19 experiences, internalizing symptoms, and demographic 

measures. Through a mechanism of the survey, participants are randomly assigned to one of six 
possible conditions regarding the timing of receiving emailed personalized feedback about their 
alcohol use. After completing the initial assessment, participants are then be directed to navigate 
through the eCHECKUP TO GO program (San Diego State University Research Foundation, 
2018) until it is completed (approximately 20-30 minutes).  
Subsequent assessments: Approximately 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after the initial assessment, 
researchers send each participant an email reminding them to complete the follow-up 
assessment. This email includes a link to an online follow-up survey that assesses alcohol use, 
related problems, protective behavioral strategies for drinking and their perceived effectiveness, 
anonymized social network characteristics, context of their most recent drinking occasion, and 
marijuana and tobacco use. If participants provide additional ways to contact them during the 
baseline survey (a second email address, a phone number to text), these methods are also used to 
send the link to the follow-up surveys. 
Boosters: After the intervention, participants receive an additional email from the 
researcher, depending on their study condition. For five study conditions, these emails contain 
personalized normative feedback about alcohol use as well as feedback about harm reduction 
strategies, serving as a booster to the original intervention. Baseline data are used to provide 
students with normative information (e.g., typical drinking among ODU students who are 
male/female depending on the gender of the recipient), and reminders of protective behavioral 
strategies they can use to reduce drinking-related harm (separated by strategies they have 
reported using recently versus those they might consider trying). This is received at 2 weeks, 6 
weeks, 10 weeks, or 14 weeks after baseline for study conditions 1-4 respectively. This is 
received at all of those times for some participations (the 5th study condition). Participants in the 
control condition (6th study condition) do not receive any feedback via email. 
 
Measures 
The same measures are included in baseline and the follow-up surveys: 
Participants’ alcohol use is assessed using a modified version of the Daily Drinking 
Questionnaire for the past 30 days (Collins et al., 1985). Additionally, participants describe 
specific aspects regarding their drinking in the past 30 days (e.g., highest consumption in a single 
day). Descriptive Norms are assessed by modifying the DDQ to reflect their expectations for 
typical male students at the same institution, typical female students at the same institution, and 
close friends. Injunctive Norms are assessed using 10 items (Carey et al., 2010). Alcohol-
related problems are assessed using the 24-item Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences 
Questionnaire (BYAACQ; Kahler et al., 2005). Protective behavioral strategy (PBS) use is 
assessed using Sugarman and Carey’s (2007) Strategy Questionnaire. Alcohol expectancies are 
assessed using the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol questionnaire (CEOA; Fromme et al., 
1993). Motives for alcohol use are assessed using the Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ; 
Cooper, 1994). Alcohol beliefs about how salient alcohol use is to college life are assessed using 
the College Life Alcohol Salience Scale (CLASS; Osberg et al., 2010). Questions about their 
Social media use were created by the researcher. Social network and affiliated characteristics 
are assessed using the adapted version (DeMartini et al., 2013) of the Brief Important People 

Interview (BIPI; Zywiak et al., 2002). Marijuana use is assessed using recommended best 
practices (Prince, 2019), and tobacco use is assessed using items created by the researcher. 
Perceived Importance of Marijuana to the College Experience Scale (PIMCES; Pearson et 
al., 2017) is used to assess how salient marijuana is to college life. Questions about participants’ 
experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic were created by the researchers. Symptoms of 
depression are assessed using the short version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies 
Depression scale (CESD-10; Andresen et al., 1994), altered to reflect the past 30 days. Anxiety 
is assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006), modified to 
reflect the past 30 days. Stress is assessed using the psychological vulnerability subscale of the 
Perceived Stress Scale – Revised (PSS-R; Wickrama et al., 2013), modified to reflect the past 30 
days. COVID-19-specific stress is assessed using the COVID-19 Stress measure (Ellis et al., 
2020). Demographics and general information are assessed during the initial assessment only. 
Participants report their age, race, sex, Greek affiliation (i.e., membership in fraternities or 
sororities), GPA, class standing, athletic status student status (full- versus part-time), residential 
status, relationship status, sexual identity, height, and weight (for blood alcohol content 
calculations).  
 
 

References 
Andresen, E. M., Malmgren, J. A., Carter, W. B., & Patrick, D. L. (1994). Screening for 
depression in well older adults: Evaluation of a short form of the CES-D.  American 
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10(2), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-
3797(18)30622-6 
Braitman, A. L., & Henson, J. M. (2016). Personalized boosters for a computerized intervention 
targeting college drinking: The influence of protective behavioral strategies. Journal of 
American College Health, 64(7), 509-519. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2016.1185725 
Braitman, A. L., & Lau-Barraco, C. (2018). Personalized boosters after a computerized 
intervention targeting college drinking: A randomized controlled trial. Alcoholism: 
Clinical and Experimental Research, 42(9), 1735-1747. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13815 
 
Carey, K. B., Henson, J. M., Carey, M. P., & Maisto, S. A. (2010). Perceived norms mediate 
effects of a brief motivational intervention for sanctioned college drinkers. Clinical 
Psychology: Science and Practice, 17, 58-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01194.x 
Carey, K. B., Scott-Sheldon, L. A. J., Elliott, J. C., Garey, L., & Carey, M. P. (2012). Face-to-
face versus computer-delivered alcohol interventions for college drinkers: A meta-
analytic review, 1998 to 2010. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(8), 690-703. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.08.001 
Collins, R. L., Parks, G. A., & Marlatt, G. A. (1985). Social determinants of alcohol 
consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration 
of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(2), 189-200. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.53.2.189 
Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and 
validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 117–128. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.2.117 
Core Institute. (2006). American Campuses: 2006 Statistics on Alcohol and Other Drug Use. 
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. 
DeMartini, K. S., Prince, M. A., & Carey, K. B. (2013). Identification of trajectories of social 
network composition change and the relationship to alcohol consumption and norms.  
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 132, 309-315. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.020 
Ellis, W. E., Dumas, T. M., & Forbes, L. M. (2020). Physically isolated but socially connected: 
Psychological adjustment and stress among adolescents during the initial COVID-19 
crisis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 52(3), 177-187. 
https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000215  
Fromme, K., Stroot, E. A., & Kaplan, D. (1993). Comprehensive effects of alcohol: 
Development and psychometric assessment of a new expectancy questionnaire. 
Psychological Assessment, 5(1), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.1.19 

Kahler, C. W., Strong, D. R., & Read, J. P. (2005). Toward efficient and comprehensive 
measurement of the alcohol problems continuum in college students: The Brief Young 
Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental 
Research, 29(7), 1180–1189. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ALC.0000171940.95813.A5 
Muthén, L. K., & & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide (8 edition). Muthén & 
Muthén. 
Osberg, T. M., Atkins, L., Buchholz, L., Shirshova, V., Swiantek, A., Whitley, J., et al. (2010). 
Development and validation of the College Life Alcohol Salience Scale: A measure of 
beliefs about the role of alcohol in college life. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 
24(1),1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018197 
Pearson, M. R., Kholodkov, T., Gray, M. J., & The Marijuana Outcomes Study Team. (2017). 
Perceived Importance of Marijuana to the College Experience Scale (PIMCES): Initial 
development and validation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 78(2), 319-324. 
https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2017.78.319 
Prince, M. A. (2019, July). A Modified Timeline Followback for Cannabis: A simple 
comprehensive cannabis use assessment. 3rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the Research 
Society on Marijuana, Vancouver, Washington.  
San Diego State University Research Foundation. (2018). eCHECKUP TO GO [Online 
program]. http://www.echeckuptogo.com/programs/alcohol  
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Lowe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing 
generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166, 1092-1097. 
https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 
Sugarman, D. E., & Carey, K. B. (2007). The relationship between drinking control strategies 
and college student alcohol use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(3), 338-345. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164x.21.3.338 
Wickrama, K. A. S., Ralston, P. A., O'Neal, C. W., Ilich, J. Z., Harris, C. M., Coccia, C., Young-
Clark, I., & Lemacks, J. (2013). Linking life dissatisfaction to health behaviors of older 
African Americans through psychological competency and vulnerability. Research on 
Aging, 35(5), 591-611. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0164027512449473 
Zwyiak, W.H., & Longabaugh, R. (2002). The Brief Important People Interview Manual. Center 
for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Providence, RI.