Personalized Feedback After Alcohol Health Education for Members of Greek Life (GREEK Study)
Phase: PHASE1
Conditions: College Student Drinking
Sponsor: Abby Braitman

 
 
Study Protocol 
 
 
Personalized Feedback After Alcohol Health Education for Members of Greek Life (GREEK 
Study) 
 
NCT05107284 
 
July 7, 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. 
 
Primary Aims 
The current project seeks to build on past progress by further developing and refining the 
booster. In particular, the current project is an extension of previous work by expanding the 
investigation into complete social networks (students involved in Greek life). This booster 
contains feedback about alcohol use tailored to the recipient, and will be emailed 2, 6, 10, and 14 
weeks after baseline (experimental condition), or not at all (control condition). This study will be 
conducted specifically with students who are members of fraternities or sororities (specifically, 
those in the organizations that agree to participate). This population engages in heavy alcohol 
use, so is ideal for an alcohol intervention. Members of fraternities and sororities (i.e., "Greek 
life") engage in more frequent drinking, consume more when drinking, and have higher peak 
drinking occasions than students not involved in Greek life. We aim to administer the 
intervention and associated booster among complete networks of Greek organizations to examine 
how the intervention and booster progress through social networks. Moreover, given the close 
connections among members of fraternities and sororities, these may be closed peer networks 
that could facilitate the examination of how changes in drinking occur through social influence. 
In other words, we can potentially examine if change happens through selection (i.e., 
transitioning into friendships with individuals who are similar), such that those who drink less 
after the intervention change who they drink with to those individuals in the organization who 
also drink less; or socialization (i.e., becoming more similar to individuals who one spends time 
with), or drinking less through peer influence because participants may drink less to match the 
individuals they drink with, who are drinking less after the intervention and booster.  
Thus, the current study has two primary aims (to be examined regardless of study 
outcomes or participation rates) and an exploratory, secondary aim (to be examined only if the 
booster is efficacious and the majority of members for each organization enrolled complete the 
study). Primary Aim 1: We will examine the efficacy of a personalized feedback booster emailed 
after eCHECKUP TO GO for Alcohol among members of fraternities and sororities. We expect 
initial post-intervention drinking reductions for both study conditions, with individuals in the 
booster condition reporting further reductions at later follow-ups. Primary Aim 2: Given the 
focus on perceived descriptive norms and protective behavioral strategies in the personalized 

feedback boosters, we will examine if the booster impacts changes in those constructs over time. 
We expect individuals in the booster condition will report further reductions in norms and 
increases in protective behavioral strategies at later follow-ups. Exploratory, Secondary Aim: If 
the emailed booster is efficacious and the majority of members for each organization enrolled 
complete the study, we will examine social mechanisms of change (i.e., through selection versus 
socialization). 
 
Participant population 
 
Eligible participants must 1) be 18 years of age or older, 2) be an undergraduate student 
at a participating institution; and 3) be a member of a participating fraternity or sorority. Power 
analyses were conducted using Monte Carlo simulation methods within Mplus (version 5.21, 
Muthén & Muthén, 2002). Effect sizes, variance, and covariances used were based on data from 
a preliminary study with a similar protocol (some participants receiving the intervention only, 
others receiving the intervention plus booster) among college drinkers (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 is sent to presidents of fraternities and sororities at the participating institutions. 
We explain the purpose and design of the study, share relevant approvals (IRB, NIH Certificate 
of Confidentiality, etc.), and explain the benefits of participation, including monetary 
compensation. Presidents who opt in for their chapter’s participation share membership lists 
(names and email addresses). Names on membership lists are used for social network assessment 
in each survey (described in more detail in the Measures section below). Research staff then send 
recruitment emails to all members in participating organizations. This email contains similar 
content as the email sent to chapter presidents (i.e., study purpose and design, relevant approvals, 
compensation structure). We also ask chapter presidents if we may attend a chapter meeting to 
describe the study in more detail and answer questions. Some but not all organizations have 
chosen to do this so far. Undergraduate research assistants who are also members of Greek life 
make these visits. Recruitment emails include a link to Calendly to schedule their participation 
for the baseline session via Zoom.  
 
Study Procedure 
Members of Greek life are recruited via email as described above. 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 to be paid $20. 
Participants are invited to complete additional 1-, 3-, and 6-month assessments, and receive $5 
for each completed follow-up survey. As an additional incentive, participants who complete all 
assessments will be given a $5 bonus (yielding a $40 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), and 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, alcohol-related cognitions (motives, 
expectancies, and beliefs about alcohol use), social network characteristics, cannabis and tobacco 
use, COVID-19 pandemic experiences, internalizing symptoms, and demographic measures. 
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, 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, 
social network characteristics, and cannabis 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 additional emails from the 
researcher, depending on their study condition. For the intervention-plus-booster study condition, 
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), 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, and 14 weeks 
after baseline. Participants in the intervention-only control condition do not receive any feedback 
via email. Participants are assigned to study condition at the group level, so that an entire 
organization receives the booster emails (or the entire organization does not).  
 
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 the Protective Drinking Practices Scale (PDPS; Martin et al., 2020). 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). 
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). They are asked 
to list the top 5 people they consider their closest friends in their organization, and are presented 
with dropdown menus to list other members of their organization. There are also two write-in 
boxes to list individuals outside of their organization they consider a very close friend. Cannabis 
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/cannabis 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, GPA, class standing, military affiliation, first generation college student status, athletic 
status, 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 
Martin, J. L., Colvin, K. F., Madson, M. B., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2020). Optimal assessment of 
protective behavioral strategies among college drinkers: The Protective Drinking 
Practices Scale (PDPS). Psychological Assessment, 32, 394-406. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000799  
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  
Scott-Sheldon, L. A. J., Carey, K. B., Elliott, J. C., & Garey, L., & Carey, M P. (2014). Efficacy 
of alcohol interventions for first-year college students: A meta-analytic review of 
randomized controlled trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(2), 177-
188. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035192  
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 
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.