Prevention Program Factors and Elements Underlying Decreases in Binge Drinking at Institutions of Higher Education

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/prevent.html[9/23/2014 11:15:48 AM]

ONDCP Seal

Prevention

Strategies

Principles

Research

Programs

Resources

Drug-Free

 Workplace

Policy

Prevention Program Factors and Elements Underlying

Decreases in Binge Drinking at Institutions of Higher

Education 

Andris Ziemelis, Ed.D.

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

Abstract

In this study, the Core Survey was used to identify 117 schools where binge drinking

either increased or decreased during implementation of FIPSE-sponsored InstitutionWide Drug Prevention Programs. The 43 schools that increased in binge drinking

were compared with the 74 schools that decreased using 86 prevention program

elements. The 24 elements that were found to discriminate between the two groups

were factor-analyzed. Factor loadings revealed that most of the variance in effective

approaches to prevention of binge drinking was explained by three types of

prevention strategies: (a) student participation and involvement strategies, (b)

educational/ informational strategies, and (c) regulatory strategies.

One prevention program outcome of great current interest is longitudinal change in

binge drinking at institutions of higher education. Recent statistics reported by the

Harvard School of Public Health, and by the Core Institute, show that binge drinking

by students remains a significant problem at institutions of higher education. Such

findings support the need for studies that can identify the factors underlying effective

efforts to prevent binge drinking.

The research question in this retrospective, causal-comparative analysis was: "What

explains the variance in pre to posttest changes in binge drinking among FIPSEsponsored drug prevention programs?" Figure 1 shows a notable difference in

posttest binge drinking Means for schools that increased versus those that

decreased in binge drinking during the grant period. It also shows that at pretest,

both groups of schools had similar binge drinking rates. Additionally, group

comparisons on other substance use and use-related variables, student

characteristics, and institutional demographics yielded no significant differences.

Finally, comparisons using posttest data also obtained no significant differences

between the binge drinking increase and decrease groups with respect to student

characteristics and institutional demographics. Given these findings, what accounts

for the differential longitudinal changes in binge drinking among programs? Program

activity content analysis, using the system of drug prevention themes and theme

elements developed by the La Crosse Drug Prevention Program Analysis Project,

provides some answers.

Prevention element frequency comparisons (t-tests for independent means) between

schools that increased and schools that decreased in binge drinking during FIPSE

sponsorship yielded the results shown in Table 1. First, these results confirm that our

system of prevention theme elements was sensitive to changes in binge drinking

over time. Of the of 86 prevention elements tested, 24 were found to discriminate

1
Prevention Program Factors and Elements Underlying Decreases in Binge Drinking at Institutions of Higher Education

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/prevent.html[9/23/2014 11:15:48 AM]

between the binge drinking increase and decrease groups (p<.10). Second, the

theme elements in Table 1, which describe the prevention program emphases of

schools where binge drinking decreased, encompass a wide array of programming

directed toward changing the campus social /cultural, regulatory, and physical

environments. Upon preliminary review, these findings suggest that a mixture of

educational/informational, regulatory, and student participation and involvement

strategies underlies successful efforts to decrease binge drinking. The next section

delves further into the relationships between prevention programming and decreases

in binge drinking.

Factor Analysis of Program Elements Associated with Decreased Binge

Drinking

Theme elements that best discriminated between binge drinking increase and

decrease were factor-analyzed. Principal Components Analysis, with Varimax

Rotation, identified ten factors that accounted for 81% of the variance in successful

approaches to prevention of binge drinking. Listed in order of importance based on

variance explained, the factors were: (a) Changing Social/Cultural Environment

through Information and Education; (b) Student Participation and Involvement in

Program Development and Implementation; (c) Policy Enforcement; (d) Student

Participation in AOD Dramas, Skits, Role Plays; (e) Student Participation in

Volunteer Service Activities; (f) Policy Dissemination; (g) Curriculum Infusion; (h)

Changing Campus Physical Environment; (i) Conducting Summative Evaluation; and

(j) Providing Information through AOD Resource Centers, Collections, or Libraries. In

short, programs emphasizing prevention activities associated with the above factors

decreased most in binge drinking over time.

Further inspection of the prevention factors and their loadings revealed that most of

the variance in successful efforts to reduce binge drinking was, in fact, captured by

the three types of prevention strategies cited earlier; namely, (a) student participation

and involvement strategies, (b) educational and informational strategies, and (c)

regulatory strategies.

Student Participation and Involvement Strategies

About 42% of the variance in successful approaches was explained by factors

containing elements that reflected student participation and involvement strategies.

Examples include: (a) student volunteerism and service, (b) student participation on

committees/task forces/advisory boards, (c) collaboration within a group of

students/staff, (d) student participation in AOD dramas, skits, and role plays, (e) and

student participation in parties, dances, or socials. Because student participation and

involvement strategies accounted for such a large part of the variance in successful

efforts to reduce binge drinking, they should be considered fundamental to programs,

regardless of their other emphases.

Educational/Informational Strategies

About 31% of the variance in successful approaches was explained by factors

containing elements that reflected educational/informational strategies such as: (a)

AOD instruction in faculty-taught classes (Curriculum Infusion); (b) Curriculum

Infusion training for faculty/staff; (c) use of various tangible displays such as AOD

bulletin boards, literature racks, and displays; (d) demonstrations or graphic displays;

and (e) use of AOD Resource Centers, collections, and libraries. Most of these

approaches were directed toward changing the campus social/cultural environment,

and many involved efforts to influence campus norms regarding substance use. Also,

the more effective educational and informational strategies avoided "hard sell,"

pressure-oriented approaches to persuasion. The latter findings make sense from a

student developmental perspective, and are consistent with results from our earlier

analyses which stressed importance of using interactive educational approaches with

students rather than top-down, or uni-directional ones.

Regulatory Strategies
Prevention Program Factors and Elements Underlying Decreases in Binge Drinking at Institutions of Higher Education

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/prevent.html[9/23/2014 11:15:48 AM]

Regulatory strategies accounted for another 20% of the variance in most successful

approaches to prevention of binge drinking, and included activities such as policy

dissemination and enforcement. The most successful efforts of this kind often involve

students in the process. For example, policy enforcement advocated by students is

preferred to enforcement imposed by administrators or others without student input.

This observation is also supported by an earlier project finding that strategies

focusing on discouraging or deglamorizing substance use consistently yielded better

program outcomes than those which attempted to ban or restrict substance use.

Again, these results make sense from a student developmental perspective.

Other Strategies

The remaining variance in most effective approaches (about 9%) was accounted for

by efforts to change the physical campus environment. Examples include

establishing coffee houses, providing drug-free dorms, and offering AOD-free

recreational facilities for students.

Program Effectiveness: Competing Interpretations, and Recommendations

Our sample of schools with FIPSE-sponsored programs obtained an overall posttest

binge drinking Mean of 37.5% (Standard Error of 1.1%). This binge drinking

percentage is significantly lower than Henry Wechsler's 1997 binge drinking statistic

of 42.7% based on a national probability sample. Furthermore, FIPSE-sponsored

schools, where binge drinking decreased during the grant period, obtained an even

lower binge drinking average of 34.6% (8.1% below the current national binge

drinking average). And, even those schools where binge drinking increased over time

obtained a binge drinking Mean close to the current national average. While these

findings appear to support effectiveness of FIPSE-sponsored Drug Prevention

Programs, it can also be argued that schools with such programs may have been

more proactively oriented or motivated to prevent binge drinking, than schools

without grant support.

Lastly, because neither student characteristics nor institutional demographics

explained the significant institutional variation in binge drinking change over time,

serious consideration should be given to the above prevention factors and elements

that explained such variation. These factors and elements deserve further scrutiny.

Their activity referents should be isolated and subjected to further analysis, and they

should be evaluated against other outcomes such as changes in marijuana use,

other illegal drug use, incidence of public misconduct, and student perceptions of

others' substance use. Such analyses may encourage needed research, and may

lead to greater understanding of the prevention factors and elements underlying

program success.

Figure 1. Analysis of Changes in Binge Drinking Among Institution-Wide

Programs
Prevention Program Factors and Elements Underlying Decreases in Binge Drinking at Institutions of Higher Education

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/prevent.html[9/23/2014 11:15:48 AM]

Theme Element p

Changing Campus Social/Cultural Environment .057

Educating and Informing About Health and Wellness .032

Discouraging or Deglamorizing AOD Use/Abuse .100

AOD Bulletin Boards, Literature Racks, or Displays .005

Demonstrations or Graphic Displays .007

Promotional Items (T-Shirts, Hats, Key Rings) .062

Live Presentation, Lecture, or Speech .078

AOD Resource Centers, Collections and Libraries .066

Plays, Skits, Dramatizations or Role Plays .054

Student Participation in Volunteer Service Activities .007

Student Participation in AOD Dramas, Skits, and Role Plays .015

Collaboration Within a Group of Students/Staff .064

Student Participation on Committees/Task Forces .084

Volunteer Activity .007

Steering/Advisory Board Meetings .027

Conducting Summative Program Evaluation .034

Changing the Campus Regulatory Environment .020

Policy Dissemination .017

Policy Enforcement .086

Analysis of Changes in Binge Drinking

Table 1. Theme Elements Associated with Decreased Binge Drinking2
Prevention Program Factors and Elements Underlying Decreases in Binge Drinking at Institutions of Higher Education

file:///C|/Users/mames/Desktop/test/lps110655/prevent.html[9/23/2014 11:15:48 AM]

AOD Classes as Part of Intervention Effort .016

Changing Campus Physical Environment .080

Parties, Dances, Socials and Coffee Houses .081

Curriculum Infusion in Faculty Taught Classes .048

Curriculum Infusion Training for Faculty .017

1 Use of multiple t-tests may increase Type 1 error. The 86 tests in

this analysis could have yielded 8.6 false significant findings (p<.10) by

chance. The 25 significant results obtained, however, exceed this

chance expectation.

2 Probabilities in this table are one-tailed.

Copyright © 1999 by Andris Ziemelis

Return to Selected Articles

PRIVACY POLICY | DISCLAIMER

Last Updated: March 4, 2002