Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Dec 8;83(2):430–437. doi: 10.1037/a0038394

Table 6. Weighted mean effect sizes and homogeneity statistics for in-person vs. computer-delivered personalized feedback interventions at follow-ups.

Study Sample Size Weighted effect sizes (d)
In Person
PFI
Computer- delivered PFI ddrinksweek dquantity dfrequency dBAC dproblems
Short Follow-up
Alfonso, Hall, & Dunn (2013) 53 48 -- 0.22 -- 0.10 −0.17
Alfonso, Hall, & Dunn (2013) 72 48 -- −0.04 -- −0.17 −0.37
Butler & Correia (2009) 28 30 −0.31 −0.31 −0.08 -- 0.09
Doumas & Hannah (2008) 40 38 -- −0.11 −0.19 -- --
Doumas, Workman, Navarro, & Smith (2011b) 21 16 −0.75 −0.53 −0.24 -- −0.71
Juarez, Walters, Daugherty, & Radi (2006) 15 20 -- −0.36 -- -- 0.38
Murphy, Dennhardt, Skidmore, Martens, & McDevitt-Murphy (2010) 41 38 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.27
Walters, Vader, Harris, Field, & Jouriles (2009) 70 58 0.13 0.13 -- −0.08 −0.07
Walton et al. (2010) 204 201 -- -- −0.14 -- −0.01
White, Mun, Pugh, & Morgan (2007) 164 154 0.03 0.03 0.01 −0.17 0.16
Random-effects
d+ (95% CI)
-.04 (-.29, .20) -.01 (-.12, .13) -.07 (-.21, .06) -.09 (-.24, .06) -.06 (-.24, .12)
Long Follow-up
Cunningham et al. (2012) 204 201 -- -- −0.21 -- −0.02
Doumas, Workman, Smith, & Navarro (2011a) 36 47 0.19 0.13 0.24 -- −0.09
Monti et al. (2007) 78 83 0.30 0.30 0.26 -- 0.02
Murphy et al., (2004) 24 27 0.02 0.02 −0.10 -- 0.01
Walters, Vader, Harris, Field, & Jouriles (2009) 67 54 0.18 0.18 -- 0.04 −0.07
White, Mun, Pugh, & Morgan (2007) 113 106 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.27
Random-effects 0.19 0.18 0.07 0.13 0.05
d+ (95% CI) (0.03, 0.34) (0.02, 0.34) (−0.15, 0.28) (−0.08, 0.35) (−0.09, 0.18)

Note. PFI = Personalized Feedback Intervention. -- indicates that data was not provided on the outcome. Positive effect sizes favor in- person (IPFIs). Bold indicates significant effects (p < .05).

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure