Table 3.
Post Feedback Descriptives
| NF (N=69) M (SD) or % |
PF (N=63) M (SD) or % |
|
|---|---|---|
| Surprise** | 3.2 (2.5) | 4.7 (2.8) |
| Worry | 2.6 (2.3) | 3.1 (2.2) |
| Expectation. This information was: | ||
| Better than Expected | 15.9 | 14.3 |
| As Expected | 65.2 | 49.2 |
| Worse than Expected | 18.8 | 36.5 |
| Yes, this information was new. | 45.2 | 63.5 |
| How helpful was this information about your drinking? | 5.1 (2.2) | 5.1 (2.3) |
| Belief the Feedback was Accuratea | ||
| Before given source of information | 6.2 (1.9) | 5.8 (2.5) |
| After given source of informationb | 7.1 (1.9) | 6.4 (2.3) |
| Plan for Changec | 1.7 (0.9) | 1.5 (0.6) |
| Confidence to Change Drinking | 6.2 (1.6) | 5.9 (1.9) |
| Commitment to Change Drinking | 6.4 (1.8) | 6.5 (1.4) |
a
Range was from 0 (Not at all accurate) to 5 (Somewhat accurate) to 8 (Definitely accurate).
b
Difference between belief in accuracy of feedback before and after information was given was significant (t(131) = −6.5, p < .001)
c
Anchors for plan for were 0 “I am not planning on changing my drinking” to 3 “I’m planning to quit drinking”
Note: No significant gender differences. Only significant difference by feedback type was in regards to surprise. Significant mean differences emerged: (t(130) = 3.2, p < .01);
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p < .001