Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Dec 28.
Published in final edited form as: Subst Use Misuse. 2013 Oct 3;49(4):383–394. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2013.841247

TABLE 1.

Individual personalized feedback items, participant reactions to feedback, and drinking variables by severity of feedback

Serious PF (N = 30)
Average PF (N = 60)
Overall sample (N = 90)
Variable M or % (SD) M or % (SD) M or % (SD)
Feedback items
No. of standard drinks/weeka 61.3 (43.0) 36.0 (11.2) 44.4 (28.8)
Percentile rankb 97.4 (1.8) 94.5 (2.9) 95.4 (3.0)
BAC typical weekc .19 (.10) .11 (.05) .14 (.08)
Tolerance leveld
    Low 0.0 3.4 2.2
    Medium 10.0 20.3 17.0
    High 6.7 37.0 27.0
    Very high 83.3 39.0 53.9
Other drug risk
    Low 66.7 45.0 52.2
    Medium 23.3 40.0 34.4
    High 10.0 15.0 13.3
Family risk score 4.7 (3.6) 4.3 (3.1) 4.4 (3.2)
Alcohol Dependence Scale 14.6 (4.5) 12.9 (6.4) 13.4 (5.9)
Short Inventory of Problems 17.3 (8.6) 14.8 (6.9) 15.6 (7.5)
≥1 abnormal liver enzymee 63.3 27.1 39.3
Participant reactions
Developed discrepancy
    Expressed surprisef 3.0 (1.2) 3.2 (1.2) 3.16 (1.2)
    Expressed concerng 66.7 54.5 58.5
    Better tdan expectedg,h 7.4 27.3 20.7
    Worse than expectedg 51.9 47.3 49.0
Perceived accuracy of feedbackf 3.5 (0.9) 3.4 (1.0) 3.46 (1.0)
Drinking variables
Week pre-PF MDDD 6.8 (3.0) 5.9 (3.0) 6.2 (3.0)
Week post-PF MDDD 5.7 (2.7) 4.9 (2.6) 5.2 (2.6)
Pre-screen MDDDi 11.1 (6.2) 6.9 (2.1) 8.3 (4.5)
End of treatment MDDDj 5.6 (2.8) 4.2 (1.4) 4.6 (2.1)
a

t(31) = −3.17, p < .01.

b

t(88) = −4.98, p < .001.

c

t(36.3) = −3.68, p < .001.

d

χ2 (3) = 16.45, p = .001.

e

χ2 (1) = 10.93, p < .001.

f

Rated from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely).

g

Response was dichotomous yes/no.

h

χ2 (1) = 4.35, p < .05.

i

t(31) = −3.54, p < .01.

j

t(32.9) = −2.47, p < .05.