View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Sex Differences in the Acceptability and Short-Term Outcomes of a Web-Based Personalized Feedback Alcohol Intervention for High School Seniors

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Sex Differences in the Acceptability and Short-Term Outcomes of a Web-Based Personalized Feedback Alcohol Intervention for High School Seniors
Language: English
Authors: Doumas, Diana M. (ORCID 0000-0002-0714-4723), Esp, Susan, Turrisi, Rob (ORCID 0000-0002-7178-7205), Bond, Laura, Porchia, Sherise, Flay, Brian (ORCID 0000-0002-5209-2766)
Source: Psychology in the Schools. Nov 2020 57(11):1724-1740.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2020
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (NIH)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIH//DHHS)
Contract Number: R21AA023880
0619793
0923535
P20GM103408
P20GM109095
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Gender Differences, Drinking, High School Seniors, Program Effectiveness, Intervention, Student Attitudes, Usability, Feedback (Response)
DOI: 10.1002/pits.22422
ISSN: 0033-3085
Abstract: Despite the escalation of alcohol use through high school, the majority of research on school-based alcohol interventions has been conducted with junior high students or first and second-year high school students. Preliminary research indicates a brief, web-based personalized feedback intervention developed for college students (eCHECKUP TO GO) may be a promising program for high school seniors. Although these studies demonstrate positive intervention effects, there is some evidence for greater program efficacy for females in this age group. The current study investigates sex differences in program acceptability of the eCHECKUP TO GO and its relationship to short-term alcohol outcomes among high school seniors (N=135). Overall, the majority of students reported they found the program to be acceptable (i.e., user-friendly and useful). However, contrary to our hypothesis, results indicated that male students reported significantly higher perceptions of program acceptability than females. Although we did not find sex differences in alcohol outcomes, program user-friendliness was related to reductions in alcohol use for males. The results of this study add to the literature supporting the eCHECKUP TO GO for high school seniors and highlight the importance of program user-friendliness for males. Implications for implementing the program as a school-based intervention are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1269969
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF8t85Ye4zLWRsxogwa1L7dAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKWAvKDtNwLCFx7WcQIBEICBm_JKBHUVP6L_-A5Qv5fUnJjlkCSTGbGjo3sqx4HyJJfXJ3IPNe6ELxOuv3s7ZrXbXnt0Sdz5qMpL1AMoK2aYXOeMppqsvMTt3HGhHCiKg6uDnTwvA338YzgAsFXS-MpPJdHTz9eO7hIxN95Ww3lMfgGkDTLg5bDr1px_UkSCC7SJuSkMo1hjHnmo92Lo4ExckrVw2V4X8VvRy36v
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0146252285;pis01nov.20;2020Oct07.05:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0146252285-1">Sex differences in the acceptability and short‐term outcomes of a web‐based personalized feedback alcohol intervention for high school seniors </title> <p>Despite the escalation of alcohol use through high school, the majority of research on school‐based alcohol interventions has been conducted with junior high students or first and second‐year high school students. Preliminary research indicates a brief, web‐based personalized feedback intervention developed for college students (eCHECKUP TO GO) may be a promising program for high school seniors. Although these studies demonstrate positive intervention effects, there is some evidence for greater program efficacy for females in this age group. The current study investigates sex differences in program acceptability of the eCHECKUP TO GO and its relationship to short‐term alcohol outcomes among high school seniors (N = 135). Overall, the majority of students reported they found the program to be acceptable (i.e., user‐friendly and useful). However, contrary to our hypothesis, results indicated that male students reported significantly higher perceptions of program acceptability than females. Although we did not find sex differences in alcohol outcomes, program user‐friendliness was related to reductions in alcohol use for males. The results of this study add to the literature supporting the eCHECKUP TO GO for high school seniors and highlight the importance of program user‐friendliness for males. Implications for implementing the program as a school‐based intervention are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: alcohol; high school; personalized feedback; web‐based</p> <p>Adolescent alcohol use is a significant problem in the United States, with nearly 60% of students reporting alcohol use by the end of high school (Johnston et al., 2019). Alcohol use in high school is associated with a wide range of negative consequences including interpersonal problems, unwanted sexual activity (Arata, Stafford, & Tims, 2003), dating violence, suicide attempts (Miller, Naimi, Brewer, & Jones, 2007), and impaired neurocognitive functioning (Hanson, Medina, Padula, Tapert, & Brown, 2011; Nguyen‐Louie et al., 2015). In addition, high school alcohol use is associated with poor school attendance (Patte, Qian, & Leatherdale, 2017), academic problems (Balsa et al., 2011; Rasberry et al., 2017), and failure to complete high school (Kelly et al., 2015; Townsend, Flisher, & King, 2007; Wang & Fredricks, 2014).</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-2">HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS</hd> <p>National survey data indicate alcohol use escalates through high school with the highest rates of drinking reported by high school seniors (Johnston et al., 2019). Specifically, 30.2% of high school seniors surveyed reported using alcohol within the past 30 days, and 42.9% of high school seniors reported being drunk at least once in their lifetime (Johnston et al., 2019). Furthermore, hazardous drinking is more prevalent among older high school students, with risky drinking practices (i.e., drinking games) peaking at ages 17–19 (Borsari et al., 2013; Zamboanga et al., 2016). Hazardous drinking is also associated with a wide range of negative consequences and high‐risk behavior including having a hangover, passing out, engaging in regretted sexual activities, and drinking and driving (Borsari et al., 2013).</p> <p>Research indicates there is a need for evidence‐based practices for addressing adolescent alcohol use (Burrow‐Sanchez, Jenson, & Clark, 2009). This may be particularly true for high school seniors who report the highest rates of drinking (Johnston et al., 2019) and hazardous drinking behavior (Borsari et al., 2013). Despite the need for alcohol interventions for high school seniors, a seminal review of alcohol preventive interventions concluded that there is limited research conducted with high school students aged 16 and older (Spoth, Greenberg, & Turrisi, 2008). Similarly, more recent reviews indicate that the majority of alcohol intervention research targets junior high school students (Strøm, Adolfsen, Fossum, Kaiser, & Martinussen, 2014) or students in their first 2 years of high school (Champion, Newton, Barrett, & Teesson, 2013). These findings, coupled with the high rates of alcohol use and associated consequences, highlight the importance of identifying effective alcohol interventions for high school seniors.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-3">PROVIDING ALCOHOL INTERVENTION THROUGH THE SCHOOL SETTING</hd> <p>There are several advantages to providing alcohol interventions to adolescents through the school setting relative to clinic‐based interventions (Wagner, Tubman, & Gil, 2004). First, the school is an identifiable setting where the program can be disseminated to reach all adolescents (Doumas, Esp, Turrisi, & Schottelkorb, 2015). Next, interventions delivered through school‐based programs have the advantage of reaching adolescents who may not readily seek treatment elsewhere (Glass, Grant, Yoon, & Bucholz, 2015; Reavley, Cvetkovski, Jorm, & Lubman, 2010). Furthermore, the school represents a unique setting for intervention efforts because of the interaction of personal, social, and academic contexts that affect a student's life and substance use choices (Doumas et al., 2015).</p> <p>Researchers have found that effective school‐based interventions include material that is engaging to adolescents (Wagner et al., 2004). According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), information processed through central routes are processed more actively and leads to stronger behavior change than information processed through peripheral routes. Presenting information using language that is easy to understand and includes personally relevant content increases elaboration (Petty, Barden, & Wheeler, 2009). Interventions that are perceived as user‐friendly and useful (i.e., acceptable) increase the likelihood of central processing and, in turn, intervention effectiveness. Web‐based programs may be particularly appealing to adolescents due to their novelty and game‐like appearance (Schinke, Schwinn, & Cole, 2006). In addition, adolescents may perceive personalized feedback alcohol interventions as particularly relevant due to the easy to use format and individualized nature of the feedback (Doumas, 2015).</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-4">THE eCHECKUP TO GO</hd> <p>The eCHECKUP TO GO (San Diego State University Research Foundation, n.d.) is a brief, web‐based personalized feedback program identified as a highly effective, low‐cost alcohol intervention by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) <emph>College AIM</emph> Alcohol Intervention Matrix (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2015). The program includes standardized alcohol screening instruments and provides personalized feedback designed to help students make better decisions about their drinking. The developers designed the program to reduce risk factors for alcohol use including normative perceptions of peer drinking, positive alcohol beliefs, and positive alcohol expectancies. Because the eCHECKUP TO GO program is brief, can be disseminated to large groups of students within one class period, and is inexpensive ($1075 per year for unlimited use), the program is well‐suited for use as a school‐based intervention.</p> <p>Although originally developed for college students, researchers have identified the eCHECKUP TO GO as a promising school‐based intervention for high school seniors (Doumas & Esp, 2019; Doumas, Esp, Flay, & Bond, 2017; Doumas, Esp, Johnson, Trull, & Shearer, 2017; Doumas, Esp, Turrisi, Bond, & Flay, 2020). Initial randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy of the eCHECKUP TO GO with high school seniors indicated that students participating in the program reported a reduction in risk factors for alcohol use including normative beliefs about peer drinking, positive beliefs about alcohol, and positive alcohol expectancies (Doumas, Esp, Johnson et al., 2017), alcohol use (Doumas, Esp, Flay et al., 2017), and alcohol‐related consequences (Doumas & Esp, 2019) relative to students in a control group.</p> <p>There is, however, some evidence to suggest that program effects for the eCHECKUP TO GO may be stronger for females (Doumas, Esp, Johnson et al., 2017; Doumas et al., 2020). Specifically, in a study examining changes in risk factors for alcohol (e.g., perceptions of peer drinking, beliefs about alcohol, positive alcohol expectancies) among high school seniors, researchers found significant intervention effects for females only (Doumas, Esp, Johnson et al., 2017). Furthermore, in a study replicating and extending that work, researchers found positive results for males and females for normative perceptions of peer drinking frequency, normative perceptions of peer heavy episodic drinking, and positive alcohol expectancies, but decreases in normative perceptions of peer drunkenness were significant for females only (Doumas et al., 2020). In addition, for alcohol outcomes, there were no sex differences in peak drinking quantity, but reductions in the frequency of alcohol use were significant for females only. Thus, although there is growing support for the efficacy of the eCHECKUP TO GO for high school seniors, initial research demonstrates significant intervention effects for a wider range of outcomes for females than males in this age group. Based on ELM principles, it is possible that intervention effects favoring females may be related to differential levels of perceived intervention acceptability (i.e., user‐friendliness and utility) between male and female high school seniors.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-5">THE CURRENT STUDY</hd> <p>The purpose of the current study is to evaluate sex differences in program acceptability, short‐term alcohol outcomes, and the relationship between acceptability and outcomes among high school seniors. We selected high school seniors because seniors have the highest rates of alcohol use (Johnston et al., 2019) and hazardous drinking (Borsari et al., 2013) among high school students, yet alcohol intervention research for this age group is limited (Champion et al., 2013; Spoth et al., 2008; Strøm et al., 2014). Because sex differences in program efficacy have emerged in intervention effects for risk factors for alcohol use and drinking behavior, it is important to understand if males and females are experiencing the program differently. Pilot research on the acceptability of the eCHECKUP TO GO conducted with ninth‐grade students indicated the majority of students found the program to be both user‐friendly and useful (Doumas, 2015). Although findings suggested the program was more positively perceived by those who reported alcohol use, sex differences in program acceptability were not examined. This study extends this study by examining sex differences in the program acceptability, alcohol outcomes, and the relationship between the two among high school seniors completing the eCHECKUP TO GO intervention. Based on the ELM and preliminary studies suggesting that females may respond to the eCHECKUP TO GO intervention more favorably, we hypothesized that (a) program acceptability would be higher for female students than male students, (b) female students would report larger reductions in alcohol use compared with male students at a 30‐day follow‐up, and (c) intervention acceptability would be positively related to alcohol outcomes, with sex differences favoring females.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-6">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146252285-7">Research design</hd> <p>We used a quasi‐experimental design to examine sex differences in perceived intervention acceptability. First, we assessed sex differences in perceived intervention user‐friendliness and utility at baseline. Second, we examined sex differences in alcohol outcomes from baseline to a 30‐day follow‐up. Finally, we explored sex differences in the relationship between intervention acceptability and changes in alcohol use.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-8">Participants</hd> <p>Participants in the current study were students recruited from two urban high schools in the Northwest. Parents of all seniors at each school (<emph>N</emph> = 867) were sent consent forms. A total of 39.4% (<emph>n</emph> = 342) provided consent and of these students with parental consent, 91% (<emph>n</emph> = 311) agreed to participate in the study. Participants in this study were students randomized to receive the eCHECKUP TO GO intervention and who reported drinking at least once in their lifetime (<emph>n</emph> = 135; 57.8% female and 42.2% male). Participant ages ranged from 15 to 18 (<emph>M</emph> = 17.15, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.47). Participants were primarily Caucasian (89.5%), with 3.0% Hispanic, 3.0% Asian, 1.5% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 1.5% Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 1.6% other. Overall, 91.1% (<emph>n</emph> = 123) of the 135 participants completed the 30‐day follow‐up assessment. We found no differences in demographic characteristics or alcohol outcome variables between those who completed the follow‐up assessment and those who did not.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-9">Procedure</hd> <p>Data collection occurred in the fall of 2018. A member of the research team contacted the principals at the high schools to invite the school to participate in the study. All seniors registered at the school were eligible to participate. The school contacted parents of all seniors via letter by mail at their permanent addresses provided by the registrar's office. The letter contained a parental consent form and a project‐addressed, stamped envelope. The letter asked parents to return signed consent forms indicating permission for their adolescent to participate in the study. In addition, the letter provided a phone number and email address so that parents could ask questions before signing the consent form. The researchers sent reminder letters to the student's home address and sent letters home with the student to give to the parent. Researchers asked participants with parental consent to assent before participating in the study survey.</p> <p>Students with parental consent met at the school's computer lab to participate in the study. A member of the research team described the research study and invited the students to participate. Students who agreed to participate received a unique personal identification number (PIN) to maintain confidentiality and a URL to access the survey. Students then logged onto the survey website where they read a welcome screen explaining the research and were asked for their assent to participate. Once students gave assent by clicking "Agree," they were taken to a screen that asked them to enter their PIN and was then directed to begin the survey, which took ∼15 min to complete. Students who did not have parental consent or who did not provide assent remained in their classroom with their teacher and completed an alternative assignment. Students completed the online intervention program immediately after completing the survey. The researchers invited all participants who completed the baseline survey to participate in a 30‐day follow‐up survey. The University Institutional Review Board and the School District Research Board approved all study procedures.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-10">The eCHECKUP TO GO intervention</hd> <p>The eCHECKUP TO GO is a 30‐min web‐based intervention designed to reduce drinking by changing perceptions of peer drinking norms, alcohol beliefs, and alcohol expectancies through personalized feedback. The eCHECKUP TO GO is available through the San Diego State University Research Foundation (<ulink href="http://www.echeckuptogo.com/">http://www.echeckuptogo.com/</ulink>). The program is customized for the participating school, including providing normative data for the specific school, referrals for the local community, and designing the website using school colors and logos. The program includes two sections: (a) online assessment survey and (b) personalized feedback.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-11">Online assessment</hd> <p>The online assessment consists of demographic information (e.g., sex, age, weight, living situation, class standing) and information on alcohol consumption and drinking behavior assessed through standard alcohol measures. The assessment includes questions about alcohol use, positive aspects of drinking and negative consequences of alcohol use, risk‐factors associated with drinking, perceptions of the prevalence of peer alcohol use, a "quiz" on beliefs about the effects of alcohol on physical performance and how the body processes alcohol, activities one may like to spend more time doing, and motivation and confidence in one's ability to change drinking behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-12">Individualized feedback</hd> <p>Individualized feedback is provided in the following domains: graphical depictions of quantity and frequency of drinking, estimated risk‐status for negative consequences associated with drinking, genetic risk, tolerance, the approximate financial cost of drinking in the past year, and normative feedback comparing one's own drinking to a national survey, as well as comparisons of perceptions of peer drinking to local high school data. The feedback section also includes the student's responses and correct answers to the "quiz" on physical performance and a list of goals generated from the assessment questions and ways to meet those goals. The program assesses student willingness to use several protective behavioral strategies (e.g., avoid drinking games, space drinks out over time, spend time with friends who do not drink alcohol, identify alternative social activities instead of partying). The student is then given a list of the strategies selected that can be used as steps to change drinking behavior. The program then provides resources for services in the local community.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-13">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146252285-14">Intervention acceptability</hd> <p>The researchers assessed the acceptability of the intervention using a brief survey comprised of seven items ranked on a 4‐point scale from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 4 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). We based this survey on an exit survey used in prior research demonstrating a two‐factor solution with the components user‐friendliness and utility (Doumas, 2015). The survey has demonstrated internal reliability with Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> ranging from.71 to.84. The user‐friendliness subscale is made up of four items: "The program was engaging"; "The program was easy to use"; "The feedback was easy to read"; and I was able to understand the feedback." The utility subscale is made of three items: "I was interested in the feedback I received"; "I learned something from the program"; and "I would recommend the program to others." Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> for the user‐friendliness items was.81 and for the utility items was.87.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-15">Alcohol use</hd> <p>We assessed the typical weekly drinking quantity using the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (Collins, Parks, & Marlatt, 1985). Participants were asked the question "Given that it is a typical week, please write the number of drinks you probably would have each day." A response scale is provided for each day of the week (e.g., Monday, Tuesday, etc). We calculated weekly drinking by summing the reports for the 7 days of the week. The frequency of alcohol use was assessed using the Quantity/Frequency/Peak questionnaire (Dimeff, Baer, Kivlahan, & Marlatt, 1999; Marlatt et al., 1998). To indicate the frequency of drinking, participants answered the question "How often do you use alcohol" with responses provided on an 8‐point Likert scale with options ranging from "0" to "7" ("Do not drink alcohol" to "Every day"). Items were reverse scores so higher scores represent higher levels of drinking frequency.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-16">Power analysis</hd> <p>We conducted an a priori power analysis using the G*Power 3.1.3 program (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) for a <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> analysis, a GLM repeated‐measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with two‐time points, and for hierarchical regression analysis. Results of the power analysis indicated for the power of >0.80 to detect a medium effect size with an <emph>α</emph> level of.05, a sample size of 88 is needed for the <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> analysis, a sample size of 128 is needed for the repeated measures MANOVA, and a sample of 98 is needed for the regression analysis. Thus, our sample is adequate for the proposed analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-17">Data analysis</hd> <p>We conducted all analyses using SPSS version 25.0. We examined the outcome variable for outliers at baseline and follow‐up assessments and adjusted outliers to 3.3<emph>SD</emph> above the mean before conducting analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). To evaluate intervention acceptability, frequency data were combined into dichotomous variables. "Strongly Disagree" and "Disagree" were combined to form a Disagree category and "Strongly Agree" and "Agree" were combined to create an Agree category. We used these frequency categories in <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> analyses to examine differences in perception of user‐friendliness and utility of the intervention between female and male students. To assess sex differences in changes in alcohol use from baseline to the 30‐day follow‐up, we conducted a GLM repeated measures MANOVA. We fit study outcomes with repeated measures MANOVA with sex (male and female) as the grouping factor and time (baseline; follow‐up) as the within factor. We conducted post hoc univariate analyses of variances (ANOVAs) to examine significant effects. Finally, to examine sex differences in the relationship between intervention acceptability and alcohol outcomes, we conducted two hierarchical regression analyses. For each regression analysis, the alcohol outcome at baseline was included as a control variable on Step 1, main effects (sex, user‐friendliness, and utility) were entered on Step 2, and the two‐way interactions (sex × user‐friendliness and sex × utility) were entered on Step 3. All predictor variables were mean‐centered to reduce problems of multicollinearity introduced into equations containing interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991). We used simple slopes to examine the direction and degree of significant interactions (Aiken & West, 1991). We examined the variance inflation factor (VIF) for predictors to assess multicollinearity. The observed VIF ranged between 1.0 and 2.3, with corresponding tolerance levels ranging from 0.4 to 1.0, and is below the rule of thumb of VIF < 10 (Erford, 2015; Norman & Streiner, 2008), suggesting acceptable levels of multicollinearity among the predictor variables. We calculated effect size using the phi coefficient (<emph>Φ</emph>) for the <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> analyses, partial eta squared ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22422:pits22422-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml> ) for the MANOVA and ANOVA analyses, and <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> for the regression analyses, with a magnitude of effects interpreted as follows: small (<emph>Φ</emph> = 0.10, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22422:pits22422-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml>  = 0.01, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .02), medium (<emph>Φ</emph> = 0.30, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22422:pits22422-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml>  = 0.06, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .15), large (<emph>Φ</emph> = 0.50, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22422:pits22422-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml>  = 0.14, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .35), respectively (Cohen, 1969; Richardson, 2011). We controlled for Type 1 error by using the Holm–Bonferroni procedure (Holm, 1979).</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-18">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146252285-19">Intervention acceptability</hd> <p>Perceptions of user‐friendliness were generally positive with the majority of students agreeing with statements that the program was easy to use (91.9%), that the feedback easy to read (82.1%), and that they understood the feedback (88.6%), and that the program was engaging (70.7%). Similarly, perceptions of program utility were also positive with the majority of students agreeing that they were interested in the feedback (69.9%) and that they would recommend the intervention to others (68.3%). Only 50.4%, however, agreed that they learned something from the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-20">Sex differences in intervention acceptability</hd> <p>Table 1 presents percent agreement, statistical contrasts, and effect sizes for the user‐friendliness and utility items by sex.</p> <p>1 TablePercent agreement with intervention acceptability items by gender and statistical contrasts</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">% Agreement</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Item</th><th align="left">Male (<italic>n</italic> = 55)</th><th align="left">Female (<italic>n</italic> = 68)</th><th align="left"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup>(1)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> Value</th><th align="left"><italic>Φ</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">User‐friendliness</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">The program was easy to use</td><td align="left">98.1%</td><td align="left">87.0%</td><td align="left">5.310002</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−0.21</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The feedback was easy to read</td><td align="left">87.0%</td><td align="left">78.3%</td><td align="left">1.80</td><td align="left">.18</td><td align="left">−0.12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I was able to understand the feedback</td><td align="left">92.6%</td><td align="left">85.5%</td><td align="left">1.67</td><td align="left">.20</td><td align="left">−0.12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The program was engaging</td><td align="left">83.3%</td><td align="left">60.9%</td><td align="left">5.910002</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−0.22</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Utility</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">I was interested in the feedback I received</td><td align="left">77.8%</td><td align="left">65.2%</td><td align="left">1.97</td><td align="left">.16</td><td align="left">−0.13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I learned something about myself</td><td align="left">63.0%</td><td align="left">42.0%</td><td align="left">4.470002</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">−0.19</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I would recommend this program to others</td><td align="left">79.6%</td><td align="left">59.4%</td><td align="left">4.490002</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">−0.19</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviation: <emph>Φ</emph>, phi coefficient.</p> <p>2 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-21">User‐friendliness</hd> <p>Results of the <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> analyses revealed significant sex differences in intervention user‐friendliness. As seen in Table 1, results indicated males reported higher rates of agreement with the statements that the program was easy to use (<emph>p</emph> < .02) and the program was engaging (<emph>p</emph> < .01). Effect sizes for these items were in the small to medium range. There were no significant sex differences in rates of agreement with the statements the feedback was easy to read (<emph>p</emph> = .21) and the feedback was easy to understand (<emph>p</emph> = .22).</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-22">Utility</hd> <p>Results of the <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> analyses revealed significant sex differences in intervention utility. As seen in Table 1, results indicated males reported higher rates of agreement with the statements that they learned something (<emph>p</emph> < .02) and that they would recommend the program to others (<emph>p</emph> < .02). Effect sizes for these items were in the small to medium range. There were no significant sex differences in rates of agreement with the statement the feedback was interesting (<emph>p</emph> = .13).</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-23">Sex differences in alcohol outcomes</hd> <p>Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and statistical contrast for alcohol outcomes. Results of the repeated measures MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for time, Wilks' <emph>λ</emph> = 0.91, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>, 120) = 5.84, <emph>p</emph> = .004, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22422:pits22422-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml>  = 0.09. The effect size for time was in the medium to large range. The interaction effect for time × sex, Wilks' <emph>λ</emph> = 0.98, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>, 120) = 1.25, <emph>p</emph> = .29, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22422:pits22422-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml>  = .02, was not significant, indicating no significant sex differences in alcohol outcomes. As seen in Table 2, post hoc repeated measures ANOVAs indicated a significant main effect for time for weekly drinking quantity (<emph>p</emph> < .001) and frequency of alcohol use (<emph>p</emph> < .05). The effect size for weekly drinking quantity was medium and the effect size for the frequency of alcohol use was small (Table 3).</p> <p>2 TableDescriptive statistics and statistical contrasts for alcohol outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Male (<italic>n</italic> = 55)</th><th align="left">Female (<italic>n</italic> = 68)</th><th align="left">Total (<italic>n</italic> = 123)</th><th align="left">Time</th><th align="left">Time × sex</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left"><italic>M (SD)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M (SD)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M (SD)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic>(1, 121)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> Value</th><th align="left"><p><math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22422:pits22422-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup xmlns=""><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math></p></th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic>(1, 121)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> Value</th><th align="left"><p><math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22422:pits22422-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup xmlns=""><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math></p></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Weekly drinking quantity</td><td /><td /><td /><td char="." align="char">10.890002</td><td char="." align="char"><.001</td><td char="." align="char">0.08</td><td char="." align="char">2.47</td><td char="." align="char">.12</td><td char="." align="char">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Baseline</td><td char="(" align="char">4.86 (6.40)</td><td char="(" align="char">5.59 (7.31)</td><td char="(" align="char">5.26 (6.90)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">30‐Day follow‐up</td><td char="(" align="char">4.15 (5.81)</td><td char="(" align="char">3.59 (4.75)</td><td char="(" align="char">3.84 (5.24)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequency of alcohol use</td><td /><td /><td char="." align="char">3.990001</td><td char="." align="char"><.05</td><td char="." align="char">0.03</td><td char="." align="char">0.12</td><td char="." align="char">.73</td><td char="." align="char">0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Baseline</td><td char="(" align="char">4.36 (1.36)</td><td char="(" align="char">4.62 (1.38)</td><td char="(" align="char">4.50 (1.41)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">30‐Day Follow‐Up</td><td char="(" align="char">4.22 (1.52)</td><td char="(" align="char">4.41 (1.50)</td><td char="(" align="char">4.33 (1.51)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>4 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>3 TableSummary of hierarchical regression analysis for weekly drinking quantity</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Step</th><th align="left">Predictor</th><th align="left">Δ<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE B</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left">95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td /><td char="." align="char">.570004</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Baseline weekly drinking</td><td /><td char="." align="char">0.57</td><td char="." align="char">0.05</td><td char="." align="char">0.75</td><td align="left">[0.48, 0.66]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td /><td char="." align="char">.02</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Sex</td><td /><td char="." align="char">0.45</td><td char="." align="char">0.32</td><td char="." align="char">0.09</td><td align="left">[−0.18, 1.08]</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">User‐friendliness</td><td /><td char="." align="char">−0.24</td><td char="." align="char">0.18</td><td char="." align="char">−0.11</td><td align="left">[−0.59, 0.11]</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Utility</td><td /><td char="." align="char">0.24</td><td char="." align="char">0.18</td><td char="." align="char">0.11</td><td align="left">[0.08, 0.16]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td /><td char="." align="char">.040003</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Sex × user‐friendliness</td><td /><td char="." align="char">−0.47</td><td char="." align="char">0.19</td><td char="." align="char">−0.220002</td><td align="left">[−0.84, −0.11]</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Sex × utility</td><td /><td char="." align="char">−0.04</td><td char="." align="char">0.17</td><td char="." align="char">−0.02</td><td align="left">[−0.38, 0.29]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.</item> <item>6 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>7 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>8 *** <emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0146252285-24">Sex differences in the relationship between intervention acceptability and alcohol outcomes</hd> <p>Table 4 presents results from the regression models for weekly drinking quantity and frequency of alcohol use.</p> <p>4 TableSummary of hierarchical regression analysis for the frequency of alcohol use</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Step</th><th align="left">Predictor</th><th align="left">ΔR<sup>2</sup></th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE B</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left">95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td /><td char="." align="char">.610002</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Baseline alcohol use</td><td /><td char="." align="char">0.83</td><td char="." align="char">0.06</td><td char="." align="char">0.78</td><td align="left">[0.71, 0.95]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td /><td char="." align="char">.00</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Sex</td><td /><td char="." align="char">0.01</td><td char="." align="char">0.09</td><td char="." align="char">0.01</td><td align="left">[−0.16, 0.19]</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">User‐friendliness</td><td /><td char="." align="char">−0.04</td><td char="." align="char">0.05</td><td char="." align="char">−0.06</td><td align="left">[−0.13, 0.06]</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Utility</td><td /><td char="." align="char">0.02</td><td char="." align="char">0.05</td><td char="." align="char">0.03</td><td align="left">[−0.08, 0.11]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td /><td char="." align="char">.020003</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Sex × user‐friendliness</td><td /><td char="." align="char">−0.12</td><td char="." align="char">0.05</td><td char="." align="char">−0.190004</td><td align="left">[−0.22, −0.01]</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Sex × utility</td><td /><td char="." align="char">0.07</td><td char="." align="char">0.05</td><td char="." align="char">0.12</td><td align="left">[−0.02, 0.17]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>9 Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.</item> <item>10 * <emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> <item>11 ** <emph>p</emph> < .08.</item> <item>12 *** <emph>p </emph>< .05.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0146252285-25">Weekly drinking quantity</hd> <p>The full regression equation was significant for weekly drinking quantity, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .62, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>, 116) = 31.52, <emph>p</emph> < .001. This is large effect size. As seen in Step 3, results showed that the sex × user‐friendliness interaction term was significant (<emph>p</emph> < .01), indicating the relationship between weekly drinking quantity and user‐friendliness was moderated by sex. No other main effects or interaction effects were significant. To examine the nature of the interaction, we graphed and interpreted tests of simple slopes using Aiken and West's (1991) procedures. Figure 1 presents the significant two‐way interaction between sex and intervention user‐friendliness. Examination of the slopes in Figure 1 indicates that among males, those who perceived the intervention to be user‐friendly reported lower levels of weekly drinking quantity than those who reported low user‐friendliness, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>, 55) = 10.17, <emph>p</emph> < .01. The relationship between weekly drinking quantity and user‐friendliness was not significant for females, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>, 68) = 2.06, <emph>p</emph> = .16.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01nov20/pits22422-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits22422-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The relationship between user‐friendliness and weekly drinking quantity for males. This figure demonstrates model‐based means (±1 model‐based standard error) for the quantity of weekly drinking by user‐friendliness for male students. The reduction in the quantity of weekly drinking is significant for males who report high user‐friendliness" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146252285-27">Frequency of alcohol use</hd> <p>The full regression equation was significant for the frequency of alcohol use, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .63, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>, 116) = 33.09, <emph>p</emph> < .001. This is large effect size. As seen in Step 3, results showed that the sex × user‐friendliness interaction term was significant (<emph>p</emph> < .03), indicating the relationship between the frequency of drinking and user‐friendliness was moderated by sex. No other main effects or interaction effects were significant. To examine the nature of the interaction, we graphed and interpreted tests of simple slopes using Aiken and West's (1991) procedures. Figure 2 presents the significant two‐way interaction between sex and intervention user‐friendliness. Examination of the slopes in Figure 2 indicates that among males, those who perceived the intervention to be user‐friendly reported lower levels of frequency of alcohol use than those who reported low user‐friendliness, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>, 55) = 3.96, <emph>p</emph> < .05. The relationship between the frequency of alcohol use and user‐friendliness was not significant for females, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>, 68) = 0.16, <emph>p</emph> = .69.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01nov20/pits22422-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits22422-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 The relationship between user‐friendliness and frequency of alcohol use for males. This figure demonstrates model‐based means (±1 model‐based standard error) for the frequency of alcohol use by user‐friendliness for male students. The reduction in the frequency of alcohol use is significant for males who report high user‐friendliness" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146252285-29">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This is the first study to examine sex differences in high school students' perceptions of the acceptability of the eCHECKUP TO GO and the relationship between program acceptability and alcohol outcomes. According to the ELM framework, interventions that contain content that is perceived as easy to understand and personally relevant should produce higher levels of elaboration and lead to greater behavioral change than traditional educational material (Petty et al., 2009). The results of this study indicate that although the majority of participants perceived the program to be user‐friendly and useful, males reported higher levels of agreement with specific items related to both program user‐friendliness and program utility. In addition, although there were no sex differences in alcohol outcomes, findings demonstrated that for males, perceived user‐friendliness of the program was significantly related to alcohol outcomes, whereas there was no relationship between program acceptability and alcohol outcomes for females.</p> <p>Overall, students perceived the program to be more user‐friendly than useful. These data are consistent with prior research demonstrating that among ninth‐grade students who have initiated alcohol use, 92.5–97.5% of students agreed with user‐friendliness items whereas 77.5–92.5% agreed with utility items (Doumas, 2015). Results from this study, however, indicate that relative to the rates reported by Doumas (2015), students in this study reported lower levels of agreement with some of the user‐friendliness items (70.7–91.9%) and considerably lower level of agreement with the utility items (50.4–69.9%). One explanation for this difference is that students in the current sample were high school seniors, whereas students in Doumas (2015) study were ninth‐grade students. It is possible that ninth‐grade students found the program to be more user‐friendly and useful than high school seniors. Alternatively, ninth‐grade students may have responded in more socially desirable ways relative to the high school seniors in this sample. This explanation is supported by research indicating social desirability decreases with age among adolescents (Dadds, Perrin, & Yule, 1998).</p> <p>Contrary to our hypothesis, findings from this study indicated that males perceived the eCHECKUP TO GO program to be more user‐friendly and useful than females. Although there were sex differences in rates of agreement for the item "easy to use," 87% of females agreed that the program was easy to use (compared with 98.1% for males), suggesting high rates of agreement for both males and females. Sex differences for the item "engaging" were more pronounced, with only 60.9% of females agreeing the program was engaging relative to 83.3% of males. This is particularly important as the ELM suggests that engaging students in the content are essential to the formation of highly elaborated, accessible, well‐integrated attitudes that are associated with behavioral change (Petty et al., 2009). For program utility, males agreed with the statements that they learned something and that they would recommend the program to other students more than females. In fact, less than two‐thirds of females indicated they learned something and less than half reported they would recommend the program to other students.</p> <p>For alcohol outcomes, results supported positive effects for both males and females for weekly drinking quantity and frequency of alcohol use. Although some research suggests that among high school seniors, the eCHECKUP TO GO is efficacious in reducing risk factors for alcohol use for females only (Doumas, Esp, Johnson et al., 2017), some studies support intervention effects for alcohol outcomes for both males and females, with a wider‐range of significant intervention effects for females (Doumas, Esp, Flay et al., 2017; Doumas et al., 2020). Thus, this study adds to the growing body of literature supporting the efficacy of the eCHECKUP TO GO for both male and female high school seniors.</p> <p>Finally, the results of this study demonstrated that perceived program acceptability is related to alcohol outcomes for males, but not for females. Specifically, the perceived user‐friendliness of the eCHECKUP TO GO intervention was related to weekly drinking quantity and frequency of alcohol use for males only. The results of this study suggest that males perceived the program to be more user‐friendly and useful than females and user‐friendliness was related to alcohol outcomes for males only. Thus, consistent with ELM, perceived program acceptability was related to alcohol outcomes for males. However, we did not find evidence to support ELM for females. Alcohol outcomes for females were not related to either program user‐friendliness or program utility, and appear to be related to other factors not measured in this study. Our hypothesis that females would report higher levels of program acceptability than males was based on results from prior studies suggesting intervention effects may favor females (Doumas, Esp, Flay et al., 2017; Doumas, Esp, Johnson et al., 2017; Doumas et al., 2020). Thus, we were surprised by the finding that males reported higher levels of program acceptability and that program acceptability was related to alcohol outcomes for males only. It is, however, noteworthy that there were no differences in perceptions of the normative feedback between males and females for either user‐friendliness (i.e., easy to read feedback; easy to understand feedback) or utility (i.e., interested in feedback) items. This is an important finding as researchers have identified normative feedback as the primary mechanism of change, in brief, personalized feedback interventions (Reid & Carey, 2015). Thus, high levels of acceptability concerning personalized feedback may be related to positive outcomes for males, whereas the actual data presented in the personalized feedback may be related to positive outcomes for females. That is, males may be responding to the program overall as positive, whereas females may be responding to specific content despite finding the program to be less user‐friendly and useful.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-30">Study strengths</hd> <p>The primary strength of this study was evaluating sex differences in the program acceptability of the eCHECKUP TO GO. This is the first study to investigate sex differences in program acceptability and the relationship between acceptability and alcohol outcomes among high school students. Because the eCHECKUP TO GO was originally developed for college students, establishing that the program is acceptable to high school students is important. Furthermore, preliminary research demonstrating sex differences in outcomes favoring females suggests that males and females may be responding differently to the content of the intervention. This study provides some information regarding similarities and differences between male and female perceptions of program acceptability and the relationship of acceptability to alcohol outcomes. Additionally, this study examined program acceptability specifically for high school seniors. It is particularly important to identify relevant and effective alcohol interventions for high school seniors as seniors report the highest levels of alcohol use (Johnston et al., 2019) and hazardous drinking (Borsari et al., 2013; Zamboanga et al., 2016) although there is a dearth of research on alcohol interventions for this age group (Champion et al., 2013; Spoth et al., 2008; Strøm et al., 2014). It is important to establish appropriate and effective interventions for this age group. Findings from this study extend the literature, adding to the support for the use of the eCHECKUP TO GO with high school seniors.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-31">Study limitations</hd> <p>Although this study adds to the growing body of literature suggesting the eCHECKUP TO GO is a promising intervention for high school seniors, there are limitations. First, due to a primarily Caucasian sample form the Northwest region, generalizability is limited. Furthermore, although participants were recruited from two high schools, the sample was relatively small. Future research with larger, more diverse samples is needed to increase the generalizability of the findings. In addition, our examination of program acceptability was limited to a quantitative measure of user‐friendliness and utility. Focus groups conducted with high school seniors could be used to gain a better understanding of program acceptability including how to make the program more engaging for female students and how to increase learning for both male and female students.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-32">Implications</hd> <p>The results of this study have important implications for developing prevention and intervention programs for high school seniors. First, findings from this study and prior research (Doumas, 2015) indicate high school students perceive the eCHECKUP TO GO program to be both user‐friendly and useful. Research suggests that the program may be more acceptable to students who have initiated alcohol use (Doumas, 2015), and results from the present study suggest male students may find the program more acceptable than female students. Overall, however, research supports program acceptability for the eCHECKUP TO GO for high school students.</p> <p>Second, the results of this study provide support for the acceptability of the eCHECKUP TO GO program for high school seniors. It is important to note, however, that high school seniors reported lower rates of program utility relative to program user‐friendliness and lower rates of acceptability relative to a ninth‐grade sample. Although our data suggest that males and females perceived the personalized feedback similarly, approximately one‐third of seniors did not perceive the feedback to be interesting. Similarly, ∼40% of females indicated they did not agree that the program was engaging. Thus, modification of how the eCHECKUP TO GO feedback is presented may be warranted for this age group. Specifically, although some feedback is provided using graphical depictions of the data, high school seniors might find the feedback more interesting if it was interactive in nature. For example, instead of providing feedback regarding protective behavioral strategies in text format, students could select an avatar and walk through a situation in which alcohol is being served at a party, making decisions about which strategies to use to limit their drinking or alcohol‐related consequences and experiencing outcomes. Consistent with the ELM, providing interactive elements may increase engagement and interest in the program, which in turn, might lead to increased intervention efficacy (Petty et al., 2009).</p> <p>Finally, the results of this study provided support for the effectiveness of the eCHECKUP TO GO in reducing the quantity and frequency of alcohol use among high school seniors. Web‐based programs are well‐suited for school‐based implementation as they are inexpensive, require minimal training, and can be implemented with a high degree of fidelity. In addition, they are easy to disseminate to large groups of students and can be incorporated within course curricula. Research supports the integration of alcohol intervention programs into the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework for high school students (Bastable, Kittelman, McIntosh, & Hoselton, 2015). Thus, schools can integrate the eCHECKUP TO GO program into the PBIS framework. A tiered approach to alcohol prevention and intervention might include implementing the eCHECKUP TO GO to all students as part of a school assembly or through advising sessions (Tier 1), intervening with groups of students who are at high‐risk for alcohol use, including high school seniors, through classroom curricula (Tier 2), and providing the eCHECKUP TO GO for students who have been sanctioned for an alcohol use violation at school with the school psychologist (Tier 3). Research suggests the eCHECKUP TO GO is an effective universal Tier 1 approach for prevention with high school students (Doumas et al., 2020; Doumas, Esp, Turrisi, Hausheer, & Cuffee, 2014; Hausheer, Doumas, & Esp, 2018) and an effective Tier 2 approach with high school seniors reporting high‐risk drinking (Doumas & Esp, 2019; Doumas, Esp, Flay et al., 2017). Results from this study add to this literature demonstrating a reduction in alcohol use among high school seniors who report alcohol use. Although we could not find evidence for Tier 3 in high school, research suggests that the eCHECKUP TO GO is also an effective Tier 3 approach for college students who received alcohol violations (Alfonso, Hall, & Dunn, 2013; Doumas, Workman, Navarro, & Smith, 2011; Doumas, Workman, Smith, & Navarro, 2011). Thus, it is likely the eCHECKUP TO GO would be an effective Tier 3 approach at the high school level.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-33">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>This is the first study to evaluate sex differences in the acceptability of the eCHECKUP TO GO for high school seniors. Given the high rates of drinking and negative consequences associated with alcohol use among high school seniors, it is important to identify appropriate and effective alcohol interventions for this age group. Although findings indicate the program was more acceptable to males then females results from this study, coupled with outcome research suggest the eCHECKUP TO GO is a promising alcohol intervention for high school seniors. Increasing the interactive nature of the personalized feedback, however, may result in a more interesting and engaging program for high school seniors. This may be particularly important for males, as perceived user‐friendliness is related to alcohol outcomes, and prior research has demonstrated a wider range of intervention effects for females.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-34">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>The authors wish to thank Andrea Pikes, April Watts, Beverly Glouser, and Dayna Showalter for assistance with participant recruitment and data collection. The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R21AA023880. This project was also supported in part by Institutional Development Awards (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Grant Nos. P20GM103408 and P20GM109095. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors also acknowledge support from The Biomolecular Research Center at Boise State with funding from the National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 0619793 and 0923535), the MJ Murdock Charitable Trust, and the Idaho State Board of Education.</p> <hd id="AN0146252285-35">CONFLICT OF INTERESTS</hd> <p>The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.</p> <ref id="AN0146252285-36"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref4" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alfonso, J., Hall, T. V., & Dunn, M. E. (2013). Feedback‐based alcohol interventions for mandated students: An effectiveness study of three modalities. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 20, 411 – 423. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1786</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Arata, C. M., Stafford, J., & Tims, M. S. (2003). High school drinking and its consequences. Adolescence, 38, 567 – 579. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bastable, E., Kittelman, A., McIntosh, K., & Hoselton, R. (2015). Do high schools implementing SWPBIS have lower rates of illegal drug and alcohol use? Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.pbis.org/">www.pbis.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Borsari, B., Zamboanga, B. L., Correia, C., Olthuis, J. V., Van Tyne, K., Zadworny, Z., ... Horton, N. J. (2013). Characterizing high school students who play drinking games using latent class analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 38, 2532 – 2540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.04.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Burrow‐Sanchez, J. J., Jenson, W. R., & Clark, E. (2009). School‐based interventions for students with substance abuse. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 238 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20368</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Champion, K. E., Newton, N. C., Barrett, E. L., & Teesson, M. (2013). A systematic review of school‐based alcohol and other drug prevention programs facilitated by computers or the Internet. Drug and Alcohol Review, 32, 115 – 123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2012.00517.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, San Diego : Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> 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, 189 – 200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.53.2.189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dadds, M. R., Perrin, S., & Yule, W. (1998). Social desirability and self‐reported anxiety in children: An analysis of the RCMAS Lie Scale. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 311 – 317. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022610702439</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dimeff, L. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., & Marlatt, G. A. (1999). Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS): A harm reduction approach. New York, NY : Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doumas, D. M. (2015). Web‐based personalized feedback: is this an appropriate approach for reducing drinking among high school students? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 50, 76 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2014.09.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doumas, D. M., & Esp, S. (2019). Reducing alcohol‐related consequences among high school seniors: Efficacy of a brief, web‐based intervention. Journal of Counseling and Development, 97, 53 – 61. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doumas, D. M., Esp, S., Flay, B., & Bond, L. (2017). A randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of a brief online alcohol intervention for high school seniors. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 78, 706 – 715. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2017.78.706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doumas, D. M., Esp, S., Johnson, J., Trull, R., & Shearer, K. (2017). The eCHECKUP TO GO for High School: Impact on risk factors and protective behaviors for alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 93 – 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.08.030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doumas, D. M., Esp, S., Turrisi, R., Bond, L., & Flay, B. (2020). The efficacy of the eCHECKUP TO GO for high school seniors: Sex differences in risk factors, protective behavioral strategies, and alcohol use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 81, 135 – 143. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2020.81.135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doumas, D. M., Esp, S., Turrisi, R., Hausheer, R., & Cuffee, C. (2014). A test of the efficacy of a brief, web‐based personalized feedback intervention to reduce drinking among 9th grade students. Addictive Behaviors, 39, 231 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.10.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doumas, D. M., Esp, S., Turrisi, R., & Schottelkorb, A. (2015). Adopting a brief, web‐based feedback approach to counter high school drinking: Considerations for professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 18, 148 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001800105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doumas, D. M., Workman, C. R., Navarro, A., & Smith, D. (2011). Evaluation of web‐based and counselor delivered feedback interventions for mandated college students. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 32, 16 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1874.2011.tb00204.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doumas, D. M., Workman, C. R., Smith, D., & Navarro, A. (2011). Reducing high‐risk drinking in mandated college students: Evaluation of two personalized normative feedback interventions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 40, 376 – 385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.12.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erford, B. T. (2015). Research and evaluation in counseling. Stamford, CT : Cengage Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175 – 191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glass, J. E., Grant, J. D., Yoon, H. Y., & Bucholz, K. K. (2015). Alcohol problem recognition and help seeking in adolescents and young adults at varying genetic and environmental risk. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 153, 250 – 257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.05.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanson, K. L., Medina, K. L., Padula, C. B., Tapert, S. F., & Brown, S. A. (2011). Impact of adolescent alcohol and drug use on neuropsychological functioning in young adulthood: 10‐year outcomes. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 20, 135 – 154. https://doi.org/10.1080/1067828X.2011.555272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hausheer, R., Doumas, D. M., & Esp, S. (2018). Evaluation of a web‐based alcohol program alone and in combination with a parent campaign for ninth‐grade students. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 39, 15 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaoc.12038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6 (2), 65 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston, L. D., Miech, R. A., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E., & Patrick, M. E. (2019). Monitoring the Future National Survey results on drug use 1975‐2018: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor, MI : Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2018.pdf">http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2018.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, A. B., Evans‐Whipp, T. J., Smith, R., Chan, G. C., Toumbourou, J. W., Patton, G. C., & Catalano, R. F. (2015). A longitudinal study of the association of adolescent polydrug use, alcohol use and high school non‐completion. Addiction, 110, 627 – 635. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Dimeff, L. A., Larimer, M. E., Quigley, L. A., ... Williams, E. (1998). Screening and brief intervention for high‐risk college student drinkers: Results from a 2‐year follow‐up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 604 – 615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.4.604</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, J. W., Naimi, T. S., Brewer, R. D., & Jones, S. E. (2007). Binge drinking and associated health risk behaviors among high school students. Pediatrics, 119, 76 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-1517</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2015, September). Planning alcohol interventions using NIAAA's college aim alcohol intervention matrix. Bethesda, MD : US Department of Health and Human Service, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/">www.niaaa.nih.gov/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nguyen‐Louie, T., Castro, N., Matt., G., Squegelia, L., Brumback, T., & Tapert, S. (2015). Effects of emerging alcohol and marijuana use behaviors on adolescents' neuropsychological functioning over four years. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76, 738 – 748. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.738</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norman, G. R., & Streiner, D. L. (2008). Biostatistics: The bare essentials. Hamilton, ON, Canada : BC Decker Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patte, K. A., Qian, W., & Leatherdale, S. T. (2017). Marijuana and alcohol use as predictors of academic achievement: a longitudinal analysis among youth in the COMPASS study. Journal of School Health, 87, 310 – 318. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12498</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petty, R. E., Barden, J., & Wheeler, S. C. (2009). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion: Developing health promotions for sustained behavioral change. In R. J. DiClemente, R. A. Crosby, & M. C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (pp. 185 – 214). San Francisco, CA : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123 – 205). San Diego : Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasberry, C. N., Tiu, G. F., Kann, L., McManus, T., Michael, S. L., Merlo, C. L., ... Ethier, K. A. (2017). Health‐related behaviors and academic achievement among high school students—United States, 2015. MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 66, 921 – 927. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6635a1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reavley, N. J., Cvetkovski, S., Jorm, A. F., & Lubman, D. I. (2010). Help‐seeking for substance use, anxiety and affective disorders among young people: Results from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 729 – 735. https://doi.org/10.3109/00048671003705458</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reid, A. E., & Carey, K. B. (2015). Interventions to reduce college student drinking: State of the evidence for mechanisms of behavior change. Clinical Psychology Review, 40, 213 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measurements of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6, 135 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> San Diego State University Research Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.echeckuptogo.com/">http://www.echeckuptogo.com/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schinke, S., Schwinn, T., & Cole, K. (2006). Preventing alcohol abuse among early adolescents through family and computer‐based interventions: Four‐year outcomes and mediating variables. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 18, 149 – 161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-006-9009-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., & Turrisi, R. (2008). Preventive interventions addressing underage drinking: State of the evidence and steps toward public health impact. Pediatrics, 121, 311 – 336. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-2243E</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strøm, H. K., Adolfsen, F., Fossum, S., Kaiser, S., & Martinussen, M. (2014). Effectiveness of school‐based preventive interventions on adolescent alcohol use: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 9, 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-9-48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA : Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townsend, L., Flisher, A. J., & King, G. (2007). A systematic review of the relationship between high school dropout and substance use. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 10, 295 – 317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-007-0023-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, E. F., Tubman, J. G., & Gil, A. G. (2004). Implementing school‐based substance abuse interventions: Methodological dilemmas and recommended solutions. Addiction, 99 (Suppl. 2), 106 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00858.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M. T., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development, 85, 722 – 737. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12138</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zamboanga, B. L., Tomaso, C. C., Cloutier, R. M., Blumenthal, H., Kenney, S. R., & Borsari, B. (2016). Drinking game participation among high school and incoming college students. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 24 (1), E1 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JAN.0000481966.33116.a5</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Diana M. Doumas; Susan Esp; Rob Turrisi; Laura Bond; Sherise Porchia and Brian Flay</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1269969
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Sex Differences in the Acceptability and Short-Term Outcomes of a Web-Based Personalized Feedback Alcohol Intervention for High School Seniors
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Doumas%2C+Diana+M%2E%22">Doumas, Diana M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0714-4723">0000-0002-0714-4723</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Esp%2C+Susan%22">Esp, Susan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Turrisi%2C+Rob%22">Turrisi, Rob</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7178-7205">0000-0002-7178-7205</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bond%2C+Laura%22">Bond, Laura</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Porchia%2C+Sherise%22">Porchia, Sherise</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Flay%2C+Brian%22">Flay, Brian</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5209-2766">0000-0002-5209-2766</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. Nov 2020 57(11):1724-1740.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (NIH)<br />National Science Foundation (NSF)<br />National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIH//DHHS)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R21AA023880<br />0619793<br />0923535<br />P20GM103408<br />P20GM109095
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drinking%22">Drinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Seniors%22">High School Seniors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Usability%22">Usability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.22422
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Despite the escalation of alcohol use through high school, the majority of research on school-based alcohol interventions has been conducted with junior high students or first and second-year high school students. Preliminary research indicates a brief, web-based personalized feedback intervention developed for college students (eCHECKUP TO GO) may be a promising program for high school seniors. Although these studies demonstrate positive intervention effects, there is some evidence for greater program efficacy for females in this age group. The current study investigates sex differences in program acceptability of the eCHECKUP TO GO and its relationship to short-term alcohol outcomes among high school seniors (N=135). Overall, the majority of students reported they found the program to be acceptable (i.e., user-friendly and useful). However, contrary to our hypothesis, results indicated that male students reported significantly higher perceptions of program acceptability than females. Although we did not find sex differences in alcohol outcomes, program user-friendliness was related to reductions in alcohol use for males. The results of this study add to the literature supporting the eCHECKUP TO GO for high school seniors and highlight the importance of program user-friendliness for males. Implications for implementing the program as a school-based intervention are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1269969
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1269969
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.22422
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 1724
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Seniors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Usability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Sex Differences in the Acceptability and Short-Term Outcomes of a Web-Based Personalized Feedback Alcohol Intervention for High School Seniors
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Doumas, Diana M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Esp, Susan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Turrisi, Rob
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bond, Laura
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Porchia, Sherise
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Flay, Brian
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 57
            – Type: issue
              Value: 11
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1