View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Can Web-Based Preenrollment Alcohol Brief Interventions Be Effective Screening Tools? Precollege Drinking Behavior Predicts College Retention and Alcohol Violations

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Can Web-Based Preenrollment Alcohol Brief Interventions Be Effective Screening Tools? Precollege Drinking Behavior Predicts College Retention and Alcohol Violations
Language: English
Authors: Shell, Duane F., Newman, Ian M., Yuen, Lok-wa
Source: Journal of American College Health. 2020 68(7):762-773.
Availability: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Online Courses, Intervention, Alcohol Education, Alcohol Abuse, Drinking, Screening Tests, College Bound Students, Student Experience, School Holding Power, Discipline, College Freshmen
DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2019.1590369
ISSN: 0744-8481
Abstract: Objective: To test if precollege drinking data gathered during an online brief intervention are associated with problems and could inform screening for campus alcohol prevention efforts. Participants: Two cohorts of incoming students (N=5300). Method: Precollege alcohol drinking was gathered through an online preenrollment alcohol brief intervention. Drop out was obtained from university records. On-campus alcohol violations were obtained from university judicial affairs, and off-campus alcohol citations were obtained from the city police. The 2011 cohort was tracked for 4 years, the 2012 cohort for 3 years. Results: Precollege abstaining and heavy drinking were significantly associated with retention and alcohol violations, even with ethnicity, residency, and gender controlled. Association of precollege drinking with later college problems extended beyond the first year and affected retention up to four years of enrollment. Conclusions: The findings support using data from preenrollment alcohol brief interventions as screening tools to customize further campus alcohol interventions.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1275507
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGusYo2BLIOmnE3pksD4VAJAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDHVFfijg9wZ0mlOLwIBEICBmz6qCm6AFf9JHVEHZx0u-3acFbjYsOwaRVb1xSSo4V2p8GDn_h-fKIMRgEBIvreYd-7nB4A6WIKUDEnFpBjaC5B4e8tPE3rUApLyt2cABe53N4Q9_mQeatpYeDbxfpXv9MPDiS4V3slC2V2CUvv2g7lGsG9Y7A__o276uEcPbrIG0nbep6U53kvXE_cP6wokIfitjCQ8IUfQ_1UT
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0146946774;acl01oct.20;2020Nov13.02:31;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0146946774-1">Can Web-based preenrollment alcohol brief interventions be effective screening tools? Precollege drinking behavior predicts college retention and alcohol violations </title> <p>Objective: To test if precollege drinking data gathered during an online brief intervention are associated with problems and could inform screening for campus alcohol prevention efforts. Participants: Two cohorts of incoming students (N = 5300). Method: Precollege alcohol drinking was gathered through an online preenrollment alcohol brief intervention. Drop out was obtained from university records. On-campus alcohol violations were obtained from university judicial affairs, and off-campus alcohol citations were obtained from the city police. The 2011 cohort was tracked for 4 years, the 2012 cohort for 3 years. Results: Precollege abstaining and heavy drinking were significantly associated with retention and alcohol violations, even with ethnicity, residency, and gender controlled. Association of precollege drinking with later college problems extended beyond the first year and affected retention up to four years of enrollment. Conclusions: The findings support using data from preenrollment alcohol brief interventions as screening tools to customize further campus alcohol interventions.</p> <p>Keywords: Abstaining; alcohol on-line education; binge drinking; college dropout; heavy episodic drinking; longitudinal study; preenrollment brief alcohol intervention; prematriculation brief alcohol intervention</p> <p>Studies have documented the harms experienced by college students as a result of excessive and problematic drinking that include increased injury and death.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>] Numerous studies have also documented the negative academic consequences students may experience as a result of risky and problem drinking. Students who drink excessively and in risky ways are more likely to have poor academic performance, miss classes, fall behind in school work, and have less student–faculty interaction.[[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]] These academic problems may interrupt students' academic progress, and ultimately lead to school dropout.</p> <p>Student retention is a critical issue for both for students and institutions. Estimates are that dropouts cost postsecondary institutions almost $16.5Billion annually.[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>] Despite the significant personal and institutional consequences of dropping out, only a small number of studies have looked at how student drinking impacts dropout. Scott et al[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>] found that drinking did not predict dropout in the Freshmen year, but more recently, Liguori and Lonbaken[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>] found that excessive and heavy episodic (binge) drinking was associated with higher likelihood of dropping out. In the only study to look longitudinally across all four years of college, Martinez et al[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>] found that heavy drinking was associated with dropping out.</p> <p>In addition to higher rates of dropping out, studies have found that 5–8% of students had involvement with campus security or community police for violation of alcohol laws and policies.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>] A larger proportion of students who drank heavily reported trouble with law enforcement than those drinking less.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref10">11</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>] More occasional and frequent heavy drinkers reported being cited or arrested for driving while intoxicated/driving under the influence (DWI/DUI) and having trouble with police (other than DUI) than non-heavy drinkers.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref13">13</reflink>] Students who drink more are more likely to face institutional sanctions for campus alcohol violations.[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref14">13</reflink>] In general, students with higher alcohol consumption were more likely to experience violations of laws and school policies. These violations can have long-range consequences as students who are arrested while in college have 3–5 times higher odds of a later postcollege conviction.[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref15">14</reflink>][<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>] In addition to the legal problems and consequences for students, dealing with alcohol violations imposes costs on the institution, such as the costs of police and security personnel, health and counseling services, and administration of sanctions associated with student violations.</p> <p>To address the negative consequences of problematic alcohol use, postsecondary schools have increasingly turned to Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI), also known as Brief Motivational Interventions (BMI) or just Brief Interventions (BI). BIs were Tier 1 approaches in the NIAAA Tiers of Effectiveness and are higher effectiveness approaches in the recent <emph>College AIM</emph>.[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref17">16</reflink>] SBI is used to identify individuals at risk for alcohol use problems based on a structured set of screening questions about drinking and related harms.</p> <p>Originally, BIs were targeted to college students who were identified as being high-risk drinkers by alcohol sanctions or by known high-risk group membership, such as Greek students.[[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref18">16</reflink>]] These were generally face-to-face BI such as Brief Alcohol and Screening Intervention for College Students (BASICS), and the individual counseling and the group counseling adaptation of BASICS, the Alcohol Skills Training Program (ASTP).[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>] With the expansion of the Web, BIs were adapted into self-contained Web administered programs such as e-CHECK UP TO GO (e-CHUG)<sups>®</sups>.[<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref23">24</reflink>]</p> <p>More recently, BIs have been increasingly used as a prevention tool for the general student population, primarily through delivery as a preenrollment or first-year Web program. Sometimes these preenrollment interventions were extensions of existing BIs that were moved from treatment to prevention use with minimal modification; for example, e-CHECK UP TO GO<sups>®</sups>.[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>] BI components also have been included in broader preenrollment alcohol education programs such as AlcoholEDU<sups>®</sups> and Alcohol-Wise<sups>®</sups>. There is some evidence that these preenrollment BIs reduce high-risk drinking and associated harms among college students.[[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]] Also, studies have found that students taking a BI or alcohol education program before or during their first semester had higher retention than students not receiving any alcohol programing.[<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref26">29</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>] Shell & Newman[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref28">31</reflink>] found reductions in alcohol on-campus and off-campus citations for students taking a preenrollment BMI.</p> <p>Like the original SBIs, these preenrollment BIs and alcohol education programs provide a wealth of data about student drinking and harms, including drinking quantity and frequency, experienced harms, normative perceptions, and family history of alcohol abuse, but it is not clear whether these data could potentially be useful for further screening of incoming students beyond the feedback provided in BI itself. In a preenrollment BI, students are reporting their precollege (typically high school) drinking patterns. Schools could potentially use students' preenrollment data to target further programing, but there are only limited studies suggesting that precollege drinking is meaningfully predictive of drinking and harms after students enter college. Sher and Rutledge[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref29">32</reflink>] found that students who drank heavily prior college were more likely to continue drinking heavily in the first semester of college. Harford et al[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref30">33</reflink>] found that college students with heavy episodic drinking in high school had higher probabilities of experiencing problem consequences and impaired driving when background variables were controlled. Scaglione and colleagues[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref31">34</reflink>] further found that the odds of experiencing multiple, repeated alcohol-related consequences in college were higher for students who reported drinking, drunkenness, and consequences in high school.</p> <p>Because of the aforementioned personal and institutional costs associated with student dropout and legal violations, it would be beneficial if the data provided by students in a preenrollment BI could be used to screen students who might be at risk for these negative outcomes. There, however, are no studies of whether precollege drinking patterns, as obtained in a preenrollment BI, are predictive of later student dropout or legal and administrative violations.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-2">The present study</hd> <p>The objective of this study was to examine whether precollege drinking behaviors reported in a preenrollment BI are meaningfully associated with student retention and alcohol-related campus and off-campus citations in ways that could inform potential alcohol-related treatment and prevention programing and intervention. Comparisons were made between drinkers and abstainers to determine if precollege abstinence was a protective factor against dropping out and violations. Precollege heavy-episodic or binge drinkers and non-binge drinkers were compared to determine if precollege binge drinking was predictive for subsequent dropout and violations.</p> <p>As part of a preenrollment prevention program launched at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (UNL), incoming first year students were expected to complete an online Web-based brief screening and intervention tool, the Year 1 College Alcohol Profile (Y1-CAP). The Y1-CAP is administered prior to the fall semester. Incoming first-year students under age 21 and their parents receive letters from the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs directing them to the Web address for the Y1-CAP. The letter expresses that he/she (or their student, in the parent letter) is expected to complete the Y1-CAP prior to coming to campus. Non-completing students are sent up to two follow-up email reminders at approximately 10 days intervals. The Y1-CAP is closed after the first week of classes. Although the institutional expectation is that all students will complete the Y1-CAP, the Vice Chancellor's correspondence represents a "soft" mandate in that there is no consequence for non-completion. Students are informed that while their responses will be kept confidential, their responses may be seen by approved campus personnel and may be used for institutional program and planning purposes. The Y1-CAP incorporates screening information similar to that obtained in other face-to-face or Web-based SBIs.[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref34">21</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref35">23</reflink>] Students indicated drinking or not drinking in the past year (abstinence), typical weekly drinking in the past month, harms experienced from drinking, drinking and driving, and perceptions of fellow first-year student drinking. Students' responses about abstinence and weekly drinking were used in the study.</p> <p>For this study, two cohorts of incoming first-year students were examined, Fall 2011 and Fall 2012. Two cohorts were used to determine if there were meaningful differences in screening utility in different entering student populations and to allow replication of any findings across two different cohort samples. Enrollment was tracked for 4 years for the 2011 cohort and 3 years for the 2012 cohort to identify retention. Records of on-campus and off-campus alcohol violations were tracked for two academic years following enrollment.</p> <p>Study hypotheses were:</p> <p>Hypothesis 1: Students reporting precollege abstinence will have higher retention (lower likelihood of dropping out).</p> <p>Hypothesis 2: Students reporting precollege abstinence will have lower likelihood of (a) on-campus alcohol violations and (b) off-campus community alcohol citations.</p> <p>Hypothesis 3: Students reporting precollege heavy-episodic (binge) drinking will have lower retention (higher likelihood of dropping out).</p> <p>Hypothesis 4: Students reporting precollege heavy-episodic (binge) drinking will have higher likelihood of (a) on-campus alcohol violations and (b) off-campus alcohol citations.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-3">Method</hd> <p>The data collected in Y1-CAP have been determined to be non-research administrative data by the University of Nebraska-Institutional Review Board. The use of the Y1-CAP administrative data along with the institutional retention, sanction, and off-campus violation data for this study was approved as exempt secondary data analysis by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Institutional Review Board, project # 20170216831 EX. The researchers were provided with anonymous data for analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-4">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were entering first-year students from 2011 and 2012 who completed the university's preenrollment college alcohol brief intervention (Y1-CAP). Y1-CAP was sent to all first-year students in 2011 and all first-year students except for varsity athletes in 2012 and was completed by 83.9% in 2011 and 79.7% in 2012. The 2011 cohort consisted of 2,821 students (1,366 men, 1,455 women; 2,506 White, 53 African-American, 60 Asian, 10 Native American/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 69 multi-racial, 123 no answer, 152 Hispanic; 2,814 age 18 or 19, 7 age 20+). The 2012 cohort consisted of 2,479 students (1,258 men, 1.220 women, 1 unknown; 2,166 White, 35 African-American, 55 Asian, 13 Native American/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 75 multi-racial, 135 no answer, 108 Hispanic; 2,458 age 18 or 19, 21 age 20+).</p> <p>Demographic characteristics for drinkers, abstainers, binge drinkers, and non-binge drinkers are described in Table 1. Because alcohol consumption differed in key demographic variables of race/ethnicity (White vs non-White), residency (Nebraska resident vs nonresident student), and gender (Men vs Women), these variables were controlled in the analysis models.</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic description of precollege binge drinkers, non-binge drinkers, and abstainers in the 2011 and 2012 cohorts.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>2011 Cohort (<italic>n</italic> = 2,821)</td><td>2012 Cohort (<italic>n</italic> = 2,479)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Abstinence</td><td>Binge drinking</td><td>Abstinence</td><td>Binge drinking</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Precollege drinker</td><td>Precollege abstainer</td><td>Precollege binge drinker</td><td>Precollege non-binge drinker</td><td>Precollege drinker</td><td>Precollege abstainer</td><td>Precollege binge drinker</td><td>Precollege non-binge drinker</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Gender</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>742</td><td>624</td><td>335</td><td>1,031</td><td>637</td><td>621</td><td>283</td><td>975</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>787</td><td>668</td><td>298</td><td>1,157</td><td>611</td><td>609</td><td>215</td><td>1,005</td></tr><tr><td>Unknown</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Ethnicity</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>1,384</td><td>1,122</td><td>578</td><td>1,928</td><td>1,123</td><td>1,043</td><td>466</td><td>1,700</td></tr><tr><td>African-American</td><td>16</td><td>37</td><td>5</td><td>48</td><td>13</td><td>22</td><td>3</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>20</td><td>40</td><td>4</td><td>56</td><td>17</td><td>38</td><td>4</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Native American/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Multi-racial</td><td>30</td><td>39</td><td>5</td><td>64</td><td>33</td><td>42</td><td>4</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>No answer</td><td>74</td><td>49</td><td>40</td><td>83</td><td>56</td><td>79</td><td>18</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Nebraska resident student</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Resident</td><td>1,266</td><td>1,084</td><td>515</td><td>1,835</td><td>997</td><td>1,007</td><td>403</td><td>1,601</td></tr><tr><td>Nonresident</td><td>262</td><td>208</td><td>117</td><td>353</td><td>252</td><td>223</td><td>95</td><td>380</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Age</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>18/19</td><td>1,526</td><td>1,288</td><td>632</td><td>2,182</td><td>1,238</td><td>1,220</td><td>494</td><td>1,964</td></tr><tr><td>20+</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0146946774-5">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146946774-6">Retention</hd> <p>Student retention was measured by subsequent semester enrollment. The Fall 2011 cohort were tracked from Fall 2012 through Spring 2015. The Fall 2012 cohort were tracked from Fall 2013 through Spring 2015. Retention was recorded in months starting at 12 (for the next academic year) and then at 6-month increments (<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref36">18</reflink>, 24, 30, etc) for successive spring and fall semesters. The maximum survival time was 48 months for the 2011 cohort and 36 months for the 2012 cohort. Students who were still enrolled in Spring 2015 constituted the enrolled group; students who were not enrolled at any time period constituted the dropout group. Students were counted as dropping out at their initial non-enrollment semester regardless of whether they subsequently reenrolled. Enrollment records were obtained from the university's registrar.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-7">On-campus alcohol violations and off-campus alcohol citations</hd> <p>Student on-campus alcohol-related violations were obtained from the university's Dean of Students, Office of Student Judicial Affairs. Student off-campus alcohol-related citations were obtained from the city police department. Through a preexisting agreement with the university, the city police forward all minor in possession, DWI/DUI, and disorderly house citations involving university students to the university. On-campus violations and off-campus citations were tracked for the students' first two enrollment years. For the 2011 cohort these were the 2011–12 (Year 1) and the 2012–13 (Year 2) academic (July 1–June 30) years. For the 2012 cohort these were the 2012–13 (Year 1) and the 2013–14 (Year 2) academic (July 1–June 30) years.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-8">Precollege drinking behaviors</hd> <p>Abstinence was determined by student answers on the Y1-CAP to whether they had drunk alcohol in the past year. Students who reported they had not drunk alcohol at all in the past year were classified as <emph>abstainers</emph>. Heavy episodic drinking was computed from a daily drinking diary in the Y1-CAP adapted from the Daily Drinking Questionnaire.[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref37">35</reflink>] The diary asked students to report their typical weekly drinking for the past month on a one-week calendar by recording for each day of the week the number of drinks each of beer, wine, and liquor and number of hours drinking. The definition for heavy-episodic or binge drinking used in this study was five (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>) or more drinks for men and four (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref39">4</reflink>) or more drinks for women in a single setting.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>] From the diary, a student was classified as a <emph>binge drinker</emph> if they reported having 5 (men) or 4 (women) drinks on any day. For analysis, drinking behaviors were indicated independently by two binary variables: (a) whether or not they were an abstainer (yes-no) and (b) whether or not they were a binge drinker (yes-no).</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-9">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146946774-10">Associations with precollege alcohol abstinence</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146946774-11">Student retention</hd> <p>Survival analysis was used to analyze the survival time (retention) until the occurrence of dropping out of the university. The <emph>survival function</emph> is the probability of still being enrolled at each semester.</p> <p>Kaplan–Meier survival curves[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>] were used to compare the survival of students who reported precollege abstaining to those who reported consuming alcohol precollege. For the 2011 cohort, the survival function of abstainers is shown in Figure 1. Precollege abstainers had significantly higher retention in college than precollege drinkers (Mantel–Cox log-rank test, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>) = 6.66, <emph>p</emph> =.010). For the 2012 cohort, the survival function of abstainer is shown in Figure 2. Precollege abstainers had significantly higher retention than precollege drinkers (Mantel–Cox log-rank test, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>) = 12.09, <emph>p</emph> =.001).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. 2011 cohort survival function for precollege abstainers.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. 2012 cohort survival function for precollege abstainers.</p> <p>Cox regression was used to test for the impact of abstinence on survival controlling for demographic variables (ethnicity, residency, and gender). Demographic variables were entered on the first step and the abstainer variable was entered on the second step. Significance of abstinence was determined from Step 2 change.</p> <p>For the 2011 cohort, the Step 2 change testing the effect of being an abstainer was significant (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>) = 5.962, <emph>p</emph> =.015). The overall Cox regression (Table 2) confirmed Kaplan–Meier survival analysis findings as being a precollege abstainer reduced the odds of dropping out by about 12% relative to the odds for being a precollege drinker when ethnicity, residency, and gender were controlled. Similarly, the effect of abstinence was significant for the 2012 cohort (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>) = 11.683, <emph>p</emph> =.001). The overall Cox regression (Table 2) confirmed Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Precollege abstinence reduced the odds of dropping out by about 23% relative to the odds for a precollege drinker when ethnicity, residency, and gender were controlled.</p> <p>Table 2. Cox regression for 2011 and 2012 cohorts' survival of precollege abstainers relative to precollege drinkers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>95% C.I.</td></tr><tr><td /><td>B</td><td>S.E.</td><td>Wald</td><td>df</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Odds ratio</td><td>Lower</td><td>Upper</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>2011 Cohort</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">−0.103</td><td char=".">0.089</td><td char=".">1.339</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.247</td><td char=".">0.902</td><td char=".">0.757</td><td char=".">1.074</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.009</td><td char=".">0.070</td><td char=".">0.017</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.598</td><td char=".">1.009</td><td char=".">0.879</td><td char=".">1.159</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">−0.001</td><td char=".">0.053</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.981</td><td char=".">0.999</td><td char=".">0.901</td><td char=".">1.107</td></tr><tr><td>Abstainer</td><td char=".">−0.129</td><td char=".">0.053</td><td char=".">5.933</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.015</td><td char=".">0.879</td><td char=".">0.792</td><td char=".">0.975</td></tr><tr><td>2012 Cohort</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">−0.243</td><td char=".">0.121</td><td char=".">4.055</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.044</td><td char=".">0.784</td><td char=".">0.619</td><td char=".">0.994</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.056</td><td char=".">0.096</td><td char=".">0.335</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.563</td><td char=".">1.057</td><td char=".">0.876</td><td char=".">1.276</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">−0.088</td><td char=".">0.077</td><td char=".">1.311</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.252</td><td char=".">0.916</td><td char=".">0.787</td><td char=".">1.065</td></tr><tr><td>Abstainer</td><td char=".">−0.265</td><td char=".">0.078</td><td char=".">11.592</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">0.767</td><td char=".">0.659</td><td char=".">0.894</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Gender: 1 = male, 0 = female; Ethnicity: 1 = White, 0 = non-White; Residency: 1 = nonresident student, 0 = resident student; Abstainer: 1 = nondrinker, 0 = drinker.</p> <p>2 Overall model: 2011 Cohort: −2 log-likelihood = 22,318.58, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref46">4</reflink>) = 7.062, <emph>p</emph> =.133; 2012 Cohort: −2 log-likelihood = 10,426.78, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref47">4</reflink>) = 16.54, <emph>p</emph> =.002.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-12">On-campus alcohol violations and off-campus alcohol citations</hd> <p>Logistic regressions were run hierarchically to test for the impact of precollege abstinence on on-campus violations and off-campus citations during college while controlling for demographic variables (ethnicity, residency, and gender). Significance of abstinence was determined from Step 2 change.</p> <p>For the 2011 cohort, the final logistic regressions (Table 3) for alcohol-related judicial sanctions were significant in Year 1 (−2 log-likelihood = 1557.81, χ2 (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref48">4</reflink>) = 55.15, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and Year 2 (−2 log-likelihood = 522.78, χ2 (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref49">4</reflink>) = 11.37, <emph>p</emph> =.023). The Step 2 change indicated that precollege abstinence had a significant effect on alcohol-related on-campus violations in year 1 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>) = 44.55, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and in year 2 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>) = 4.66, <emph>p</emph> =.031). Precollege abstinence reduced the odds of a year 1 alcohol-related on-campus violation by approximately 62% in year 1 and 46% in year 2 relative to students who reported precollege drinking (Table 3). The final logistic regressions (Table 3) for alcohol-related off-campus alcohol citations were significant in Year 1 (−2 log-likelihood = 1073.79, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref52">4</reflink>) = 57.59, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and Year 2 (−2 log-likelihood = 603.48, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>) = 44.85, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Step 2 change indicated that precollege abstinence had a significant effect on off-campus alcohol citations in year 1 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>) = 44.16, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and in year 2 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>) = 22.134, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Precollege abstinence reduced the odds of an off-campus alcohol citation while in college by approximately 72% in year 1and 73% in year 2 relative to the odds for students who were precollege drinkers (Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3. Logistic regression for the 2011 cohort for alcohol-related on-campus sanctions and off-campus alcohol citations of precollege abstainers relative to precollege drinkers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>95% C.I.</td></tr><tr><td /><td>B</td><td>S.E.</td><td>Wald</td><td>df</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Odds ratio</td><td>Lower</td><td>Upper</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Judicial alcohol sanction</td></tr><tr><td>Year 1</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.259</td><td char=".">0.138</td><td char=".">3.494</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.062</td><td char=".">1.295</td><td char=".">0.988</td><td char=".">1.699</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">0.548</td><td char=".">0.306</td><td char=".">3.205</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.073</td><td char=".">1.730</td><td char=".">0.949</td><td char=".">3.152</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.249</td><td char=".">0.174</td><td char=".">2.059</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.151</td><td char=".">1.283</td><td char=".">0.913</td><td char=".">1.802</td></tr><tr><td>Abstainer</td><td char=".">−0.982</td><td char=".">0.156</td><td char=".">39.697</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.375</td><td char=".">0.276</td><td char=".">0.508</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−2.986</td><td char=".">0.374</td><td char=".">63.761</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.050</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Year 2</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.698</td><td char=".">0.288</td><td char=".">5.868</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.015</td><td char=".">2.009</td><td char=".">1.142</td><td char=".">3.534</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">−0.136</td><td char=".">0.476</td><td char=".">0.082</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.775</td><td char=".">0.873</td><td char=".">0.343</td><td char=".">2.219</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.274</td><td char=".">0.343</td><td char=".">0.638</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.424</td><td char=".">1.315</td><td char=".">0.672</td><td char=".">2.575</td></tr><tr><td>Abstainer</td><td char=".">−0.620</td><td char=".">0.296</td><td char=".">4.384</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.036</td><td char=".">0.538</td><td char=".">0.301</td><td char=".">0.961</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−4.292</td><td char=".">0.651</td><td char=".">43.519</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.014</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Off-campus alcohol citation</td></tr><tr><td>Year 1</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.477</td><td char=".">0.176</td><td char=".">7.333</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.007</td><td char=".">1.612</td><td char=".">1.141</td><td char=".">2.277</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">0.554</td><td char=".">0.396</td><td char=".">1.955</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.162</td><td char=".">1.740</td><td char=".">0.800</td><td char=".">3.781</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.349</td><td char=".">0.212</td><td char=".">2.703</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.100</td><td char=".">1.417</td><td char=".">0.935</td><td char=".">2.148</td></tr><tr><td>Abstainer</td><td char=".">−1.289</td><td char=".">0.215</td><td char=".">36.051</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.276</td><td char=".">0.181</td><td char=".">0.420</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−3.700</td><td char=".">0.479</td><td char=".">59.786</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.025</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Year 2</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">1.126</td><td char=".">0.278</td><td char=".">16.434</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">3.084</td><td char=".">1.789</td><td char=".">5.317</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">1.066</td><td char=".">0.723</td><td char=".">2.171</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.141</td><td char=".">2.902</td><td char=".">0.703</td><td char=".">11.975</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">−0.036</td><td char=".">0.336</td><td char=".">0.012</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.914</td><td char=".">0.964</td><td char=".">0.499</td><td char=".">1.863</td></tr><tr><td>Abstainer</td><td char=".">−1.311</td><td char=".">0.311</td><td char=".">17.752</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.270</td><td char=".">0.147</td><td char=".">0.496</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−4.930</td><td char=".">0.840</td><td char=".">34.450</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.007</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Gender: 1 = male, 0 = female; Ethnicity: 1 = White, 0 = non-White; Residency: 1 = nonresident student, 0 = resident student; Abstainer: 1= nondrinker, 0 = drinker.</p> <p>For the 2012 cohort, the final logistic regressions (Table 4) for alcohol-related judicial sanctions were significant in Year 1 (−2 log-likelihood = 1,240.61, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>) = 65.22, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and Year 2 (−2 log-likelihood = 613.90, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>) = 16.35, <emph>p</emph> =.003). Step 2 change indicated that precollege abstinence had a significant effect on alcohol-related on-campus violations in year 1 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>) = 51.56, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and in year 2 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>) = 4.91, <emph>p</emph> =.027). Precollege abstinence reduced the odds of an alcohol-related on-campus violation while in college by approximately 70% in year 1 and 43% in year 2 relative to students reporting precollege drinking (Table 5). The final logistic regressions (Table 4) for alcohol-related off-campus alcohol citations were significant in Year 1 (−2 log-likelihood = 701.89, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref60">4</reflink>) = 31.81, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and Year 2 (−2 log-likelihood = 573.50, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>) = 20.85, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Step 2 change indicated that precollege abstinence had a significant effect on off-campus alcohol citations in year 1 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>) = 29.69, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and year 2 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>) = 3.86, <emph>p</emph> =.049). Precollege abstinence reduced the odds of an off-campus alcohol citation while in college by about 73% in year 1 and 40% in year 2 relative to the odds for students reporting precollege drinking (Table 4).</p> <p>Table 4. Logistic regression for the 2012 cohort for alcohol-related on-campus sanctions and off-campus alcohol citations of precollege abstainers relative to precollege drinkers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>95% C.I.</td></tr><tr><td /><td>B</td><td>S.E.</td><td>Wald</td><td>df</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Odds ratio</td><td>Lower</td><td>Upper</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Judicial alcohol sanction</td></tr><tr><td>Year 1</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.556</td><td char=".">0.161</td><td char=".">11.931</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">1.743</td><td char=".">1.272</td><td char=".">2.390</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">0.064</td><td char=".">0.283</td><td char=".">0.051</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.821</td><td char=".">1.066</td><td char=".">0.613</td><td char=".">1.856</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">−0.154</td><td char=".">0.207</td><td char=".">0.555</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.456</td><td char=".">0.857</td><td char=".">0.571</td><td char=".">1.286</td></tr><tr><td>Abstainer</td><td char=".">−1.189</td><td char=".">0.177</td><td char=".">44.871</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.305</td><td char=".">0.215</td><td char=".">0.431</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−2.275</td><td char=".">0.390</td><td char=".">34.003</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.103</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Year 2</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.773</td><td char=".">0.263</td><td char=".">8.677</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.003</td><td char=".">2.167</td><td char=".">1.295</td><td char=".">3.626</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">0.082</td><td char=".">0.436</td><td char=".">0.035</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.851</td><td char=".">1.085</td><td char=".">0.462</td><td char=".">2.548</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.456</td><td char=".">0.281</td><td char=".">2.638</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.104</td><td char=".">1.578</td><td char=".">0.910</td><td char=".">2.738</td></tr><tr><td>Abstainer</td><td char=".">−0.555</td><td char=".">0.255</td><td char=".">4.732</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.030</td><td char=".">0.574</td><td char=".">0.348</td><td char=".">0.947</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−4.407</td><td char=".">0.603</td><td char=".">53.373</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.012</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Off-campus alcohol citation</td></tr><tr><td>Year 1</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.247</td><td char=".">0.226</td><td char=".">1.197</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.274</td><td char=".">1.280</td><td char=".">0.822</td><td char=".">1.994</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">−0.135</td><td char=".">0.382</td><td char=".">0.125</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.723</td><td char=".">0.874</td><td char=".">0.413</td><td char=".">1.846</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">−0.289</td><td char=".">0.308</td><td char=".">0.876</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.349</td><td char=".">0.749</td><td char=".">0.410</td><td char=".">1.371</td></tr><tr><td>Abstainer</td><td char=".">−1.335</td><td char=".">0.270</td><td char=".">24.480</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.263</td><td char=".">0.155</td><td char=".">0.447</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−2.554</td><td char=".">0.541</td><td char=".">22.251</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.078</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Year 2</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">1.038</td><td char=".">0.287</td><td char=".">13.074</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">2.822</td><td char=".">1.608</td><td char=".">4.953</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">−0.173</td><td char=".">0.410</td><td char=".">0.177</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.674</td><td char=".">0.841</td><td char=".">0.377</td><td char=".">1.879</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.495</td><td char=".">0.290</td><td char=".">2.908</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.088</td><td char=".">1.640</td><td char=".">0.929</td><td char=".">2.896</td></tr><tr><td>Abstainer</td><td char=".">−0.509</td><td char=".">0.263</td><td char=".">3.745</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.053</td><td char=".">0.601</td><td char=".">0.359</td><td char=".">1.007</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−4.506</td><td char=".">0.605</td><td char=".">55.544</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.011</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Gender: 1 = male, 0 = female; Ethnicity: 1 = White, 0 = non-White; Residency: 1 = nonresident student, 0 = resident student; Abstainer: 1= nondrinker, 0 = drinker.</p> <p>Table 5. Cox regression for the 2011 and 2012 cohorts' survival of precollege binge drinkers relative to precollege abstainers and precollege non-binge drinkers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>95% C.I.</td></tr><tr><td /><td>B</td><td>S.E.</td><td>Wald</td><td>df</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Odds ratio</td><td>Lower</td><td>Upper</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>2011 cohort</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">−0.094</td><td char=".">0.089</td><td char=".">1.113</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.291</td><td char=".">0.910</td><td char=".">0.764</td><td char=".">1.084</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.008</td><td char=".">0.070</td><td char=".">0.013</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.910</td><td char=".">1.008</td><td char=".">0.878</td><td char=".">1.157</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">−0.003</td><td char=".">0.053</td><td char=".">0.003</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.960</td><td char=".">0.997</td><td char=".">0.899</td><td char=".">1.106</td></tr><tr><td>Binge drinker</td><td char=".">0.030</td><td char=".">0.063</td><td char=".">0.222</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.637</td><td char=".">1.030</td><td char=".">0.911</td><td char=".">1.165</td></tr><tr><td>2012 Cohort</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">−0.230</td><td char=".">0.121</td><td char=".">3.635</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.057</td><td char=".">0.794</td><td char=".">0.627</td><td char=".">1.006</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.066</td><td char=".">0.096</td><td char=".">0.475</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.491</td><td char=".">1.068</td><td char=".">0.885</td><td char=".">1.290</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">−0.098</td><td char=".">0.077</td><td char=".">1.600</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.206</td><td char=".">0.907</td><td char=".">0.780</td><td char=".">1.055</td></tr><tr><td>Binge drinker</td><td char=".">0.230</td><td char=".">0.092</td><td char=".">6.319</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.012</td><td char=".">1.259</td><td char=".">1.052</td><td char=".">1.506</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 Gender: 1 = male, 0 = female; Ethnicity: 1 = White, 0 = non-White; Residency: 1 = nonresident student, 0 = resident student; Binger drinker: 1= Binge drinker, 0 = non-binge drinker. Overall model: 2011 Cohort: −2 log-likelihood = 22,324.32, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>) = 1.34, <emph>p</emph> =.854; 2012 Cohort: −2 log-likelihood = 10,432.40, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>) = 11.18, <emph>p</emph> =.025.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-13">Associations with precollege binge drinking</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146946774-14">Student retention</hd> <p>Kaplan–Meier survival curves[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref66">36</reflink>] were used to compare the survival of students who reported binge drinking precollege with students who did not. The non-binge drinking comparison group included both abstainers and students who drank but did not binge. For the 2011 cohort, the survival function of binge drinker is shown in Figure 3. Students who reported precollege binge drinking had similar retention to those who did not binge precollege (Mantel–Cox log-rank test, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>) = 0.216, <emph>p</emph> =.642). For the 2012 cohort, the survival function of binge drinker is shown in Figure 4. Students who reported pre-college binge drinking had significantly lower retention than pre-college non-binge drinkers (Mantel–Cox log-rank test, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>) = 6.074, <emph>p</emph> =.014).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. 2011 cohort survival function of precollege binge drinkers.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 4. 2012 cohort survival function of precollege binge drinkers.</p> <p>Cox regressions were run in two steps to test the significance of precollege binge drinking controlling for ethnicity, residency, and gender. For the 2011 cohort, the Step 2 change testing the effect of binge drinking was not significant (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>) = 0.221, <emph>p</emph> =.638). It was consistent with Kaplan–Meier survival analysis findings, as the odds of retention for students reporting precollege binge drinking were not significantly different from those for precollege non-binge drinkers (Table 5). For the 2012 cohort, the effect of binge drinking on retention was significant (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>) = 6.06, <emph>p</emph> =.014). The final Cox regression showed precollege binge drinking increased the odds of dropping out by 1.26 (26%) relative to the odds for a precollege non-binge drinker when ethnicity, residency, and gender were controlled (Table 5).</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-15">On-campus alcohol-related violations and off-campus alcohol citations</hd> <p>Logistic regressions were run hierarchically, with demographic variables entered on the first step and precollege binge drinking status (binger vs not binger) entered on the second step, to test for the impact of precollege binge drinking on on-campus violations and off-campus citations while in college. Significance of binge drinking was determined from Step 2 change.</p> <p>For the 2011 cohort, the final logistic regressions (Table 6) for alcohol-related judicial sanctions were significant in Year 1 (−2 log-likelihood = 1579.81, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>) = 33.15, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and Year 2 (−2 log-likelihood = 523.38, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>) = 10.78, <emph>p</emph> =.029). The Step 2 change indicated that precollege binge drinking had a significant effect on alcohol-related on-campus sanctions in year 1 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>) = 22.55, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and in year 2 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>) = 4.06, <emph>p</emph> =.044). Precollege binge drinking increased the odds of an alcohol-related on-campus violation while in college by about 2.04 (104%) in year 1 and 1.83 (83%) in year 2 relative to the odds for students who did not binge precollege (Table 6). The final logistic regressions (Table 6) for off-campus alcohol citations were significant in Year 1 (−2 log-likelihood = 1085.37, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref75">4</reflink>) = 46.00, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and Year 2 (−2 log-likelihood = 600.66, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref76">4</reflink>) = 47.67, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Step 2 change indicated that precollege binge drinking had a significant effect on off-campus alcohol citations in year 1 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>) = 32.58, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and in year 2 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>) = 24.96, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Precollege binge drinking increased the odds of an off-campus alcohol citation during college by about 2.82 (182%) in year 1 and 3.54 (254%) in year 2 relative to the odds for students who did not binge before college (Table 6).</p> <p>Table 6. Logistic regression for the 2011 cohort for alcohol-related on-campus sanctions and off-campus alcohol citations for precollege binge drinkers relative to precollege abstainers and non-binge-drinkers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>95% C.I.</td></tr><tr><td /><td>B</td><td>S.E.</td><td>Wald</td><td>df</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Odds ratio</td><td>Lower</td><td>Upper</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Judicial alcohol sanction</td></tr><tr><td>Year 1</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.226</td><td char=".">0.138</td><td char=".">2.682</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.101</td><td char=".">1.254</td><td char=".">0.956</td><td char=".">1.644</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">0.597</td><td char=".">0.305</td><td char=".">3.821</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.051</td><td char=".">1.816</td><td char=".">0.998</td><td char=".">3.303</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.237</td><td char=".">0.173</td><td char=".">1.878</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.171</td><td char=".">1.268</td><td char=".">0.903</td><td char=".">1.780</td></tr><tr><td>Binge drinker</td><td char=".">0.711</td><td char=".">0.145</td><td char=".">24.035</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">2.036</td><td char=".">1.532</td><td char=".">2.706</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−3.553</td><td char=".">0.370</td><td char=".">92.031</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.029</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Year 2</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.671</td><td char=".">0.288</td><td char=".">5.416</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.020</td><td char=".">1.957</td><td char=".">1.112</td><td char=".">3.444</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">−0.106</td><td char=".">0.476</td><td char=".">0.049</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.824</td><td char=".">0.900</td><td char=".">0.354</td><td char=".">2.285</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.267</td><td char=".">0.343</td><td char=".">0.606</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.436</td><td char=".">1.306</td><td char=".">0.667</td><td char=".">2.559</td></tr><tr><td>Binge drinker</td><td char=".">0.604</td><td char=".">0.290</td><td char=".">4.344</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.037</td><td char=".">1.829</td><td char=".">1.037</td><td char=".">3.226</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−4.707</td><td char=".">0.641</td><td char=".">53.849</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.009</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Off-campus alcohol citation</td></tr><tr><td>Year 1</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.429</td><td char=".">0.176</td><td char=".">5.924</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.015</td><td char=".">1.536</td><td char=".">1.087</td><td char=".">2.171</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">0.609</td><td char=".">0.396</td><td char=".">2.374</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.123</td><td char=".">1.840</td><td char=".">0.847</td><td char=".">3.994</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.329</td><td char=".">0.212</td><td char=".">2.405</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.121</td><td char=".">1.390</td><td char=".">0.917</td><td char=".">2.107</td></tr><tr><td>Binge drinker</td><td char=".">1.037</td><td char=".">0.176</td><td char=".">34.824</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">2.820</td><td char=".">1.998</td><td char=".">3.979</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−4.45</td><td char=".">0.477</td><td char=".">87.111</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.012</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Year 2</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">1.068</td><td char=".">0.278</td><td char=".">14.704</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">2.908</td><td char=".">1.685</td><td char=".">5.019</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">1.130</td><td char=".">0.724</td><td char=".">2.441</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.118</td><td char=".">3.097</td><td char=".">0.750</td><td char=".">12.786</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">−0.065</td><td char=".">0.337</td><td char=".">0.037</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.848</td><td char=".">0.937</td><td char=".">0.484</td><td char=".">1.814</td></tr><tr><td>Binge drinker</td><td char=".">1.263</td><td char=".">0.247</td><td char=".">26.221</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">3.538</td><td char=".">2.181</td><td char=".">5.738</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−5.781</td><td char=".">0.841</td><td char=".">47.276</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.003</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 Gender: 1 = male, 0 = female; Ethnicity: 1 = White, 0 = non-White; Residency: 1 = nonresident student, 0 = resident student; Binger drinker: 1= Binge drinker, 0 = non-binge drinker.</p> <p>For the 2012 cohort, the final logistic regressions (Table 7) for alcohol-related judicial sanctions were significant in Year 1 (−2 log-likelihood = 1249.78, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref79">4</reflink>) = 56.06, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and Year 2 (−2 log-likelihood = 614.33, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref80">4</reflink>) = 15.92, <emph>p</emph> =.003). The Step 2 change indicated that precollege binge drinking had a significant effect on alcohol-related on-campus sanctions in year 1 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>) = 42.40, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and year 2 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>) = 4.48, <emph>p</emph> =.034). With ethnicity, residency, and gender controlled, precollege binge drinking increased the odds of an alcohol-related on-campus violation in year 1 by about 2.97 (197%) and odds of an alcohol-related on-campus violation in year 2 by about 1.79 (79%) relative to the odds for students who did not binge precollege (Table 7). The final logistic regressions (Table 7) for off-campus alcohol citations were significant in Year 1 (−2 log-likelihood = 710.99, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref83">4</reflink>) = 22.70, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and Year 2 (−2 log-likelihood = 572.55, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref84">4</reflink>) = 21.79, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Step 2 change indicated that precollege binge drinking had a significant effect on off-campus alcohol citations in year 1 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>) = 20.59, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and year 2 (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>) = 4.81, <emph>p</emph> =.028). Precollege binge drinking increased the odds of a student receiving an off-campus alcohol-related citation while in college by about 2.96 (196%) in year 1 and 1.87 (87%) in year 2 relative to the odds for students who did not binge precollege (Table 7).</p> <p>Table 7. Logistic regression for the 2012 cohort for alcohol-related on-campus sanctions and off-campus alcohol citations for pre-college binge drinkers relative to pre-college abstainers and non-binge-drinkers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>95% C.I.</td></tr><tr><td /><td>B</td><td>S.E.</td><td>Wald</td><td>df</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Odds ratio</td><td>Lower</td><td>Upper</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Judicial alcohol sanction</td></tr><tr><td>Year 1</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.498</td><td char=".">0.161</td><td char=".">9.375</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.002</td><td char=".">1.645</td><td char=".">1.200</td><td char=".">2.255</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">0.063</td><td char=".">0.282</td><td char=".">0.050</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.823</td><td char=".">1.065</td><td char=".">0.613</td><td char=".">1.851</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">−0.139</td><td char=".">0.207</td><td char=".">0.454</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.501</td><td char=".">0.870</td><td char=".">0.580</td><td char=".">1.305</td></tr><tr><td>Binge drinker</td><td char=".">1.089</td><td char=".">0.161</td><td char=".">45.832</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">2.973</td><td char=".">2.169</td><td char=".">4.075</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−3.018</td><td char=".">0.383</td><td char=".">62.104</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.049</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Year 2</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.736</td><td char=".">0.263</td><td char=".">7.841</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.005</td><td char=".">2.088</td><td char=".">1.247</td><td char=".">3.495</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">0.080</td><td char=".">0.436</td><td char=".">0.033</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.855</td><td char=".">1.083</td><td char=".">0.461</td><td char=".">2.544</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.458</td><td char=".">0.281</td><td char=".">2.658</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.103</td><td char=".">1.581</td><td char=".">0.912</td><td char=".">2.741</td></tr><tr><td>Binge drinker</td><td char=".">0.583</td><td char=".">0.266</td><td char=".">4.815</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.028</td><td char=".">1.791</td><td char=".">1.064</td><td char=".">3.015</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−4.771</td><td char=".">0.588</td><td char=".">65.872</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.008</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Off-campus alcohol citation</td></tr><tr><td>Year 1</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.195</td><td char=".">0.226</td><td char=".">0.745</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.388</td><td char=".">1.215</td><td char=".">0.780</td><td char=".">1.893</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">−0.118</td><td char=".">0.382</td><td char=".">0.095</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.758</td><td char=".">0.889</td><td char=".">0.421</td><td char=".">1.878</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">−0.262</td><td char=".">0.308</td><td char=".">0.722</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.395</td><td char=".">0.770</td><td char=".">0.421</td><td char=".">1.407</td></tr><tr><td>Binge drinker</td><td char=".">1.085</td><td char=".">0.229</td><td char=".">22.458</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">2.958</td><td char=".">1.889</td><td char=".">4.632</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−3.364</td><td char=".">0.533</td><td char=".">39.848</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.035</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Year 2</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.999</td><td char=".">0.287</td><td char=".">12.087</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">2.715</td><td char=".">1.546</td><td char=".">4.767</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td char=".">−0.191</td><td char=".">0.411</td><td char=".">0.215</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.643</td><td char=".">0.827</td><td char=".">0.370</td><td char=".">1.849</td></tr><tr><td>Residency</td><td char=".">0.489</td><td char=".">0.290</td><td char=".">2.839</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.092</td><td char=".">1.630</td><td char=".">0.923</td><td char=".">2.879</td></tr><tr><td>Binge drinker</td><td char=".">0.624</td><td char=".">0.274</td><td char=".">5.177</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.023</td><td char=".">1.866</td><td char=".">1.090</td><td char=".">3.193</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td char=".">−4.842</td><td char=".">0.588</td><td char=".">67.906</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.000</td><td char=".">0.008</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>7 Gender: 1 = male, 0 = female; Ethnicity: 1 = White, 0 = non-White; Residency: 1 = nonresident student, 0 = resident student; Binger drinker: 1= Binge drinker, 0 = non-binge drinker.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-16">Comment</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146946774-17">Association of precollege drinking behavior with college retention</hd> <p>Precollege drinking behaviors were significantly associated with student retention. For the 2011 cohort, students who reported not drinking alcohol before college were less likely to drop out than drinkers. For 2012 cohort, not only were the precollege abstainers less likely to drop out than drinkers; but also, students reporting precollege binge drinking were more likely to drop out than non-bingers. These findings extend those of Harford et al[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref87">33</reflink>] who found that heavy episodic drinking in high school increased the likelihood of problems in college.</p> <p>The effect of abstinence was more pronounced for the 2012 cohort where survival effects were seen at the end of the first year, with survival increasing each successive semester. Impacts were smaller for the 2011 Cohort and took longer to appear. There was only a minimal survival advantage for precollege abstainers through their first two academic years. Only at the fall semester of their junior (3rd) year did significant survival differences appear. Similarly, there was no effect of precollege binge drinking on retention for the 2011 cohort; whereas, there was small effect increasing dropping out in 2012. There were no obvious differences in demographics between the 2011 and 2012 cohorts, and no changes in admissions standards or policies in the 2 years. So, it is unclear why the effects on retention for both precollege abstainers and precollege binge drinkers were larger for the 2012 cohort. These findings substantiate the need to consider how entering cohorts may be different both in their drinking and the impacts of their drinking on retention and college success and the need to examine other factors that may be mediating associations between precollege drinking and later academic consequences.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-18">Association of precollege drinking behavior with on-campus alcohol-related violations and off...</hd> <p>Precollege abstinence was associated with reduced likelihood of students having alcohol-related on-campus violations or off-campus legal citations while in college. In both years, the odds of a violation or citation were lower for abstainers than for drinkers in both cohorts. In contrast, precollege binge drinking was associated with increased likelihood of students having alcohol-related on-campus or off-campus citations. Odds of a violation or citation were higher for students reporting binge drinking before college than for students who either abstained or drank but did not binge before college.</p> <p>Findings suggest that no or low alcohol consumption before college is associated with reduced likelihood that students will suffer either campus or community legal consequences from their drinking while they are in college. The effects of both precollege abstinence and precollege binge drinking generally were more pronounced for the students' first year. This is important because the freshmen year is a particularly high-risk time for both personal and legal negative consequences from drinking.[<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref88">37</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-19">Study limitations</hd> <p>There are many factors that influence whether students continue in school or dropout. Although we could control for some common demographic influences, we do not have information on other important factors like socio-economic status or students' high-school academic record. Also, we have no way of knowing if students who drink alcohol before college differed in other personal or academic factors that might have differentially affected their retention or likelihood of violations.</p> <p>Another limitation is that we have no information on students' drinking or abstinence following enrollment. As a result, we cannot determine how their use of alcohol may have changed while at college. Clearly, post-enrollment drinking would be a more proximal cause of any retention or legal difficulties. It is notable; however, that despite not knowing students' subsequent drinking, their precollege drinking patterns were still predictive and predictive across multiple years.</p> <p>Results are limited only to students who completed the Y1-CAP. Of entering first-year students, about 16% in 2011 and 20% in 2012 did not complete the Y1-CAP. As a result, we have no information about the preenrollment drinking of these students and whether these students experienced similar retention and violation outcomes. This does not, however, necessarily compromise the utility of the screening information for those students who did complete the Y1-CAP. But, future research needs to examine whether associations would change if all students completed Y1-CAP or a similar BI screening tool.</p> <p>Finally, although not a limitation of the study itself, Y1-CAP like all Web-based BIs relies on students providing true and accurate responses to the screening input questions. Screening potential would be decreased if students regularly provide inaccurate information on their drinking behaviors. We have no way of verifying the accuracy of students' responses. Despite this potential confound, the findings still indicate that the information students do provide appears to have useful screening potential.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-20">Summary and conclusions</hd> <p>Precollege drinking behaviors appear to be meaningfully associated with student retention and alcohol-related on-campus violations and off-campus citations. Precollege abstinence appears to be a protective factor against dropping out or receiving on-campus alcohol violations or off-campus alcohol citations. Regardless of whether precollege abstainers subsequently go on to drink during college, they continue to remain at lower risk for negative consequences. Conversely, precollege heavy-episodic (binge) drinking was associated with increased risk of dropping out or receiving a violation or citations. It appears that precollege binge drinkers continue to remain at higher risk regardless of their subsequent post-enrollment drinking.</p> <p>For on-campus alcohol violations and off-campus alcohol citations, associations were strongest in the first year of college and then weakened. This makes sense as entering drinking patterns likely continued into the freshmen year. But, after the freshmen year it is likely that emerging college drinking patterns such as uptake of drinking by abstainers or increases or decreases in high-risk binge drinking play an increasing role in legal and campus judicial risk relative to students' entering drinking patterns[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref90">38</reflink>]. For retention, however, effects of entering abstinence or heavy-episodic drinking appeared to continue and perhaps accumulate. Especially for the 2011 cohort, differences in retention did not appear until the junior year. This suggests that absent some specific interventions, patterns of pre-college drinking may have substantial impacts on retention and degree completion.</p> <p>These findings suggest that information about precollege drinking behavior could be useful screening information for informing campus alcohol prevention and treatment programing. It appears that information gained in a pre-enrollment BI could be effectively used to customize alcohol interventions to students' specific needs. For abstainers, interventions might be directed at maintaining abstinence or if drinking is begun to encourage lower-risk drinking. For students reporting pre-college heavy-episodic drinking, more intensive interventions might be warranted to reduce high-risk drinking. These types of interventions could start in tailored feedback within the pre-enrollment BMI itself, as is done in the Y1-CAP at UNL. But, further programing would clearly be desirable post-enrollment. Post-enrollment programing could also be informed by future research that examined mediators and moderators of the relationships identified between pre-enrollment measures and subsequent outcomes. Knowing the intervening variables linking students preenrollment drinking and subsequent retention and violation outcomes would allow for more precise targeted programing.</p> <p>Shell and Newman[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref91">31</reflink>] found that completing a preenrollment BI is associated with reduced dropout and fewer alcohol-related campus sanctions and community violations. It appears, however, that information provided in a preenrollment BI has screening value beyond the positive effects of the BI itself. This may make a preenrollment BI an important prevention tool that could be used by college health and student services professionals to identify and focus interventions on the student who might be at risk of significant personal and academic harms. Can Web-based preenrollment BI be effective screening tools? The answer would seem to be yes.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-21">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The views expressed in this article are the views of the authors and do not represent the views of the funder. Michelle Maas, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, assisted with English editing and manuscript preparation.</p> <hd id="AN0146946774-22">Conflict of interest disclosure</hd> <p>The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the United States and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.</p> <ref id="AN0146946774-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Hingson R, Zha W, Smyth D. Magnitude and trends in heavy episodic drinking, alcohol-impaired driving, and alcohol-related mortality and overdose hospitalizations among emerging adults of college ages 18–24 in the United States, 1998–2014. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2017; 78 (4): 540 – 548. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.540.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> White A, Hingson R. The burden of alcohol use: Excessive alcohol consumption and related consequences among college students. Alcohol Res. 2014; 35 (2): 201 – 218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref12" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Presley CA, Pimentel ER. The introduction of the heavy and frequent drinker: a proposed classification to increase accuracy of alcohol assessments in postsecondary educational settings. J Stud Alcohol. 2006; 67 (2): 324 – 331. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.324.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref39" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Porter SR, Pryor J. The effects of heavy episodic alcohol use on student engagement, academic performance, and time use. J Coll Stud Dev. 2007; 48 (4): 455 – 467. doi: 10.1353/csd.2007.0042.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Singleton RA. Collegiate alcohol consumption and academic performance. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2007; 68 (4): 548 – 555.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Park CL, Grant C. Determinants of positive and negative consequences of alcohol consumption in college students: alcohol use, gender, and psychological characteristics. Addict Behav. 2005; 30 (4): 755 – 765. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.08.021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref9" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Krieger H, Young CM, Anthenien AM, Neighbors C. The epidemiology of binge drinking among college-age individuals in the United States. Alcohol Res Curr Rev. 2018; 39 (1): 23 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Powell LM, Williams J, Wechsler H. Study habits and the level of alcohol use among college students. Educ Econ. 2004; 12 (2): 135 – 149. doi: 10.1080/0964529042000239159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Raisman N. The Cost of College Attrition at Four-Year Colleges & Universities: An Analysis of 1669 US Institutions. Virginia Beach, Virginia : The Educational Policy Institute, Policy Perspective; 2013. Available from eric.ed.gov (ERIC Number: ED562625).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott DM, Spielmans GI, Julka DC. Predictors of academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: a longitudinal study. Coll Stud J. 2004; 38 (1): 66 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liguori G, Lonbaken B. Alcohol consumption and academic retention in first-year college students. Coll Stud J. 2015; 49 (1): 69 – 77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinez JA, Sher KJ, Wood PK. Is heavy drinking really associated with attrition from college? The alcohol-attrition paradox. Psychol Addict Behav. 2008; 22 (3): 450 – 456. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.22.3.450.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flowers NT, Naimi TS, Brewer RD, Elder RW, Shults RA, Jiles R. Patterns of alcohol consumption and alcohol-impaired driving in the United States. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008; 32 (4): 639 – 644. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00622.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merrill JE, Carey KB, Lust SA, Kalichman SC, Carey MP. Do students mandated to intervention for campus alcohol-related violations drink more than non-mandated students? Psychol Addict Behav. 2014; 28 (4): 1265 – 1270. doi: 10.1037/a0037710.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson KM, Huynh C. College arrests and later criminal convictions: an examination of the cumulative disadvantage of misconduct while in college. Deviant Behav. 2018; 39 (10): 1267 – 1279. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2017.1409986.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Planning Alcohol Interventions Using NIAAA's COLLEGE AIM Alcohol Intervention Matrix. Washington, DC : National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 2015. Available from https://<ulink href="http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/CollegeAIM/">www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/CollegeAIM/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marlatt GA, Baer JS, Kivlahan DR, et al. Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: results from a 2-year follow-up assessment. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998; 66 (4): 604 – 615.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Agostinelli G, Brown JM, Miller WR. Effects of normative feedback on consumption among heavy drinking college students. J Drug Educ. 1995; 25 (1): 31 – 40. doi: 10.2190/XD56-D6WR-7195-EAL3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neighbors C, Larimer ME, Lewis MA. Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: Efficacy of a computer-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004; 72 (3): 434 – 447. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.434.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCambridge J, Bendtsen M, Karlsson N, White IR, Nilsen P, Bendtsen P. Alcohol assessment and feedback by email for university students: main findings from a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2013; 203 (05): 334 – 340. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128660.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walters ST, Vader AM, Harris TR. A controlled trial of web-based feedback for heavy drinking college students. Prev Sci. 2007; 8 (1): 83 – 88. doi: 10.1007/s11121-006-0059-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walters ST, Neighbors C. Feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: what, why and for whom? Addict Behav. 2005; 30 (6): 1168 – 1182. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.12.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baer JS, Marlatt GA, Kivlahan DR, Fromme K, Larimer ME, Williams E. An experimental test of three methods of alcohol risk reduction with young adults. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992; 60 (6): 974 – 979.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carey KB, Scott-Sheldon LAJ, Elliott JC, Bolles JR, Carey MP. Computer delivered interventions to reduce college student drinking: A meta-analysis. Addiction. 2009; 104 (11): 1807 – 1819. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02691.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bhochhibhoya A, Hayes L, Branscum P, Taylor L. The use of the internet for prevention of binge drinking among the college population: a systematic review of evidence. Alcohol Alcohol. 2015; 50 (5): 526 – 535. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agv047.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larimer ME, Cronce JM. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addict Behav. 2007; 32 (11): 2439 – 2468. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.05.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paschall MJ, Antin T, Ringwalt CL, Saltz RF. Effects of AlcoholEdu for college on alcohol-related problems among freshmen: A randomized multi-campus trial. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2011; 72 (4): 642 – 650. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.642.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paschall MJ, Antin T, Ringwalt CL, Saltz RF. Evaluation of an internet-based alcohol misuse prevention course for college freshmen: findings of a randomized multi-campus trial. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 41 (3): 300 – 308. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.03.021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott-Sheldson LA, Carey KB, Elliott JC, Garey L, Carey MP. Efficacy of alcohol interventions for first-year college students: a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014; 82 : 177 – 188. doi: 10.1037/a0035192.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane DJ, Schmidt JA. Evaluating personalized alcohol interventions. Paper presented at: The 79th Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association; May 5, 2007; Chicago, IL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shell DF, Newman IM. Effects of a web-based, pre-enrollment alcohol brief motivational intervention on college student retention and alcohol-related violations. J Am Coll Health. 2018 : 1. (early on-line access). doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1481072.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sher KJ, Rutledge PC. Heavy drinking across the transition to college: Predicting first-semester heavy drinking from precollege variables. Addict Behav. 2007; 32 (4): 819 – 835. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.06.024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harford TC, Wechsler H, Muthén BO. The impact of current residence and high school drinking on alcohol problems among college students. J Stud Alcohol. 2002; 63 (3): 271 – 279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scaglione NM, Mallett KA, Turrisi R, Reavy R, Cleveland MJ, Ackerman S. Who will experience the most alcohol problems in college? The role of middle and high school drinking tendencies. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015; 39 (10): 2039 – 2046. - doi: 10.1111/acer.12846.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kivlahan DR, Marlatt GA, Fromme K, Coppel DB, Williams E. Secondary prevention with college drinkers: evaluation of an alcohol skills training program. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1990; 58 (6): 805 – 810.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958; 53 (282): 457 – 481. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross V, DeJong W. Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse among First-Year College Students. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention; 2008. Available from https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/hec/product/first-year.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weitzman ER, Nelson TF, Wechsler H. Taking up binge drinking in college: the influences of person, social group, and environment. J Adolesc Health. 2003; 32 (1): 26 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Duane F. Shell; Ian M. Newman and Lok-wa Yuen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref90"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1275507
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Can Web-Based Preenrollment Alcohol Brief Interventions Be Effective Screening Tools? Precollege Drinking Behavior Predicts College Retention and Alcohol Violations
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shell%2C+Duane+F%2E%22">Shell, Duane F.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Newman%2C+Ian+M%2E%22">Newman, Ian M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yuen%2C+Lok-wa%22">Yuen, Lok-wa</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+American+College+Health%22"><i>Journal of American College Health</i></searchLink>. 2020 68(7):762-773.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– 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><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Courses%22">Online Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alcohol+Education%22">Alcohol Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alcohol+Abuse%22">Alcohol Abuse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drinking%22">Drinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Screening+Tests%22">Screening Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Bound+Students%22">College Bound Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Experience%22">Student Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Holding+Power%22">School Holding Power</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discipline%22">Discipline</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Freshmen%22">College Freshmen</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07448481.2019.1590369
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0744-8481
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objective: To test if precollege drinking data gathered during an online brief intervention are associated with problems and could inform screening for campus alcohol prevention efforts. Participants: Two cohorts of incoming students (N=5300). Method: Precollege alcohol drinking was gathered through an online preenrollment alcohol brief intervention. Drop out was obtained from university records. On-campus alcohol violations were obtained from university judicial affairs, and off-campus alcohol citations were obtained from the city police. The 2011 cohort was tracked for 4 years, the 2012 cohort for 3 years. Results: Precollege abstaining and heavy drinking were significantly associated with retention and alcohol violations, even with ethnicity, residency, and gender controlled. Association of precollege drinking with later college problems extended beyond the first year and affected retention up to four years of enrollment. Conclusions: The findings support using data from preenrollment alcohol brief interventions as screening tools to customize further campus alcohol interventions.
– 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: EJ1275507
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1275507
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07448481.2019.1590369
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 762
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Online Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Alcohol Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Alcohol Abuse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Screening Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Bound Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Holding Power
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discipline
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Freshmen
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Can Web-Based Preenrollment Alcohol Brief Interventions Be Effective Screening Tools? Precollege Drinking Behavior Predicts College Retention and Alcohol Violations
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shell, Duane F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Newman, Ian M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yuen, Lok-wa
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0744-8481
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 68
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of American College Health
              Type: main
ResultId 1