Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Department of Health Behavior and Health Systems, School of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas.
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2022 Jul;83(4):588-595. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2022.83.588.
Clinical trials assessing efficacy of alcohol use interventions often aim to test differences between treatment and control conditions at several follow-up time points, requiring repeated assessment of outcomes (e.g., weekly number of drinks). There has been concern that repeated assessment may elicit assessment reactivity in which participants, even those who did not receive treatment, reduce their alcohol use, but findings in the literature have been mixed. The current study of assessment reactivity compared two control conditions that were part of a larger randomized controlled trial: (a) repeated assessment that completed surveys at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups, and (b) minimal assessment that only completed surveys at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Outcomes assessed at 12-month follow-up included (a) changes in alcohol use behavior and negative consequences, (b) changes in perceived descriptive and injunctive norms, and (c) participant attrition/retention.
Participants were undergraduate students who reported at least one heavy drinking occasion (4+/5+ drinks for women/men) in the past month ( = 456; 63.3% female; mean age = 20.11 years).
Multiple regression models indicated no significant differences between the repeated and minimal assessment control conditions on any indices of alcohol use ( values ranged from .42 to .97), negative consequences ( = .39), or on perceived descriptive/injunctive norms ( = .60 and .23, respectively). Attrition at 12-month follow-up was low in both groups, but significantly higher ( = .006) in the repeated assessment condition (16.49%) than the minimal assessment condition (8.55%).
Repeated assessment did not elicit changes in alcohol use, negative consequences, or perceived norms. A minimal assessment control condition may not be necessary when assessing intervention efficacy across longitudinal follow-ups. However, when attrition at 12-month follow-up is a salient concern, a minimal assessment control may retain more participants than repeated assessment.
评估酒精使用干预措施疗效的临床试验通常旨在在几个随访时间点测试治疗和对照条件之间的差异，这需要对结果进行重复评估（例如，每周饮酒量）。人们一直担心重复评估可能会引起评估反应性，即即使是未接受治疗的参与者也会减少饮酒量，但文献中的发现却参差不齐。本研究比较了作为更大规模随机对照试验一部分的两种对照条件的评估反应性：（a）重复评估，在基线、3 个月、6 个月和 12 个月随访时完成调查，以及（b）最小评估，仅在基线和 12 个月随访时完成调查。在 12 个月随访时评估的结果包括：（a）饮酒行为和负面后果的变化，（b）感知描述性和指令性规范的变化，以及（c）参与者流失/保留。
参与者是报告过去一个月内至少有一次重度饮酒事件（女性/男性 4+/5+ 杯）的本科生（=456；63.3%为女性；平均年龄=20.11 岁）。
多元回归模型表明，重复评估和最小评估对照条件在任何饮酒指标（值范围从.42 到.97）、负面后果（=。39）或感知描述性/指令性规范（分别为.60 和.23）上均无显著差异。在两组中，12 个月随访时的失访率均较低，但在重复评估组中（16.49%）明显高于最小评估组（8.55%）（=。006）。
重复评估并未引起饮酒、负面后果或感知规范的变化。在进行纵向随访时，评估干预效果时可能不需要最小评估对照条件。然而，当 12 个月随访时的失访率是一个重要问题时，最小评估对照条件可能比重复评估保留更多的参与者。
