Values clarification alone
Values clarification programs are designed to help students evaluate their values and goals and incorporate responsible decision-making about alcohol use into these values and goals.
-
Effectiveness: X = Not effective
-
Cost: $$ = Mid-range
-
Research Amount: *** = 7 to 10 studies
-
Public Health Reach: Focused
-
Primary Modality: In-person group
-
Staffing Expertise Needed: Coordinator
-
Target Population: Individuals, specific groups, or all students
-
Duration of Effects: No short- or long-term effects
b = Intervention changed position in the matrix
Although this approach is a component of larger, effective programs such as BASICS and ASTP, it is rated here as a stand-alone intervention.
Effectiveness ratings are based on the percentage of studies reporting any positive outcomes. Strategies with three or fewer studies did not receive an effectiveness rating due to the limited data on which to base a conclusion. Cost ratings are based on the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the strategy. Duration of effects refers to the timeframe within which the intervention demonstrated effects on alcohol-related behavioral outcomes; follow-up periods for short-term effects were <6 months; follow-up periods for long-term effects were ≥6 months.
Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment: A review of individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):148–63, 2002.
- Barnett, L.A.; Far, J.M.; Mauss, A.L.; and Miller, J.A. Changing perceptions of peer norms as a drinking reduction program for college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 41(2):39–62, 1996.
- Meacci, W.G. An evaluation of the effects of college alcohol education on the prevention of negative consequences. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 35(3): 66-72, 1990.
- Schroeder, C.M.; and Prentice, D.A. Exposing pluralistic ignorance to reduce alcohol use among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(23):2150–80, 1998
Larimer, M.E.; and Cronce, J.M. Identification, prevention, and treatment revisited: Individual-focused college drinking prevention strategies 1999–2006. Addictive Behaviors 32:2439–68, 2007.
- Neal, D.J.; and Carey, K.B. Developing discrepancy within self regulation theory: Use of personalized normative feedback and personal strivings with heavy-drinking college students. Addictive Behaviors 29(2):281−97, 2004.
- Stamper, G.A.; Smith, B.H.; Gant, R.; and Bogle, K.E. Replicated findings of an evaluation of a brief intervention designed to prevent high-risk drinking among first-year college students: Implications for social norming theory. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 48(2):53−72, 2004.
References from 2019 update
- Scott, J.L.; Brown, A.C.; Phair, J.K.; et al. Self-affirmation, intentions and alcohol consumption in students: A randomized exploratory trial. Alcohol and Alcoholism48(4):458–463, 2013.
Resources are only identified for programs with sufficient research support for CollegeAIM to rate as effective at any level (higher, moderate, or lower).
