Assessment of attitude and
behavior related to alcohyol use
in col lege students after­
par t i c i pat i on in an alcohol
awareness program
by Charlotte
H. Foresther.
Thesis Nurs. 2909 F717a c.2

ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR RELATED TO ALCOHOL
USE IN COLLEGE STUDENTS AFTER PARTCIPATION IN AN ALCOHOL

AWARENESS PROGRAM

By
Charlotte H. Foresther, RN, BSN

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Nursing
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

Approved by:

Judith Schilling, CRNP, PhD^/
Committee Chairperson

'XSmJ
Ellen Pfadt, RN, MSN
Committee Member

Mary Anm
Committei

feine/r, RN, MSN

o./
Date

'

/U4 Xi
Date

Date

lember

jfl
Z>

V' C

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to express my most sincere thanks

to all of those without whose support this project would never have been
completed. Grateful appreciation is extended to my committee of Mary Anne

Weiner, Ellen Pfadt, and chairperson, Dr. Judith Schilling for their guidance.

Thanks to Dr. Janet Geisel for the initial send-off and for occasionally
listening to me whine. But most importantly I would like to thank my husband

and my daughter for their unending patience and encouragement. Thanks to
my Mom for her prayers, to my Dad for always being just over my shoulder,

and to God for His unending love. My most humble thanks to each and
every one of you.

Abstract
Assessment of Attitude and Behavior Related to Alcohol Use in College

Students After Participation in an Alcohol Awareness Program
Literature indicates that college students have a higher prevalence of

alcohol use than their noncollege counterparts (U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, 1991). Heavy drinking causes problems for the
drinker, threatens the quality and safety of the college experience for
nondrinking students, and increases costs for colleges. (Harvard School of
Public Health, 1995).

Colleges and universities have developed programs to combat binge
drinking (five or more drinks in one sitting for men, four for women), and to

heighten campus awareness of the problem (Harvard School of Public
Health, 1995). Edinboro University of Pennsylvania has such a program in

place. Using the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, this study evaluated the
program’s effectiveness by measurement of change in: (a) self-reported

alcohol use, (b) negative consequences resulting from alcohol use, (c)

student perception of other students’ use of alcohol, and (d) awareness of
campus alcohol and drug policies. A comparison of pretest (N-68) and

posttest (n=19) results showed percentage changes but Chi Square testing

rejected a relationship between program participation and change in behavior
or attitude toward the use of alcohol.

ii

Table of Contents

Content

Page

Abstract

ii

Chapter 1: Introduction

1

Background of the Problem

1

Statement of the Problem

4

Theoretical Framework

4

Statement of Purpose

7

Definition of Terms

8

Assumptions

8

Limitations

8

Summary

9

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

10

Stepped Approach

11

Education Programs of the Alcohol Beverage Industry.

12

Prevention Programs Aimed at Young People

13

College Study

19

Edinboro University Program

19

Summary

20

Chapter 3: Methodology
iii

Content

Page

Null Hypothesis

21

Operational Definition

21

Research Design

21

Instrumentation

21

Sample

23

Informed Consent

24

Setting and Procedure

24

Data Analysis

25

Summary

25

Chapter 4: Results

26

Demographics

26

Measurement

31

Self-Reported Use

32

Negative Consequences Resulting From Alcohol Use

35

Student Perception of Other Students’ Use of Alcohol

35

Awareness of Campus Alcohol and Drug Policies

36

Extent of Alcohol Use Change

39

Summary

40

Chapter 5: Discussion

41
43

Conclusions
iv

Content

Page

Limitations

43

Recommendations

43

Summary

44

v

List of Figures
Page

Figure

5

1. Revised Health Promotion Model

vi

List of Tables
Table

Page

1. College Class of Population

27

2. Age of Population

27

3. Sample Gender Distribution of Population

28

4. Residence of Population

28

5. Employment Status of Population

29

6. Living Arrangements: Where

29

7. Living Arrangements: With Whom

30

8. Distribution of Grade Point Average

30

9. Enrollment Status

31

10. Place of Permanent Residence

31

11. Past Two Weeks Report of 5 or More Drinks at One Sitting

33

12. Average Number of Drinks Consumed in a Week

34

13. Never Having Negative Conseguences Resulting From Alcohol Use.... oz
14. Perception of Average Campus Alcohol Use

38

15. Campus Situation on Alcohol and Drugs..............................

39

16. Extent of Change in Alcohol Use Within the Last 12 Months

40

vii

1

Chapter I

Introduction

Studies show that college students’ drinking constitutes a major
challenge to public health (Wechsler, Molnar, Davenport, & Baer, 1999).

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, a medium-sized public university in
northwestern Pennsylvania has attempted to address this problem through
the use of an Alcohol Awareness Program to which participants are referred

under judicial procedures of the Student Code of Conduct. The purpose of
this study was to examine the effect of this program upon the attitudes and

behaviors of its participants.
The theoretical framework for this study was the revised Health
Promotion Model (Pender, 1996). It postulates that health promotion is multi­
dimensional in nature, and that the health of individuals is directly affected by

the community, environment, and society in which they live. Situational

influences have direct impact upon health promoting behaviors (Pender). It
was the hypothesis of this research that the Alcohol Awareness Program has

positive situational influence upon its participants and will, therefore,

stimulate them toward the health promoting activity of alcohol avoidance.
Assumptions, definitions of terms, and limitations to the study are also

discussed in this chapter.
Background of the Problem

Misuse of alcohol, as well as other drugs, by this nation s youth has

2

come to be considered a major societal problem. Alcohol is the most widely
used drug on the college campus (Presley, Meilman, & Lyerla, 1993).

College students across the nation report consuming an average of
five drinks per week, with males consuming 7.5 drinks and females 3.2 drinks

per week (Presley, Meilman, & Lyerla, 1993). Overall, 41.8% of these
nationally surveyed students reported having binged in the past 2 weeks,

defined as consuming five or more drinks in one sitting for men, four for
women (Presley et al, 1993).

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, where this research was
conducted, used the Core Drug and Alcohol Survey, as designed by the

Instrument Selection Committee of the Fund for the Improvement of Post­
secondary Education (FIPSE) (Presley et al, 1993), in 1996. The institution’s

research personnel chose a random list of students from the total enrollment
of 6,144. Representatives of the Wellness Program administered the survey
to these 685 students. It was found that 53% of students reported binge

drinking in the previous 2 weeks, with 49% reporting some form of public
misconduct and 33% experiencing some kind of serious personal problem

during the previous year (Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, 1996). It was

also found that only 32% of the students knew that the campus had an
alcohol and drug prevention program.
Alcohol related health consequences are many, with the most serious
being death via automobile crashes, suicide, acute alcohol intoxication or,

3

eventually, alcohol-related diseases (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services [DHHS], 1991). Despite laws restricting minors from purchasing

alcohol, underage drinking continues to be a significant public health problem
(Treiman & Beck, 1996).
Alcohol use by college students is associated with academic

problems, emotional problems, violence, and physical injuries (Wechsler,
Fulop, Padilla, Lee, & Patrick, 1997). The culture of the campus, the
opportunity to be independent of daily parental control, the need to conform,

and the insecurity of this new environment, may all make college students
vulnerable to heavy drinking (DHHS, 1991). When they do drink, college age

students tend to be more reckless, with a growing trend toward drinking with
the clear intent of becoming intoxicated, and drinking to the point of

regurgitation or unconsciousness. There also is some evidence developing
to show that drinking is heavier in colleges where campuses are isolated as

compared with those in large urban areas (DHHS, 1991).

College students’ drinking is risky and dangerous, especially
considering that many young people are heavy episodic or binge drinkers
(Wechsler, Molnar, Davenport, & Baer, 1999). The data indicate that

behavioral norms for alcohol consumption vary widely among students and
across campuses and, therefore, it may not be possible to design a one size
fits all” approach to address the issue (Wechsler et al, 1999).

4

Statement of the Problem

In the previously mentioned Core Alcohol and Drug Survey used to
measure usage of drugs and alcohol at Edinboro University, a medium-sized

public university in northwestern Pennsylvania, 49% of the respondents
reported some form of public misconduct during the past year as a result of

drinking or drug use (Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, 1996). In the

same survey, 33% reported experiencing a serious personal problem such
as sexual assault or injury. The campus Alcohol Awareness Program deals

with students who have been referred under judicial procedures of the

Student Code of Conduct for a violation of the Zero Tolerance for Alcohol
and Other Drugs Policy. The effects of the Alcohol Awareness Program,
specifically change in their participants’ usage and perceptions of alcohol and
drugs, had not previously been assessed by measurement of changes in: (a)

self-reported alcohol use, (b) negative consequences resulting from alcohol
use, (c) student perception of other students’ use of alcohol, and (d)

awareness of campus alcohol and drug policies.

Theoretical Framework
Nola J. Pender (1996) described her revised Health Promotion Model

as an attempt to depict the multi-dimensional nature of persons interacting
with their environment as they pursue health. As shown in Figure 1, each

person has individual characteristics and experiences that affect their
subsequent actions (Pender, 1996).

5

INDIVIDUAL
CHARACTERISTICS
AND EXPERIENCES

BEHAVIOR-SPECIFIC
COGNITIONS
AND AFFECT

BEHAVIORAL
OUTCOME

PERCEIVED
BENEFITS
OF ACTION
4

PERCEIVED
BARRIERS
TO ACTION

PRIOR
RELATED
BEHAVIOR

IMMEDIATE COMPETING
DEMANDS
(low control)
AND PREFERENCES
(high control)

PERCEIVED
SELF-EFFICACY

-1

ACTMTV-RELATED
AFFECT

_ i
PERSONAL
FACTORS
Biological
Psychological
Sodo-oiltaral

INTERPERSONAL
INFLUENCES
(Family. Peers,
Providers); Norms.
Support Models

4

COMMITMENT
TOA
PLAN OF ACTION

HEALTH
PROMOTING
BEHAVIOR

SITUATIONAL
INFLUENCES
Options
Demand Chantctenstlcs
Aesthetics

Figure 1. Revised Health Promotion Model. From Pender, 1996,
p. 67.

6

The best predictors of future behavior are prior related behavior and
the formation of habits that can or cannot be beneficial (Pender, 1996). Each

person has been shaped biologically, psychologically, and culturally, and it is
these factors that affect any health promoting behavior. The second part of
Pender’s revised model constitutes the behavior-specific cognitions that
influence a successful intervention. These include perceived benefits of
action, or positive outcome expectations. Further, perceived barriers are

viewed as the personal costs of undertaking a certain behavior. Perceived

self-efficacy is a judgment of one’s ability to accomplish a specific outcome.

Activity-related effect has to do with how a person felt prior to, during, and
following a certain health-promoting behavior. Interpersonal influences

affecting health promoting behavior include family, peer, provider, and

societal pressures or encouragement to commit to a certain plan of action.
Lastly, situational influences are cues that cause an individual to be drawn to,

or alienated from, a certain behavior. When a preponderance of these
behavior-specific cognitions is positively oriented, the individual is committed
to a plan of action. Strong commitment may be sustained if immediate

competing demands and preferences, such as work or family responsibilities,

do not intrude upon the health-promoting behavior.
The Alcohol Awareness Program affords students the opportunity to

examine attitudes and values, gain knowledge about alcohol, explore

drinking habits, and make informed decisions about future use. Behavior

7

modification and life style change may be perceived as benefits of action
(Pender, 1996). Perception of self-efficacy is essential to activate behavioral
changes (Pender). It is the hope of health awareness providers that

information on alcohol, and encouragement for students to explore their own
attitudes and values, will supply the interpersonal and situational influences
needed to cause a decrease in the students’ use of alcohol.

The nurse practitioner would assist clients in the identification of

benefits and barriers to action. This provision of a positive interpersonal
influence, would promote good health behavior.

Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the Alcohol
Awareness Program at a medium-sized public university in northwestern

Pennsylvania upon the attitudes and behaviors of its student participants, as

measured by changes in: (a) self-reported alcohol use, (b) negative

consequences resulting from alcohol use, (c) student perception of other
students’ use of alcohol, and (d) awareness of campus alcohol and drug

policies. A standardized Core Drug and Alcohol Survey was given to 68
students in the fall of 1999 prior to their participation in the Alcohol
Awareness Program. In the spring of 2000 a shorter version of the same test
was sent to those same students in order to assess any change in attitudes

toward alcohol, as well as any change in the amount of alcohol consumed.

8

Definition of Terms
The terms utilized in this study were defined as follows;

1. A drink is a 12 ounces of beer, a 4 ounce glass of wine, 12 ounces

of wine cooler, or a serving of liquor that can be drunk in one swallow, taken

straight or in a mixed drink (Harvard School of Public Health, 1995).
2. Binge drinking is five or more drinks in a row, one or more times

during a 2 week period for men, and four or more drinks in a row, one or
more times during the same period for women (Harvard School of Public

Health, 1995).

3. Perception is direct or intuitive recognition: intelligent discernment
and a capacity for comprehension (Gove, 1976)
Assumptions
The assumptions of this study were as follows:
1. The participating students were able to read and understand the

questions on the survey.
2. Research participants answered the questions honestly.

3. Students took their referral to the Alcohol Awareness Program
seriously, as evidenced by attendance and participation.

Limitations
The following were the limitations of this study:

1

The study sample was comprised of a small number of students

representative of those referred to the Alcohol Awareness Program at a

9

public university in northwestern Pennsylvania. Findings, therefore, may not

be generalizable to other populations.

2. It is difficult to attribute causal factors to the effects of intervention
by the Alcohol Awareness Program.

Summary
The misuse of alcohol, as well as other drugs by our nation’s youth,

has come to be considered a major societal problem (Presley, Meilman &
Lyerla, 1993). College students’ consumption of alcohol, especially binge

drinking, continues to be a serious problem for students and their institutions

(Wechsler, Fulop, Padilla, Lee, & Patrick, 1997). The nature, extent, and
associated problem of heavy episodic or binge drinking is the number one
campus life concern for colleges nationwide (Harvard School of Public

Health, 1995).
The Revised Health Promotion Model developed by Nola J. Pender

(1996) was the conceptual framework used for this study. This model was
viewed as a useful way to predict those individuals who would or would not
commit to a plan of action leading to health promoting behavior (Pender,

1996). This is an issue that is of importance to family nurse practitioners
since adolescents are an important part of their practice. The responsible
use of alcohol by these adolescents is a learned behavior that will have far
reaching effects upon their future health and safety. This chapter also stated
the purpose of the study, defined limitations, and stated assumptions.

10

Chapter II
Review of the Literature
This chapter reviews current literature concerning various alcohol

awareness/prevention programs.

It provides the reader with a selective

overview of studies that have been done relating to the success or failure of
education about substance abuse, from the elementary to the college level.

Over the years, many administrations have opted to keep a low profile
on alcohol prevention efforts at their universities (Harvard School of Public

Health, 1995). However, the passage of the Drug Free Schools and

Campuses Act in 1990 (revised in 1997, 1998, & 1999) affected the
educational priorities on all college campuses. The 1999 amendments
required that, as a condition of receiving funds or any other form of financial

assistance under any Federal program, an institution of higher education

must certify that it had adopted and implemented a drug prevention program
(Education Department General Administrative Regulations, 1999). Edinboro
University has developed a 5 to 6 hour course in alcohol education, to which

students are referred by a Student Code of Conduct judicial procedure after
violating the university policy of zero tolerance (Edinboro University of

Pennsylvania, 1999). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
effectiveness of that alcohol education program.

Although there have been a plethora of substance abuse prevention
and education programs on university campuses in the past few years, most

11

go unevaluated and lack a theoretical perspective to help define and interpret
relevant data (Cummings, 1997). Not only is it imperative that we know

which programs or parts of programs are or are not successful, but we need
to know why and how an intervention works so that other institutions might

adopt such measures (Cummings).

Stepped Approach.
i ypically, group or individual counseling has been the only treatment

option addressing the problem of alcohol consumption on university
campuses (Black & Coster, 1996). The Stepped Approach Model (SAM)

provides intervention in sequence, each of five treatment steps increasing in
intensity from minimal intervention programs to individual treatment sessions.

Black and Coster studied 3,880 students at the main campus of a large

midwestern university via a survey questionnaire. The survey contained 74

open-ended questions. Topics covered included drinking history, drinking
behavior, frequency, consumption, and interest in alcohol programs. A

Kendall rank order correlation indicated reliability of the questions. Students

rated their interest in each of the five steps of the alcohol reduction program,

which was sponsored by the student health center on campus. A brief
description of each step was given, then a question followed asking students

to rate their interest on a 4-point Likert-type scale. Responses were

analyzed by gender. Net change between adjacent steps, using the
percentage of all participants with no interest in the step, was assessed with

12

a standardized z statistic. Data showed that interest in the program
descended as steps ascended. Interest was decreased the least between
steps 1 and 2. Interest then continued to decrease between steps 2 and 3,

and stayed constant for both sexes thereafter. Generally, however, the
students lacked interest in any intervention.
Alcohol Education Programs Sponsored by the Alcohol Beverage Industry.

A study to compare alcohol industry trade-sponsored education

programs was done in 1984 and again in 1996 (Houghton, 1998). Members
of the trade association were organizations such as the Beer Institute in the

United States or the Scotch Whiskey Association in the United Kingdom.
Letters and questionnaires about their programs were sent to 50 of these

organizations in 1984, and 88 were surveyed in 1996. In 1984, 13 members
or 26% responded that they did sponsor alcohol education programs, while

32 members or 36% responded in the same manner by 1996. Twice as
many programs were in operation in 1996 than in 1984. The survey looked

at four areas: the level and type of program activity, program evaluation, the

message on which the program was focusing, and the level of collaboration
between the association and other groups concerned with alcohol education

(Houghton, 1998). A breakdown by type of activity from the positive
responders showed alcohol education programs focusing on (a) the general

public, (b) schools and colleges, (c) alcohol and traffic, (d) professional
education, (e) employment settings, (f) educational research, and (g) those

13

programs listed as “others.” Comparing the focus of these programs, in 1996
drinking and driving was clearly the main topic of programs for young people,

while in 1984 the larger issue was to drink in moderation. No number
comparisons were given. The survey found that the trade associations
themselves were evaluating their own programs. Houghton indicated that

there was some increased attempt by the organizations to sponsor more
autonomous evaluations in 1996 than in 1984. Independent program

evaluations were felt to be essential in the future.

Prevention Programs Aimed at Young People: Elementary-Middle School
Age.

A 2 year longitudinal study was done with 526 California students

from two junior high schools, gathering data on the onset and prevention of
smoking, alcohol, and drug abuse (McAlister, Perry, Killen, Slinkard, &
MacCoby, 1980). Through intensive education by teams of five to seven
trained high school students, 340 students in an experimental school were
taught to resist social pressures that would lead them toward the use of

alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. The objective was to increase the students
commitment not to start smoking and to psychologically inoculate them
against peer pressure. In the control school, 186 students were exposed to a

general course of health education. Because the researchers were

concerned about the possibility of encouraging alcohol and drug use by

asking about it, only smoking onset was measured three times yearly until

14

the end of the first year of study. Using an anonymous self-reported survey,
the researchers found that the estimated onset rate for cigarette smoking

was 8.4% per year in the control school, but only 3.2% per year in the
experimental school. These numbers were shown to be significant (p<0.05).
At second year follow-up, there were significant differences in the numbers of

students reporting being drunk during the past week between the control and
experimental group: 16.2% for the control versus 5.6% for the experimental

(p<0.01).
A Norwegian study, reported in the journal Addiction, compared two

different school-based alcohol prevention programs for 7th graders with a

nontreated control group (Wilhelmsen & Laberg, 1994). Prevention programs

were conducted at twelve schools with a total of 955 students participating.
Four schools were randomly assigned to each of two conditions and the

program was implemented over 2 months in 1992. The four remaining
schools served as a control group. The two prevention programs were
based on social-cognitive theory and differed only in the level of participation

by teachers and peer leaders. In four of these schools the roles of teachers

and peer leaders were highly specified and the program was outlined in great
detail, while in another four schools responsibility was equally shared by the

teacher and the peer leaders, and the program was outlined in much less
detail. Peer-led groups discussed tradition, norms, pressure to drink, and

attitudes. Believing that the less structured program would produce greater

15

student involvement, the researchers hypothesized that this version would be

more effective in producing changes in alcohol use. Evaluation was by pre

and post-survey, measuring intention to abstain and actual alcohol use. An
ANOVA was used to test pre-post test differences, with analyses of

covariance conducted in order to test the differences between the two

prevention programs and the control group. Contrary to the researchers’
expectation, students in the highly specified group reported a significantly
higher intent to abstain from alcohol use (p<0.01) than did the students in the

less role specified group. The highly specified program was also more
successful in preventing actual alcohol use (p<0.05).

A 3 year study of a substance abuse program for rural adolescents

was reported by Stevens and Mott (1996). The cohort study was conducted
in New Hampshire among 4,406 children who were in elementary school, in
junior high school, or in 10th grade in 1987. This was a rural population of
broad economic range and was felt to be representative of rural children in
New Hampshire. Three research arms were included: (a) a comprehensive
school curriculum called “Here’s Looking At You, 2000;” (b) “Here’s Looking
At You, 2000,” a parenting communication course, and a community task

force; and (c) control schools that agreed not to implement any curriculum,

parenting course, or community task force during the study period. Baseline
questionnaires were collected. Interventions were then begun and continued
for 36 months. Annua, follow-up data were collected. Analyses were done

16

concerning students’ initiation of cigarettes, marijuana, other illicit drugs,
spitting tobacco, and alcohol use. Some positive prevention results were

achieved for cigarettes, marijuana, other illicit drugs, and spitting tobacco, but
no effects were found for any of the interventions for alcohol use at 36

months. Among all research subjects reaching high school, only 6.3% had
not initiated drinking.
Black, Tobler, and Sciacca (1998) reported a meta-analysis of 120

drug (alcohol, cigarettes, and illicit drugs) prevention programs conducted in

schools with students in grades six through eight, and funded by the National
Institute on Drug Abuse. The study focused on: (a) positive program

features, (b) reasons for falsely concluding that peer programs are

ineffective, (c) features of two models that compared interactive to non­
interactive programs, and (d) designing and implementing high quality, peerled programs. The interactive programs were shown to be superior to non-

interactive programs in preventing drug use among adolescents. Positive
program features were found to include face-to-face peer interactions,

planned activities, student generated role-plays, age-appropriate experience,
modeled and rehearsed interpersonal skills, and feedback from peers. No

statistically significant differences were found between programs led by
peers or educators, but all needed to be trained as facilitators, and to
understand the value of the interactive approach. Peer programs previously
found to be ineffective were determined to have been poorly designed, poorly

17

implemented, or conducted with little administrative support. Two studies
were seen as exemplary (Black, Tobler, & Sciacca, 1998): (a) Botvin and

colleagues conducted a 20-session cognitive-behavioral program for
substance abuse prevention with 1,311 7th grade students from ten suburban

New York junior high schools, designed to reduce interpersonal pressure to
use drugs. Clinical success was found with interactive groups to be 9.5%,
but only 1% with non-interactive; (b) Perry and Grant focused on four

different countries, and found that students in peer-led programs

demonstrated significantly lower alcohol use scores than did students in the

teacher-led and control programs (p<0.04). The researchers recommended
the use of school-based programs to identify at-risk youth, and the use of the

peer-led model.

A prevention program in Appleton, Wisconsin was conducted for
students in grades two through six (Kearney & Hines, 1980). The study

involved 935 students in an experimental group, and 449 students in a
control group. The program was based upon the premise that people who
develop drug/alcohol problems do so because of personal problems.

Trained teachers taught self-esteem, decision making, and drug

information/drug attitudes for the experimental group. The control group

proceeded with classes as usual. The Piers-Harris Children’s Self Concept
Scale was used to assess self-esteem, and team-developed instruments
measured attitude, decision making, and drug facts. Children in the

18

experimental group significantly increased their feelings of self-worth
(£<0.05), increased their decision making abilities (p<0.001), increased their

factual knowledge about drugs (p<0.001), and improved their attitude
towards use and misuse of drugs (p<0.001).

A 2 year follow-up study of a social-cognitive intervention to prevent

substance abuse was reported by Snow, Tebes, Arthur, and Tapasak (1992).
An Adolescent Decision-Making Program was implemented when students

were in the 6th grade. The initial participants consisted of 1,360 students

enrolled in the public schools of two southern New England towns during the
academic years of 1980-81 and 1981-82. Six hundred and eighty of the 6th

grade students were designated as a control group, while the other 680
received an intervention that involved skills in decision making, group

dynamics, and utilization of appropriate support systems. A substance

abuse survey was adapted to rate frequency of substance use during the
past year on a 7-point scale (never, once or twice, less than once a month,
once or twice per month, once per week, two or three times per week, almost

every day). Program and control groups were then compared on their use

versus nonuse

of substances when they reached 8th grade. Students who

participated in the 6th grade intervention had a lower mean use of tobacco by
8th grade at a trend level of significance (p<0.09). Logistic regression
analyses also were conducted to determine whether the intervention

significantly predicted substance use (defined as tobacco, alcohol,

19

marijuana, LSD, amphetamines, barbiturates, heroin, inhalants, and cocaine)

at the 8 grade follow-up. For alcohol use, a negative program effect was
observed, a significantly higher proportion of intervention students reported
alcohol use at 8th grade (p<0.03).

College Study.
An analysis of a prevention program developed at Wellesley College

used a self-reported pretest to evaluate knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes

about drinking (Gleason, 1994). Project WAIT (Wellesley Alcohol
Informational Theater) used a substance abuse counselor to recruit, train,
and direct a troupe of six to eight volunteer students who presented
improvisational skits from materials they choose on topics such as peer

pressure, sexual abuse, drunk driving, and other high risk situations.
Afterwards, the troupe members and educator lead discussions. Surveys of
those who were sophomores in 1988 and in 1990 showed that the number of

students who had been intoxicated at least 40 times was reduced from 12%

to 9% in the following 2 year period. When asked how many times they had
been intoxicated in the previous 30 days, the number who said none
increased from 44% to 54%, and those reporting five or more times

decreased from 14% to 5%.
Edinboro University Program

The program with which this study is concerned is the Alcohol
Awareness Program at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania. It is a 5 to 6

20

hour alcohol education course to which students may be referred under the
judicial procedures of the Student Code of Conduct for a violation of the zero

tolerance policy against alcohol or drugs.
During four sessions, the students are given the opportunity to: (a)

examine their attitudes regarding alcohol and its use, (b) obtain knowledge

about the physiological, psychological, social, and legal effects and
consequences of alcohol use/abuse (c) explore their own alcohol drinking
habits, and (d) make informed decisions about future alcohol use.

Throughout the course, students keep a drinking journal concerning the

circumstances that surrounded each drinking episode, amount drunk, and
behavior related to its use. Other self-assessment drinking instruments were

used to provide individualized feedback to students.

Summary
This chapter has provided a review of the literature concerning various
prevention programs. Although many substance abuse prevention and

education programs have been ongoing at universities and colleges, few

have been reported or evaluated (Cummings, 1997). It is the purpose of this
study to evaluate one such college-level alcohol awareness program.

21

Chapter III

Methodology

This chapter describes the methodology that was utilized to assess
the attitude and behavior changes related to alcohol use in college students

after participating in an alcohol awareness program. Using the Core Alcohol

and Drug Survey, attitudinal and behavioral changes were evaluated in 68

students referred to a campus alcohol awareness program. Included in this
chapter are the hypothesis, operational definitions, research design,
instrumentation, sample, informed consent, setting and procedure, and data
analysis utilized for this study.

Null Hypothesis
The hypothesis of this study was that the Alcohol Awareness Program
would not change the attitude or behavior of participants of the program, and

that no changes would be shown in self-reported alcohol use, in negative
consequences resulting from alcohol use, in perception of campus norms
concerning alcohol use, or in the awareness of campus alcohol and drug

policies.

Operational Definitions
The following terms are defined as they were used in this study.

1. Negative consequences are having had a hangover, performed
poorly on a test, had trouble with authorities, damaged property, having been

involved in arguments or fights, driving under the influence, missing classes,

22

suffering memory loss, being suspicious of having an alcohol problem

, or

having considered suicide (Presley, Meilman, & Lyerla, 1993)

2. Alcohol use is measured by the self-reported number of drinks
consumed per week, and by episodes of binge drinking.

3. Campus policy awareness is measured by students’ responses to

questions about the campus environment, policy enforcement on the

campus, and their own desire for a substance free environment.
4. Perception of campus norms is measured by students’ responses

to questions about average student alcohol use, where alcohol is used,
activities participated in, and the association of alcohol with these activities.

Research Design

This study utilized an evaluation survey pretest-posttest research

design. The goal of the survey was to gather information regarding four

variables: (a) self-reported alcohol use, (b) negative consequences resulting
from alcohol use, (c) perception of other students’ use of alcohol, and (d)
awareness of campus alcohol and drug policies.

Instrumentation
The Core Alcohol and Drug Survey was used in this research

(Appendix A). It was specifically designed by the Instrument Selection
Committee of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

(Presley, Meilman, & Lyerla, 1993) for use with a higher education

population, and covers the following topical areas: demographics including

23

year in school, age, ethnic origin, marital status, gender, employment, living
arrangements including place of permanent residence, academic

achievement including self-reported grade average, full- or part-time status,

activities participated, perceptions of campus substance abuse policies and
their enforcement, average number of drinks consumed per week, frequency

of binge drinking, patterns of use of alcohol, as well as other drugs, age of
first use of alcohol, perceptions of others’ use, location of use, negative

consequences of use, family history of substance abuse problems, and
desire for an alcohol- and drug-free social environment. There are 39
multiple-response questions. Although subjects complete the entire survey,

this research only included responses to questions 5, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, and

33. For the remaining questions, data were not assessed.
In order to ensure reliability, the Cronbach alpha and item-to-total-test

correlations were performed (Presley et al., 1993). To ensure test-retest
reliability the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was used.

In general, the data indicated that the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey is a
stable, reliable instrument (Presley et al.). To guarantee content-related

validity for this instrument, a panel reviewed each item using the inter-rater
agreement for item inclusion of 0.9.

Sample
The target population Included those students referred during the tall

of 1999 to the Alcohol Awareness Program, under judicial procedures of the

24

Student Code of Conduct at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, for an
infraction of the university’s zero tolerance policy against alcohol and drugs.

Attendance was mandatory but subjects were given the option of declining to

participate in this study. Sixty-eight students completed the pretest survey.

The posttest sample consisted of 19 respondents.
Informed Consent

The completion and return of the survey to the researcher constituted

informed consent. The surveys were completed anonymously, and only
grouped data were reported. The research qualified for expedited human

subjects review at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania.

Setting and Procedure
A medium-sized public university in northwestern Pennsylvania was
the site of this research. The Alcohol Awareness Group leader, using the

Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, collected pretest data from 68 students who
participated in the program during the fall 1999 semester. Six weeks later, a

letter and questionnaire containing questions 6, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21 and 33

(Appendix B and Appendix C) were mailed to 55 students whose addresses
were known. Of those surveys, one on-campus letter came back, and eight

off-campus ones came back marked “insufficient address.’’ A second letter
(appendix D) with the survey was again sent out to remind those who

failed to respond to the first mailing. Nineteen completed surveys were
finally returned.

25

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the Chi Square test for independence
between two variables. The null hypothesis stated that there is no

relationship between the variables and that the frequencies are due to

random sampling from a population. Findings were reported in table form,

comparing pretest and posttest responses about self-reported use of alcohol,
negative consequences resulting from alcohol use, perception of other
students’ use of alcohol, and awareness of campus alcohol and drug
policies. Though information regarding the abuse of substances other than

alcohol was collected, it was not reported in the results of this research.

Summary
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a

college campus alcohol awareness program. This was determined through

analysis of data obtained from the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, pretest
and posttest, using a convenient sample of students referred to the Alcohol
Awareness Program at a public university in northwestern Pennsylvania. In
this chapter the research hypothesis was discussed. Operational definitions,

research design, instrumentation, sample, informed consent, setting and

procedure, and data analysis were also provided.

26

Chapter IV

Results
This chapter presents the results obtained from the Core Alcohol and

Drug Survey. Students referred to the Alcohol Awareness Program in fall of
1999 by the Student Judicial Committee were given the survey prior to their
participation. A posttest was mailed in spring 2000 to participants whose

addresses were known. Data from the pretest and the posttest were
compared.
Demographics
The research sample consisted of those students referred to the

Alcohol Awareness Program by the Student Judicial Officers. Of this group,
68 students completed the pretest. Participants were representative of each

college class plus non degree students (Table 1). Ages ranged from 18 to 24
years, with 62% (n=42) of the students being less than 21 years of age,
which is the legal drinking age in Pennsylvania (Table 2). Ethnically, 82 %

(n=56) reported themselves to be white, and all answered that they were

single. There were slightly more males than females (Table ),
students (n=58) lived on than off campus (Table 4), and 58 /o worked p

time or not at all (Table 5). Living arrangements were such that 53% (n

)

lived in a house or apartment (Table 6), and 75% (n=51) with a roommate(s)

(Table 7). Cumulative grade point average varied, with 92 % (n=62) reported

27

a letter grade of C or better (Table 8).

Table 1

College Class of Population (N=68)

Class

N

%

Freshman

17

25

Sophomore

26

39

Junior

13

19

Senior

10

15

Non-degree seeking

1

1

Other

1

1

Table 2

Age of Population (N=68)

Age

N

%

18 years

6

9

19 years

19

28

20 years

17

25

14

20

4

6

2

3

2

3

4

6

21 years

22 years
23 years
24 years
No Response

28

Table 3
Gender Distribution of Population (N=68)

Gender

N

%

Male

36

53

Female

27

40

5

7

Residence

N

%

On-campus

37

32

Off-campus

21

54

No Answer

9

13

No Answer

Table 4
Residence of Population (N=68)

29

Table 5
Employment Status of Population (N=68)

Employment

N

%

Working Full-time

6

10

Working Part-time

24

35

Not Working

34

51

No Answer

3

4

Table 6
Living Arrangements: Where (N=68)

Where

N

%

House/apartment

38

56

Residence Hall

26

38

Fraternity/sorority

2

3

Approved Housing

0

0

Other

0

0

No Answer

2

3

Lastly, demographics showed that 96% (n=65) were full-time students (Table

9), and that 75% were permanent Pennsylvania residents (Table 10.)

30

Table 7
Living Arrangements: With Whom (N=68)

With Whom Living

N

%

With Roommate(s)

51

75

Alone

9

14

With Parent(s)/children

3

4

With Spouse

0

0

Other

0

0

No Answer

5

7

Letter Grade

N

%

A+

2

3

A

3

4

B+

9

13

21

32

C+

9

13

C

18

27

D+

1

1

D

2

3

No Answer

3

Table 8
Distribution of Grade Point Average (N=68)

B

4

31

Table 9

Enrollment Status (N=68)

Student Status

N

%

Full-time

65

96

Part-time

2

3

No Answer

1

1

N

%

51

75

USA, but out of state

3

4

Country other than USA

1

2

13

1

Table 10
Place of Permanent Residence (N=68)

Residence

In-State

No Answer

-Measurement
The effectiveness of Edinboro University’s Alcohol Awareness
Program was measured by: (a) self-reported alcohol u

(b)consequences

(c) student perception of other students’ use of
resulting from alcohol use,

32

alcohol, and (d) awareness of campus alcohol and drug policies

The

questions on the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey that best represented these
area were question 12 regarding the campus situation on alcohol and drugs,

question 14 concerning how many times during the past 2 weeks, five or
more drinks had been consumed at one sitting, question 15 asking the

average number of drinks consumed in a week, question 19 concerning

perception of the number of times the average campus student uses drugs
and alcohol, question 21 asking the number of times during the past year that
the student had experienced various negative consequences as a result of

alcohol or drug use, and question 33 inquiring about any change in alcohol
use during the past 12 months.

Self-Reported Use
Self-reported alcohol use was measured by questions 14 and 15.
The pretest results showed that during the 2 weeks prior to the Alcohol

Awareness Program, 24% (n=16) of the respondents had five or more drinks
at one sitting on one to three occasions. Of that same group, 28/o (n 19)
reported no such binges. Posttest results showed that, although 47% (n=7)
of respondents had one to three occasions of binge drinking, 37 /o (n 7) had

no such occasions. Comparison is shown in Table 11. In responding to t
question concerning the average number of drinks consumed each

pretest students reported having as few as zero drinks and as many a

Of this group, 35% (n=24) stated that they drank zero to seven

33

36% (n-35) reported drinking seven to 21 drinks each week. There
remained another 26% (n=18) who drank between 21 and 70 drinks per
week.

Table 11

Past Two Weeks Report of Five or More Drinks at One Sitting (N=68, n=19)

Binges

Pretest (N)

%

Posttest (n)

%

None

19

28

7

37

Once

4

6

3

16

Twice

12

18

4

21

3 to 5

16

24

3

16

6 to 9

9

13

1

5

10 +

7

10

1

5

Posttest results showed an increase of 18% in the zero to seven drink

group, totaling 53% (n=10). The second grouping, seven to 21 drinks per
week, increased to 42% (n=8), and only one student (8%) reported having

more than 21 drinks each week. Pretest results showed the average n
of drinks consumed per week to be 17.06, while the average posttest

consumption was reported as 8.79 drinks. A frequency comparison of

34

pretest and posttest drink consumption per week is shown in Table 12

Using the Chi Square to analyze the independence of data reported for the

pretest and posttest categories of answers to this question (fi=0.05), the
obtained values were found to be greater than the critical value. There was
shown to be a statistically significant relationship between the participation in

the Alcohol Awareness Program and a decrease in drinking.

Table 12

Average Number of Drinks Consumed in a Week (N-68, n-19)

Number of Drinks

Pretest (N)

%

Posttest (n)

%

0-7

24

35

10

53

7-14

12

18

6

32

15-21

12

18

2

10

22-56

16

23

1

5

57-72

2

3

0

0

2

3

0

0

No Answer

35

Negative Consequences Resulting From Alcohol Use

Negative consequences were measured by students’ reports of the

number of times that they had experienced various problems related to
drinking. Those who reported “never” having experienced a hangover

decreased in the posttest to 11% (n=2) from 18% (n=12) in the pretest.

Twelve percent (n—8) of pretest students reported never having experienced
trouble with alcohol, and one incidence of trouble was reported in 56%

(n=38). Posttest students reported no trouble 16% (n=3) of the time, and one

episode of trouble 68% (n=13) of the time. All other indications of negative

experiences saw increases in the “never” range (Table 13).
Though percentages would indicate a trend toward decreased

negative consequences, Chi Square testing of all sections of the negative

consequence question showed no significant differences before or after

attending the Alcohol Awareness Program. The null hypothesis was
accepted that any changes in negative consequences from alcohol use

due to random sampling of the population.

Student Perception of Other Students Use of Alcohol
A question relating to students' perception of other students' use of

alcohol was addressed by asking them how often they felt the average
student on their campus uses tobacco, alcohol, and vanous individua! drugs.
Responses to all sections were collected Out oniy the one concerniing

alcohol use was addressed in this study. An almost identical percentage of

36

students felt that other students used alcohol at least once a week or more.
Pretest students reported 92% (n=63) used alcohol at that frequency, while

posttest responders felt that 95% (n=18) did so. Using the Chi Square to
establish relationship between the Alcohol Awareness Program and
increased perception, no relationship was shown at the 95% level of
confidence.

Awareness of Campus Alcohol and Drug Policies
Five questions were grouped under the heading of the campus
situation on alcohol and drugs, and these were used to address any change

in awareness of campus policies. Of the pretest responders, 87% (n=59)
answered that the campus did have alcohol and drug policies. On the
posttest, 100% (n=19) of the students gave the same positive answer.

Eighty-four percent (n=57) of pretest students felt that these policies are

enforced, while 100% (n=19) of the posttest students responded positively.

Being aware of the existence of an alcohol and drug prevention program
reported by 59% (n=40) of those students taking the pretest, and 84/o (n 16)

of those taking the posttest. Campus concern about the prevention of

alcohol and drug use was reported by 72% (n=49) of those responding to the

pretest, while 93% (n=14) of those taking the posttest responded p
Only 9% (n=6) of those taking the pretest and 5% (n=1) of those taking the
posttest responded that they were aetiveiy invoked in efforts to prevent drug

37

Table 13
Never Having Negative Consequences Resulting From Alcohol Use

(N=68, n=19)

Pretest (N)

%

Posttest (n)

%

Hangover

12

18

2

11

Poor Testing

35

51

11

63

8

12

3

16

Damaged Property

51

75

13

84

Argument or Fight

27

40

10

63

Nausea/Vomiting

20

29

6

32

Drinking and Driving

36

53

12

68

Missed a Class

24

35

8

42

Been Criticized

33

49

11

58

Drinking Problem

44

65

13

79

Memory Loss

29

43

9

47

Regretted Something

24

35

9

47

55

80

15

95

Arrested for DUI

42

62

13

79

Been Sexual Victim

57

84

14

95

Sexual Aggressor

55

81

14

89

Unsuccessful Stoppage

79

95

54

15

Thought Suicide

84

100

57

15

Tried Suicide

13

Been Hurt

49

79

33

Negative Experience

Authority Trouble

38

Table 14
Perception of Average Campus Alcohol Use (N=68, n=19)

Pretest

%

Posttest

%

Never

0

0

0

0

1 Time/Year

0

0

1

5

6 Times/Year

0

0

0

0

1 Time/Month

0

0

0

0

2 Times/Month

1

1

0

0

1 Time/Week

20

29

5

26

3 Times/Week

19

28

9

48

5 Times/Week

13

20

1

5

Every Day

11

16

3

16

6

0

0

Use

No Answer

4

and alcohol use problems on campus.

Each of these awareness questions

was tested for a relationship between participation

Program and a change in attitude using the Ch'
hypothesis was accepted and no relationship wa

q

in the Alcohol Awareness
. For each, the null

The difference in

percentages was merely one of random sampling (Table 15)

39

Table 15
Campus Situation on Alcohol and Drugs (N=68, n=19)

Aware of Situation

Pretest

%

Posttest

%

Campus Policy

59

87

19

100

Enforcement

57

84

19

100

Prevention Program

40

59

16

84

Campus Concern

49

72

18

95

Actively Involved

6

9

1

5

Extent of Alcohol Use Change

Students were asked to assess their own self-perceived change in
alcohol use within the past 12 months. Of the pretest students

L

had decreased, while 47% (n=9) of those posttested felt the
felt that their use
same. A personal use increase was reported by 28% (n=19) of the pretest
students and by 11% (n=2) of the posttest students. Again, the Chi Square

test showed this to be a difference of random sampiing rather than a posrttve

relationship between the Aicoboi Awareness Program and attitude change
(Table 16).

40

Table 16

Extent of Change in Alcohol Use Within the Last 12 Months (N=A8 n=19)

Change

Pretest (N)

%

Increase

19

28

2

10

About the Same

21

31

7

37

Decreased

22

32

9

47

Have Not Used

1

1

1

6

No Answer

5

8

0

0

Posttest (n)

%

Summary
This chapter has presented the results of the pretest and posttest
Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, as administered to participants of the Alcohol
Awareness Program on the campus of Edinboro University, a medium sized

public university in Northwest Pennsylvania.

These results were presented

through descriptive analysis and evaluated for a positive level of confidence

at 0.9 using the Chi Square.

41

Chapter V

Discussion
This chapter provides a summary of results of a Core Alcohol and

Drug Survey administered to students of Edinboro University for an infraction
of the drug and alcohol policies. Conclusions, recommendations, and study
limitations are discussed.

This study concerned those students of Edinboro University who were
referred to the Alcohol Awareness Program by the Student Judicial
Committee during the fall of 1999. Sixty-eight of the attending students

responded to a pretest, while 19 responded to the posttest. The majority of
these students were under 21 years of age, and 82% were white. Gender

slightly favored males, and most of the population lived off-campus, The
great majority of the students reported that they maintained at least a C
grade average.
Resuns described by percentages pointed to an increase in alcoboi

awareness by the participants of the Alcohol Awareness Program There
was a 25% decrease in self-reported alcohol use, with the averag

.
17 06 at the time of the pretest to 8.79
17.06 at the
of drinks per week decreasing from
„™,onces resulting from alcohol use

reported on the posttest. Negative con
rmnnce on
riod
noor
performance
on
.
♦ fpwer students reported poo p
showed similar improvement. Few
, nhol use. These same students
tests or missed classes related to a c
blackouts or

reported decreased legal problems and f

42

sexual misconduct. They reported fewer suicidal thoughts and fewer injuries

to themselves. Responders to both the pretest and the posttest had a similar

perception of frequency of campus use of alcohol. Both assumed that 93%
to 95% of the campus students used alcohol at least once each week.

Awareness of campus policies and their enforcement increased from 87% to
100%. Awareness of campus efforts for alcohol and drug prevention

increased from 59% at the time of pretest to 84% on the posttest. However
only 5% to 9% of these same students were actively involved in any efforts to

prevent alcohol and drug use.
Although percentages at most levels of the Core Alcohol and Drug
survey showed some increase in awareness, Chi Square tests of each

question showed no relationship between participation in the Alcohol

Awareness Program and change of attitude and behavior at a 0.95 level of
acceptance. The changes were due to random sampling. This result

supported the literature of The Stepped Approach Model (Black & Coster,

1996) which reported that student interest in the program decreased as
intensity of intervention increased, and that students generally lacked interes

•n any intervention.
The results of this research did not support the Revised Health

Promotion Model (Pender. 1996) stating that perceived benefits of action
should spur a person to commit to a plan of action that would result in health
Promoting behavior. The Alcohol Awareness Program did attempt to change

43

the attitude of its participants such that they would perceive the benefits of

decreased alcohol use, commit to a that decrease, and adopt a health

promoting lifestyle. No significant relationship was shown.
Conclusions

This study indicated that the Alcohol Awareness Program at Edinboro
University is not having a significant effect upon the behavior or attitude of

students toward the use of alcohol. Although percentage changes between
the pretest and posttest demonstrated some trend of improvement, the Chi

Square test of significance showed these changes to be due to random
sampling.

Limitations
The greatest limitation to this study was the small sample size due io
the inability to ensure posttest participation by those who responded to the

pretest. The study results may, therefore, not be generalizable to other

populations. With the posttest response rate of only 30 /o, all conclusions are
subject to varied interpretation.
Recommendations

A larger pretest sample would be beneficial. Most importantly, an
improved ability to track those initial participators in the program wou

greatly improve the validity of the results.

44

Summai

This chapter has provided a discussion of the research findings. Data
indicated a percentage improvement following participation in the Alcohol

Awareness Program but Chi Square testing did not support positive changes
as measured by self-reported alcohol use, negative consequences resulting

from alcohol use, student perception of other students’ use of alcohol, and

awareness of campus alcohol and drug policies. Conclusions concerning

these findings, recommendations for future research, and limitations of the
study were provided.

References
Black, D., & Coster, D. (1996). Interest in a stepped approach model
(SAM): Identification of recruitment strategies for university alcohol

programs. Alcoholism, 23(1), 1-16.
Black, D., Tobler, N., & Sciacca, J. (1998). Peer helping/involvement:

An efficacious way to meet the challenge of reducing alcohol, tobacco, and
other drug use among youth. Journal of School Health, 68(3), 87-93.

Cummings, S. (1997). An empowerment model for collegiate

substance abuse prevention and education programs. Journal of Alcohol &
Drug Addiction, 43(1), 46-62.

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania (1996). [Core Drug and Alcohol

Survey-Executive Summary]. Unpublished raw data.
Education Department General Administrative Regulations/ 34, Parts

74-86, Code of Federal Regulations (1999) (to be codified at 74.26 and
80.26).

Gleason, N. (1994). Preventing alcohol abuse by college women: A
relational perspective 2. Journal of American College Health 43(1), 15-24.
Gove, P. (Ed.). (1976). Webster's third new international dictionary.
Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company.

Harvard School of Public Health (1995). Binge drinking on American

college campuses. Boston, MA: Weschler, H.

Houghton, E. (1998). A comparative analysis of alcohol education

programs sponsored by the beverage alcohol industry. Journal of Alcohol &

Drug Addiction, 43(3), 15-32.
Kearney, A., & Hines, M. (1980). Evaluation of the effectiveness of a

drug prevention education program. Journal of Drug Education 10(2), 127134.

McAlister, A., Perry, C., Killen, J., Slinkard, L, & MacCoby, N. (1980).
Pilot study of smoking, alcohol, and drug abuse prevention. American

Journal of Public Health, 70(7), 719-721.
Pender, N. J. (1996). Health promotion in nursing practice (2nd ed.).
Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lang.
Presley, C., Meilman, P., & Lyerla, R. (1993). Alcohol and drugs on

American college campuses (Vol. 1). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University-Carbondale.
Snow, D., Tebes, J., Arthur, M., & Tapasak, R. (1992). Two-year

follow-up of a social-cognitive intervention to prevent substance use. Journal

of Drug Education, 22(2), 101-114.
Stevens, M., & Mott, L. (1996). Rural adolescent drinking behavior.

Three-year follow-up in the New Hampshire substance abuse prevention

study. Adolescence, 31(121), 159-168.
Treiman, K., & Beck, K. (1996). Adolescent gender differences in

alcohol problem behaviors and the social context of drinking. Journal of

School Health, 66(8), 299-304.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (1991). Alcohol
practices, policies, and potentials of American colleges and universities (An
OSAP white paper). Rockville, MD: Lewis D. Eigen.
Wechsler, H., Fulop, M., Padilla, A., Lee, H., & Patrick, K. (1997).

Binge drinking among college students: A comparison of California with other
states. Journal of American College Health 45, 273-277.

Wechsler, H., Molnar, B., Davenport, A., & Baer, J. (1999). College

alcohol use: A full or empty glass. Journal of American College Health, 47
(6), 247-253.

Wilhelmsen, B., & Laberg, J. (1994). Evaluation of two student and
teacher involved alcohol prevention programs. Addiction, 89(9), 157 169.

r

Appendix A

Core Alcohol and Drug Survey

_________________ Long Form

A o

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

FIPSE Core Analysis Grantee Group

B o

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

C o

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

D o 1
E o 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Core Institute
Student Health Programs
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901

Please use a number 2 Pencil.
1. Classification:

2. Age:

Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Grad/professional
Not seeking a
degree
Other

o

5. Gender:

Male
Female

3. Ethnic origin:

American Indian/
Alaskan Native ....
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
White (non-Hispanic)
Black (non-Hispanic)
Other

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

4. Marital status:
Single
Married
Separated ...
Divorced
Widowed

7. Are you working?

6. Is your current residence
as a student:

On-campus
Off-campus

A+

A

A-

B+

B

B-

C+

C

C-

D+

D

D-

F

10. Some students have indicated that alcohol or drug use at parties they attend in and
around campus reduces their enjoyment, often leads to negative situations, and
therefore, they would rather not have alcohol and drugs available and used. Other
students have indicated that alcohol and drug use at parties increases their
enjoyment, often leads to positive situations, and therefore, they would rather have
alcohol and drugs available and used. Which of these is closest to your own view?
Have available
Not have available
With regard to drugs?

With regard to alcohol?
ph. Student status:

' i

Full-time (12+ credits). . . .
Part-time (1-11 credits) . .

13. Place of permanent
residence:
In-state
USA, but out of state . . . .
Country other than USA . .
14. Think back over the last
two weeks. How many
times have you had
five or more drinks
at a sitting?
None
Once
Twice
3 to 5 times
6 to 9 times
10 or more times

drink is a bottle of beer, a glass
°f wine, a wine cooler, a shot glass
°f liquor, or a mixed drink.

Yes, full-time ....
Yes, part-time .. ..
No

8. Living arrangements:
A. Where: (mark best answer)

9. Approximate cumulative grade point average: (choose one)

I

Form 194

For additional use:

House/apartment/etc
Residence hall
Approved housing
Fraternity or sorority ....
Other
B. With whom:
(mark all that apply)
With roommate(s)
Alone
With parent(s)
With spouse
With children
Other .
don’t know
no
yes

12. Campus situation on alcohol and drugs:
a. Does your campus have alcohol and drug policies?
b. If so, are they enforced?
c. Does your campus have a drug and alcohol
prevention program?
d. Do you believe your campus is concerned about
the prevention of drug and alcohol use?.........................
e. Are you actively involved in efforts to prevent drug
and alcohol use problems on your campus?
15. Average # of
drinks* you
consume a week:

(If less than
10, code
answers as
00,01,02,
etc.)

o
1
2
3
4

o

5

5

1

2
3
4

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

©Core Institute: 1989. 1990. 1991- 1"2' 1993' 1994'

16. At what age did you
first use...
(mark one for each line)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.

Tobacco (smoke, chew, snuff) ..
Alcohol (beer, wine, liquor)*....
Marijuana (pot, hash, hash oil). •_
Cocaine (crack, rock, freebase)
Amphetamines (diet pills, speed)
Sedatives (downers, ludes)
Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP) . • ■
Opiates (heroin, smack, horse)
inhalants (glue, solvents, gash^
Designer drugs (ecstasy, MDMA)

k. Steroids ...................................
l. Other illegal drugs
•other than a few sips

%%

i b k Vs s

i
I
i
i

■
■
i

i

■
■
i

i

■
■
■
i

■
■
■
i

■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■

h
■
-

I

17. Within the last year
about how often have
you used...
(mark one for each line)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.

rj -A

cP

o'

, $* 1 % % $ % $
:

£

V
i % % %%

%

Tobacco (smoke, chew, snuff) . .
Alcohol (beer, wine, liquor) ....
Marijuana (pot, hash, hash oil)
Cocaine (crack, rock, freebase)
Amphetamines (diet pills, speed)
Sedatives (downers, ludes) ....
Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP) ....
Opiates (heroin, smack, horse)
Inhalants (glue, solvents, gas)..
Designer drugs (ecstasy, MDMA)
Steroids
Other illegal drugs

19. How often do you
think the average student
on your campus uses...
(mark one for each line)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.

CP

% ? $% % ? t t

a>

1

o'

-A

? %% i% \% 9_% \_ X3
£ £

O

£ 2-

'

%

Tobacco (smoke, chew, snuff) . .
Alcohol (beer, wine, liquor) ....
Marijuana (pot, hash, hash oil)
Cocaine (crack, rock, freebase)
Amphetamines (diet pills, speed)
Sedatives (downers, ludes)....
Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP) ....
Opiates (heroin, smack, horse)
Inhalants (glue, solvents, gas)..
Designer drugs (ecstasy, MDMA)
Steroids
Other illegal drugs

■

*

1

20. Where have you
used...
(mark all that apply)

. %

a. Tobacco (smoke, chew, snuff).. C
b. Alcohol (beer, wine, liquor) ....
c. Marijuana (pot, hash, hash oil)-------------------------------d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
j.
j.

Cocaine (crack, rock, freebase)
Amphetamines (diet pills, speed)
Sedatives (downers, ludes).... U - - - Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP) ....
Opiates (heroin, smack, horse) - - - - .
Inhalants (glue, solvents, gas)..
\
Designer drugs (ecstasy, MDMA)1

k. Steroids
l. Other illegal drugs

:

--------- =

-r \

..........

22. Have any of your family had alcohol or other
drug problems: (mark all that apply)
Spouse
Brothers/sisters
Mother
Children
Mother
’
s
parents
Father
None
Father’s parents
Stepmother
Aunts/uncles
Stepfather

18. During the past 30 days
on how many days
did you have:
(mark one for each line)
a. Tobacco (smoke, chew, snuff) ..
b. Alcohol (beer, wine, liquor) ....
c. Marijuana (pot, hash, hash oil).,
d. Cocaine (crack, rock, freebase)
e. Amphetamines (diet pills, speed)
f. Sedatives (downers, ludes) ....
g. Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP) ....
h. Opiates (heroin, smack, horse)
i. Inhalants (glue, solvents, gas) ..
j. Designer drugs (ecstasy, MDMA)
k. Steroids
l. Other illegal drugs

21. Please indicate how often
you have experienced
the following due to
your drinking or drug use
during the last year...
(mark one for each line)
a. Had a hangover
b. Performed poorly on a test
or important project
c. Been in trouble with police,
residence hall, or other
college authorities
d. Damaged property, pulled
fire alarm, etc
e. Got into an argument or fight

o

fo

6>
b'

ip

■$>

\ *»XXX X

o
<2,
«

<? <?© %®

. o'

£ 4 %% % %
* % % % % %

.

f. Got nauseated or vomited ...
g. Driven a car while under
the influence
h. Missed a class
i. Been criticized by someone
I know
j. Thought I might have a drinking
or other drug problem
k. Had a memory loss
l. Done something I later regretted ....
m. Been arrested for DWI/DUI
n. Have been taken advantage
of sexually
o. Have taken advantage of
another sexually
p. Tried unsuccessfully to stop using . q. Seriously thought about suicide ....
r. Seriously tried to commit suicide ....
s. Been hurt or injured............

23. If you volunteer any of your time on or off campus
to help others, please indicate the approximate
number of hours per month and principal activity:

Don’t volunteer, or
10-15 hours
less than 1 hour
10 or more hours
1 -4 hours
Principal volunteer activity is:
5-9 hours

____-----------------------

-

24. Within the last year to
what extent have you
participated in any of the
following activities?
(mark one for each line)

®.

%
%
%

\A

Intercollegiate athletics
Intramural or club sports
Social fraternities or sororities
Religious and interfaith groups
International and language groups . . . .
Minority and ethnic organizations . . . .
Political and social action groups . . . .
Music and other performing
arts groups
i. Student newspaper, radio, TV,
magazine, etc

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

(

£

n/a

25. In the first column, indicate whether any of the following
have happened to you within the last year while you were
in and around campus.
%
If you answered yes to
any of these items, indicate
in the second column if you
had consumed alcohol or
other drugs shortly before
o 9,
these incidents.
yes no
res no
■>

Ethnic or racial harassment
Threats of physical violence
Actual physical violence ....
Theft involving force or threat
of force
e. Forced sexual touching or
fondling
f. Unwanted sexual intercourse

26. How do you think your
close friends feel (or would
feel) about you...
(mark one for each line)

If
yes

Trying marijuana once or twice
Smoking marijuana occasionally
Smoking marijuana regularly
Trying cocaine once or twice
Taking cocaine regularly
Trying LSD once or twice
9- Taking LSD regularly
b- Trying amphetamines once or twice
a.
b.
c.
d.

'• Taking amphetamines regularly ........................
J- Taking one or two drinks of an
alcoholic beverage (beer, wine,
liquor) nearly every day
Taking four or five drinks nearly every day ■ • • ■
'• Having five or more drinks in one sitting...........
^•Taking steroids for body building or
improved athletic performance............................

yes

no

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

Male students ..
Female students
Faculty/staff....
Alumni
Athletes
Fraternities ....
Sororities

29. Campus environment: (mark one for each line)

%
O

no

28. On this campus, drinking is a central
part in the social life of the following
groups:
(mark one for each line)

a. Does the social atmosphere on this
campus promote alcohol use?
b. Does the social atmosphere promote
other drug use?
c. Do you feel safe on this campus? ..

o
%
%&

yes
a. Breaks the ice
b. Enhances social activity
c. Makes it easier to deal with stress
d. Facilitates a connection with peers
e. Gives people something to talk about....
f. Facilitates male bonding
g. Facilitates female bonding
h. Allows people to have more fun
i. Gives people something to do
j. Makes food taste better
k. Makes women sexier
l. Makes men sexier
m. Makes me sexier
n. Facilitates sexual opportunities

n/a

a.
b.
c.
d.

27. Do you believe that alcohol has
the following effects?
(mark one for each line)

%

no

yes

30. Compared to other campuses with which
you are familiar, this campus’ use of
alcohol is... (mark one)
Greater than other campuses
Less than other campuses
About the same as other campuses

■

31. Housing preferences: (mark one for each line)

a. If you live in university housing, do you
live in a designated alcohol-free/
drug-free residence hall?. ................
b If no, would you like to live in such
’ a residence hall unit if it were
available?

yes

no

32. To what extent do students this campus care about
problems associated with...
(mark one for each line)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

1

%

%

Alcohol and other drug use. . . .
Campus vandalism
Sexual assault
Assaults that are non-sexual . .
Harassment because of gender

f. Harassment because of sexual
orientation
g. Harassment because of race
or ethnicity
h. Harassment because of religion
33.To what extent has your
alcohol use changed within
the last 12 months?

34.To what extent has your
illegal drug use changed
within the last 12 months?

Increased
About the same
Decreased
I have not used alcohol . .

Increased
About the same
Decreased
I have not used drugs ....

35. How much do you think people
risk harming themselves
(physically or in other ways)
if they... (mark one for each line)

Q Q Q

%% % \ %

Try marijuana once or twice
Smoke marijuana occasionally
Smoke marijuana regularly
Try cocaine once or twice
Take cocaine regularly
Try LSD once or twice
Take LSD regularly
Try amphetamines once or twice
Take amphetamines regularly
Take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage
(beer, wine, liquor) nearly every day
k. Take four or five drinks nearly every day
l. Have five or more drinks in one sitting
m. Take steroids for body building or improved

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.

37. During the past 30 days,
to what extent have you
engaged in any of the
following behaviors?
(mark one for each line)
a. Refused an offer of alcohol
or other drugs
b. Bragged about your alcohol
or other drug use
c. Heard someone else brag about
his/her alcohol or other drug use
d. Carried a weapon such as a
gun, knife, etc. (do not count
hunting situations or weapons
used as part of your job)
e. Experienced peer pressure
to drink or use drugs
f. Held a drink to have people
stop bothering you about why
you weren’t drinking
g. Thought a sexual partner was
not attractive because he/she
was drunk
h. Told a sexual partner that he/she
was not attractive because
he/she was drunk

38. To what extent do you
agree with the following
statements?
(mark one for each line)

£

%

-z.

% %
a. I feel valued as a person
on this campus
b. I feel that faculty and staff
care about me as a student....
c. I have a responsibility to
contribute to the well-being
of other students
d. My campus encourages me
to help others in need
e. I abide by the university policy
and regulations that concern
alcohol and other drug use .. . .

athletic performance
n. Consume alcohol prior to being sexually active . . . .
0. Regularly engage in unprotected sexual activity

% 3
% % °4

39. In which of the following ways does other
students’ drinking interfere with your life on
or around campus? (mark one for each line)
yes no

with a single partner
p. Regularly engage in unprotected sexual activity
with multiple partners
36.Mark one answer for each line:

yes

no

a. Did you have sexual intercourse within

the last year? ...........................................
If yes, answer b and c below.
b. Did you drink alcohol the last time you
had sexual intercourse? ..........................
c. Did you use other drugs the last
time you had sexual intercourse?

a. Interrupts your studying
b. Makes you feel unsafe
c. Messes up your physical living space
(cleanliness, neatness, organization, etc.)
Adversely
affects your involvement on
d.
an athletic team or in other organized

groups
e. Prevents you from enjoying events
(concerts, sports, social activities, etc.)..
f. Interferes in other way(s) ..
g. Doesn’t interfere with my life

Mark Reflex® by NCS MM201109-1

32

Printed in U.S.A.

Appendix 8

POSTTEST SURVEY
ALCOHOL AWARENESS COURSE EFFECTIVENESS
12. Campus situation on alcohol and drugs:

yes

no

don’t know

a. Does your campus have alcohol and drug policies?
b. If so, are they enforced?

c. Does your campus have a drug and alcohol prevention program?

d. Do you believe your campus is concerned about the prevention
of drug an alcohol use?
e. Are you actively involved in efforts to prevent drug and alcohol
use problems on your campus?

5. Gender:

Male

Female

14. Think back over the
last two weeks. How
many times have you
had five or more
drinks* at a sitting?

21.

15. Average # of
drinks* you
consume in
a week:

(If less than 10, code
answers as 00, 01,
02, etc.) -- --

None

Z

a. Had a hangover
b. Performed poorly on a
test or important project
C. Been in trouble with police,
residence hall, or other
college authorities.........................
d. Damaged property, pulled fire
alarm, etc
e. Got into an argument or fight
f. Got nauseated or vomited...........

Once

©
©
©
©

©
©
©
©
©

Twice
3 to 5 times
6 to 9 times
10 or more times

©
®
©
©
®

A drink is a bottle of beer, a glass of wine,
a wine cooler, a shot glass of liquor, or a
mixed drink.

19.

©
®

How often do you think the average
student on your campus uses:

(mark one for each line)
co

<5
z

03
.>>

CZ
O

fi1
O

CD

O
—

£
§
E
—
E

CD
CD

a>

—

CD

-_ a> £
£
8 E

tn

'a>
o
I—

O

co

m

8 ‘J3

T5

E

a. Tobacco (smoke, chew, snuff) ....

b. Alcohol (beer, wine, liquor)

g. Driven a car while under the
influence
h. Missed a class
i. Been criticized by someone I
know..............................................
j. Thought I might have a drinking
or other drug problem...................
k. Had a memory loss
l. Done something I later regretted...

~

o.

e. Amphetamines (diet pills, speed). ~ ~
J. Sedatives (downers, ludes)

- -

g. Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP)

~

h. Opiates (heroin, smack, horse) ...

—

30

O

V

s. Been hurt or injured................... j

-

33. To what extent has your alcohol use changed

within the last 12 months?

Increased
About the same
- -

-

x X X X X

2

-

j. Designer drugs (ecstasy, MDMA)

l. Other illegal drugs

■

sexually
Have taken advantage of another

sexually...................................; ”
Tried unsuccessfully to stop using
PSeriously thought about suicide ..
qr. Seriously tried to commit suicide..

d. Cocaine (crack, rock, freebase)...

k. Steroids

o

m. Been arrested for DWI/DUI
n. Have been taken advantage of

c. Mariquana (pot, hash, hash oil) - ~

i. Inhalants (glue, solvents, gas)

Please indicate how often you have
tn
as
experienced the following due to your
E
drinking or drug use during
£
tn
co
o
cd
as
the last year...
E
CD
g
-S
S
aS
o
(mark one for each line)
£ - 5h— CO
o
“? —
?
co

Decreased

I have not used alcohol

^ppe.ncLlx. C

EDINBORO UNIVERSITY
° F

PENNSYLVANIA

February 28, 2000

Mary Anne Weiner, MS, RN-C.
Coordinator, Wellness Program
Ghering Health Center
Edinboro, PA 16444
(814)732-2839 or 2949
Fax (814) 732-2666
Internet: weiner@edinboro.edu

Dear Student:
Last fall you took part in the University’s Alcohol Awareness Program. As
part of the program, you ere asked to complete the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey.
If you chose to complete it, you were told that it would be part of a study of student
attitudes and behaviors regarding alcohol and other drugs.

In an attempt to begin to evaluate the effectiveness of the Alcohol Awareness
Program, we are requesting now that you complete the enclosed - much brieferquestionnaire. As before, your responses will be totally anonymous and will be part
only of a grouped and non-specific data set. There is no information on the
questionnaire or return envelope to indicate who you are.
This letter and questionnaire are being sent to all students who participated in
the program, and who are registered for classes this spring. Your answers will help
us to determine whether changes need to be made to the Alcohol Awareness
Program and whether additional or other things might be more helpful.

We ask that you return the questionnaire to this office by March 16. An
envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Please feel free to call me if you have
any questions. Your assistance is gieatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mary Anne Weiner, MS, RN-C.
Coordinator, Alcohol Awareness Program
I

Appe.ncLix V

EDINBORO UNIVERSITY
OF

PENNSYLVANIA
Mary Anne Weiner, MS, RN-C.
Coordinator, Wellness Program
Ghering Health Center
Edinboro, PA 16444
(814) 732-2839 or 2949
Fax (814) 732-2666
Internet: weiner@edinboro.edu

March 23, 2000

Dear Alcohol Awareness Program Participant:

About three weeks ago we sent you a copy of the enclosed survey to help
determine whether the Alcohol Awareness Program needs any changes. Because
there were no identifiers on the surveys we have no idea who has sent them back
and who hasn’t.

If you already returned it to us, thank you!!!! You can discard this letter
and know that we very much appreciate that you did so (and you’ve just received
a free stamp). If you did not return the survey, please, would you do so now?
Your input is important.
Once again, a self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your
convenience. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. We would
appreciate your sending back the survey as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Mary

e

einer