The present study examined the effectiveness of personalized alcohol feedback interventions in three different delivery formats on alcohol use and related negative consequences in a sample of mandated college students referred for alcohol-related violations. Participants were randomized to one of three conditions: an individually-delivered face-to-face intervention, a group-delivered face-to-face intervention, or a web-based electronically-delivered intervention. Given that the current study sought to modify factors associated with alcohol use, analyses were conducted using only those participants who reported alcohol use at the baseline assessment. The final sample resulted in 173 participants, 18-years-of-age and over, and consisted of 57% males (n = 98) who ranged in age from 18 to 25 years, with a mean age of 18.77 (SD = 1.08). The sample distributions in the individual, group, and electronic conditions were 53 (35 males), 72 (41 males), and 48 (22 males), respectively. Self-reported participant race was 82% White, 9% "Other", 4% Black, 4% Asian, and 1% American Indian or Alaska Native, with 91% classifying their ethnicity as Non-Latino/a. Participant class standing consisted of 69% freshmen, 21% sophomores, 6% juniors, and 4% seniors. The type of housing participants reported living in was comprised of 51% on-campus residence hall, 24% off-campus without parents, 20% university-affiliated off-campus, 2% off-campus with parents, 2% "other" type of housing, and 1% who reported living in a fraternity/sorority house. Findings revealed statistically significant reductions in alcohol use for the individually-delivered intervention, and statistically significant reductions in alcohol-related harms for the individually- and electronically-delivered interventions. No statistically significant results were found for the group-delivered intervention. This study is the first randomized clinical trial to compare an empirically supported individually-delivered personalized alcohol feedback intervention with more cost-effective group- and electronically-delivered feedback formats within a single research design. This examination also sought to add to the extant literature on mandated college students by expanding the range of participant drinking habits reported at baseline to include all drinking levels (excluding those meeting criteria for alcohol dependence), not solely those classified as 'heavy drinking,' as is the typical research convention. Additionally, given the potential demand characteristics to underreport illegal and/or illicit behaviors, this is the first study to provide mandated college students with anonymity pre- and post-intervention. Suggestions for future research, limitations of the current investigation, and implications for the development and improvement of personalized feedback interventions and of interventions aimed at mandated college students are also discussed.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Math to Mastery (MTM) is a multi-component math intervention that has demonstrated effective results in building math fluency and skill acquisition. Few studies have explored the use of brief experimental analysis (BEA) procedures to create an individualized, abbreviated MTM intervention to address skill deficits in basic math. The purpose of this current study is to analyze the utility of randomizing BEA procedures to effectively identify necessary mathematic components to create a more efficient intervention that will yield the highest math gains among participants. Researchers used an alternating treatment design with an extended analysis phase to address basic math skills. Participants included three grade school students with difficulty across different core math skills including addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Overall, this study yielded mixed results. Results indicated an abbreviated MTM intervention was effective for 1 out of 3 participants. Results, limitations, implications, and future research are also discussed.

ClinicalTrials.gov is a database designed to help clinical researchers make their research publicly available. The clinical trials registered on the database each include a brief summary, which is meant to be a short description that the public can easily understand. In September 2022, ClinicalTrials.gov published a "Plain Language Checklist for Lay Brief Summaries" on their website, which identifies plain language best practices intended to help investigators craft summaries that can be readily understood by the public. This thesis assesses the impact of the checklist on the language use in the brief summaries in the year following the checklist's publication. The analysis examines 62 brief summaries for Phase III and IV clinical trials posted on ClinicalTrials.gov between September 26, 2022, and September 26, 2023. It focuses particularly on summaries associated with rheumatoid arthritis, knee replacement, and conjunctivitis to gauge how well they complied with 4 of the 19 criteria on the Plain Language Checklist: keeping sentences and paragraphs short, aiming for a 6th to 8th grade reading level, writing out acronyms on the first use, and providing both percentages and natural frequencies. It also examines rhetorical moves made in the summaries to address the use of jargon, key term definitions, headings, formatted lists, direct research questions, descriptions of study type, sentence fragments, and the placement of the purpose statement to see how these moves affected the plain language. Although the summaries tended to comply with the paragraph length guidelines, they did not comply with the sentence length, reading level, or acronym guidelines. The variation in compliance could be attributed to researchers' lack of awareness of the guidelines, lack of time to devote to creating brief summaries, or being too immersed in the field to imagine the needs of a lay audience. It could also be attributed to the National Institute of Health not enforcing the guidelines or to researchers not viewing the guidelines as being relevant.