The Self-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure was developed to aid in clinical decision-making for clients seeking psychiatric services and to facilitate empirical investigation of the dimensional nature of mental health issues. Preliminary evidence supports its utility with clinical samples. However, the brief, yet comprehensive structure of the Level 1 measure may benefit a high-risk population that is less likely to seek treatment. College students have high rates of hazardous substance use and co-occurring mental health symptoms, yet rarely seek treatment. Therefore, the current study evaluated the psychometric properties (i.e., construct and criterion-related validity) of the Level 1 measure with a large, diverse sample of non-treatment-seeking college/university students. Data from 7,217 college students recruited from 10 universities in 10 different states across the United States evidenced psychometric validation of the Level 1 measure. Specifically, we found acceptable internal consistency across multi-item domains and moderate to strong correlations among domains (internal validity). Further, several domains were positively associated with longer, validated measures of the same mental health construct and had similar strengths of associations with substance use outcomes compared to longer measures of the same construct (convergent validity). Finally, all domains were negatively associated with self-esteem and positively associated with other theoretically relevant constructs, such as posttraumatic stress (criterion-related validity). Taken together, the Level 1 measure appears to be a viable tool for evaluating psychopathology in college students. Several opportunities for clinical application and empirical investigation of the Level 1 measure are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Increased alcohol consumption may interfere with current front-line treatments for PTSD, which encourages patients to experience a full range of emotions. As such, future research should explore the impact of substance use on the effectiveness of trauma focused treatments in the alleviation of DSM-5 PTSD symptoms. (Am J Addict 2018;27:23-28).

College students have experienced significant disruptions related to COVID-19, and limited international data suggest they may be at elevated risk for mental health symptom increases related to COVID. Given their potentially elevated risk, our aim was to evaluate differences from pre-college closures to post-closure in mental health symptoms, alcohol, and cannabis use. Participants (N = 4749) were from seven U.S. public universities/colleges. They were 70.1 % female and 48.5 % white, non-Hispanic/Latino, with 48.1 % in their first college/university year. 30-day retrospective assessments of alcohol and cannabis use, and past 2-week retrospective assessments of anxiety, depression, anger, and insomnia were captured at the time of the survey. We examined differences between those providing data pre- and post-university closure via linear and negative binomial regressions. Alcohol and cannabis use days were 13 % and 24 % higher, respectively, from pre-to post-university closure; also, prevalence of any 30-day alcohol use and alcohol use consequences were both higher in the post-closure sample (odds ratios = 1.34 and 1.31, respectively). In contrast, days of binge alcohol use were 4 % lower in the post-closing sample. Depressive symptoms and anger were both modestly higher in post-closing participants ( d < 0.1), with no differences in anxiety symptoms or insomnia. The modest differences in substance use and mental health from pre-closure through two months post-college closure suggest unexpected resilience in a large and diverse sample of students. College health providers will need to identify those students experiencing the greatest increases in mental health symptoms and substance use, using innovative outreach and treatment.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Co-use of alcohol and marijuana has increased among college students, though comparisons among simultaneous (i.e., use of both substances such that effects overlap), dual (i.e., use of both substances within a similar time period but without overlapping effects), and marijuana-only use are limited. This study aimed to understand differences between simultaneous, dual, and marijuana-only users on marijuana use rates, consequences, and context of use in a multi-university study. Method: College students (N = 4,764; M age = 19.9 years) who were mainly female (70.6%) and White (67.9%) completed an online survey. The Marijuana Use Grid captured marijuana use quantity/frequency, and the Brief Marijuana Consequences Questionnaire and the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test-Revised assessed problem use. Location, method of consumption, and social context of use also were assessed. Results: Fifty-five percent of the sample endorsed lifetime use of alcohol and marijuana. Of these students, 36.1% endorsed past-month simultaneous use, 10.8% endorsed past-month dual use, and 6.4% endorsed past-month marijuana-only use. Simultaneous users reported more marijuana use and problems than dual users. Marijuana-only users did not differ from simultaneous users on marijuana use indices, though they reported greater use than dual users as well. Simultaneous users used marijuana in plant form, at parties, and with unknown others a greater percentage of the time than dual users, while dual users used edibles and ingested marijuana a greater percentage of the time. Conclusions: Given their greater levels of marijuana use and marijuana-related problems, screening and interventions for simultaneous alcohol-marijuana use are needed in college students. Public Health Significance StatementWithin this study, college students who engaged in either marijuana-only or simultaneous use of alcohol and marijuana (i.e., use of both substances such that their effects overlapped) reported greater past 30-day marijuana use frequency, quantity, and consequences than those who engaged in dual use (i.e., use of both substances within a designated time period, but without effects overlapping). Based on the results of this study, more research is needed to understand etiological and contextual factors related to different use types.

Findings suggest advancements in MI training studies since previous reviews, especially in regards to the inclusion of feedback and coaching. However, this review also found that inconsistencies in methods and reporting of training characteristics, as well as limited follow-up assessment of trainees' skill, continue to limit knowledge of effective training methods.

No abstract