In a prior study (Festinger et al., 2005) we found that neither the mode (cash vs. gift card) nor magnitude ($10, $40, or $70) of research follow-up payments increased rates of new drug use or perceptions of coercion. However, higher payments and payments in cash were associated with better follow-up attendance, reduced tracking efforts, and improved participant satisfaction with the study. The present study extended those findings to higher payment magnitudes. Participants from an urban outpatient substance abuse treatment program were randomly assigned to receive $70, $100, $130, or $160 in either cash or a gift card for completing a follow-up assessment at 6 months post-admission (n ≅ 50 per cell). Apart from the payment incentives, all participants received a standardized, minimal platform of follow-up efforts. Findings revealed that neither the magnitude nor mode of payment had a significant effect on new drug use or perceived coercion. Consistent with our previous findings, higher payments and cash payments resulted in significantly higher follow-up rates and fewer tracking calls. In addition participants receiving cash vs. gift cards were more likely to use their payments for essential, non-luxury purchases. Follow-up rates for participants receiving cash payments of $100, $130, and $160 approached or exceeded the FDA required minimum of 70% for studies to be considered in evaluations of new medications. This suggests that the use of higher magnitude payments and cash payments may be effective strategies for obtaining more representative follow-up samples without increasing new drug use or perceptions of coercion.

This study evaluated a contingency management (CM) program in a drug court. Gift certificates for compliance were delivered at 4-to 6-week intervals (total value 5 $390.00). Participants in one condition earned gift certificates that escalated by $5.00 increments. Participants in a second condition began earning higher magnitude gift certificates, and the density of reinforcement was gradually decreased. No main effects of CM were detected, which appears to be attributable to a ceiling effect from the intensive contingencies already delivered in the drug court and the low density of reinforcement. Preplanned interaction analyses suggested that participants with more serious criminal backgrounds might have performed better in the CM conditions. This suggests that CM programs may be best suited for more incorrigible drug offenders.

Research participants often fail to recall substantial amounts of informed consent information after delays of only a few days. Numerous interventions have proven effective at improving consent recall; however, virtually all have focused on compensating for potential cognitive deficits and have ignored motivational factors. In this pilot study, we randomly assigned 31 drug court clients participating in a clinical research trial to a standard consent procedure or to the same procedure plus incentives for correctly recalling consent information. The incentive group was told they would receive $5 for each of the 15 consent items they could answer correctly 1-week later. At the follow-up, the incentive group recalled a significantly greater percentage of consent information overall than the standard group (65% vs. 42%; p < .01). Similar findings were observed for specific categories of consent information, including study purpose and design, risks and benefits, and human subject protections. Effect sizes were all large (d = 0.89 to 1.25). Findings suggest that motivation plays a key role in recall of consent information and should be considered in the development of future interventions.

This pilot study (N = 30) experimentally examined the effects of an adaptive intervention in an adult misdemeanor drug court. The adaptive algorithm adjusted the frequency of judicial status hearings and clinical case-management sessions according to pre-specified criteria in response to participants' ongoing performance in the program. Results revealed the adaptive algorithm was acceptable to both clients and staff, feasible to implement with greater than 85% fidelity, and showed promise for eliciting clinically meaningful improvements in drug abstinence and graduation rates. Estimated effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.60 across various dependent measures. Compared to drug court as-usual, participants in the adaptive condition were more likely to receive responses from the drug court team for inadequate performance in the program and received those responses after a substantially shorter period of time. This suggests the adaptive algorithm may have more readily focused the drug court team's attention on poorly-performing individuals, thus allowing the team to "nip problems in the bud" before they developed too fully. These preliminary data justify additional research evaluating the effects of the adaptive algorithm in a fully powered experimental trial.Adaptive interventions adjust the dose or type of services that are administered to clients in response to clients' clinical presentation or on-going performance in treatment (e.g., Collins, Murphy & Bierman, 2004;Murphy, 2005;Murphy, Lynch, McKay, Oslin & TenHave, 2007). Matching services to clients' pre-treatment characteristics is perhaps the simplest form of adapting treatment to the needs of the individual. For example, tailoring services to the needs of youths or racial minorities is one common approach to adapting treatment for the individual. Similarly, a history of negative outcomes in prior treatment episodes might lead a program to offer a higher dosage or greater variety of services for a new client than would ordinarily be provided to new admissions. This, too, is a simple form of adapting treatment to the needs of the individual.At a more sophisticated level of adaptive programming, the nature or intensity of services is readjusted over time according to pre-specified criteria as a consequence of clients' performance in treatment. For example, if a client falls below an effective threshold for engagement in treatment-by, for example, missing a pre-specified number of counseling sessions-he or she might be re-assigned to a motivational enhancement intervention. The term matching is commonly used to describe strategies that tailor treatment to clients' baseline characteristics whereas the term adaptive is commonly used for strategies that re-adjust the Address correspondence to Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., Treatment Research Institute, 600 Public Ledger Bldg., 150 South Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106. (215) 399-0980. (215) 399-0987 (fax). dmarlowe@tresearch.org.. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptCrim Justice Rev. Aut...

This study examined the efficacy of corrected feedback for improving consent recall throughout the course of an ongoing longitudinal study. Participants (N = 135) were randomly assigned to either a corrected feedback or a no-feedback control condition. Participants completed a consent quiz 2-weeks after consenting to the host study and at months 1, 2, and 3. The corrected feedback group received corrections to erroneous responses and the no-feedback control group did not. The feedback group displayed significantly greater recall overall and in specific content areas (i.e., procedures, protections, risks/benefits). Results support the use of corrected feedback for improving consent recall.