Untitled

Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of a school-based preventive intervention (Botvin, G. J. 1996, 2000) on growth trajectories of substance initiation (alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana), expectancies, and refusal intentions. A rural midwestern sample (N=847) provided three waves of data from middle school students. Growth curve analyses demonstrated that the intervention significantly slowed the rate of increase in substance initiation and significantly slowed the rate of decrease in refusal intentions. The intervention also slowed the rate of decrease in negative outcome expectancies, although the significance level was only marginal. A multiple group comparison showed that the impact of initial levels of substance initiation on growth trajectories of refusal intentions differed between conditions, suggesting that the intervention decreased the effect of early substance initiation on the rate of change over time for refusal intentions. Gender differences also were found, although the intervention was effective in slowing the rate of increase in initiation for both genders.

Effects of Adolescent Universal Substance Misuse Preventive Interventions on Young Adult Depression Symptoms: Mediational Modeling

“…These causal factors may help explain the cross-over effects of the interventions on depression symptoms. The SFP 10–14 and LST interventions address risk and protective factors that have been shown in past research to influence parenting and parent–child relationships (Spoth et al 1998; Redmond et al 2009), adolescent skills (Lillehoj et al 2004; Redmond et al 2009; Spoth et al 2002a, b; Trudeau et al 2003), and substance misuse (Spoth et al 2005, 2008a; Spoth et al 2009, 2014). Together, these factors likely led to a developmental cascade, whereby positive changes in one domain influenced positive changes in another (Masten and Cicchetti 2010).…”

“…The interventions have demonstrated positive effects on parenting behaviors (Spoth et al 1998), adolescent skills (Lillehoj et al 2004; Trudeau et al 2003), and both substance misuse (Spoth et al 2008a, b, 2009, 2014) and internalizing symptoms (Trudeau et al 2007, 2012) in adolescence and young adulthood. The most recent substance misuse outcome study from this project (Spoth et al 2014), documents effects of the school-based and family-focused interventions on trajectories of adolescent substance initiation (drunkenness, marijuana, inhalants, and tobacco) that predict to effects on substance misuse frequency in young adulthood, ages 19–22 (i.e., drunkenness, alcohol-related problems, cigarettes, and illicit substances).…”

Differential Impact of a Dutch Alcohol Prevention Program Targeting Adolescents and Parents Separately and Simultaneously: Low Self-Control and Lenient Parenting at Baseline Predict Effectiveness

“…For example, although most studies find more favorable effects of alcohol interventions in adolescents who drink more frequently at baseline (Brown et al 2005; Spoth et al 2008a), not much support for beneficial effects in other higher-risk groups (e.g., boys and adolescents in lower education) has been found (e.g., Spoth et al 2006; Trudeau et al 2003). However, it is particularly relevant to analyze whether the theoretically relevant factors that are targeted in the intervention also act as potential moderator variables.…”

Influence of Early Onset of Alcohol Use on the Development of Adolescent Alcohol Problems: a Longitudinal Binational Study

“…Prior research has demonstrated that substance misuse preventive interventions can be effective in slowing the rate of alcohol and other substance use initiation in youth (Park et al, 2000; Trudeau, Spoth, Lillehoj, Redmond, & Wickrama, 2003). Yet, little is known about whether the same risk and protective factors associated with EOA and later problem drinking found in the United States are applicable to other countries that might have different alcohol-related cultures or policies.…”