BERNHARDT ET AL.
771
Alcohol Assessment Among College Students Using
Wireless Mobile Technology*
JAY M. BERNHARDT, PH.D., M.P.H.,† STUART USDAN, PH.D.,† DARREN MAYS, M.P.H.,† RYAN MARTIN, PH.D.,†
JENNIFER CREMEENS, PH.D., M.S.P.H.,† AND KIMBERLY JACOB ARRIOLA, PH.D., M.P.H.†
National Center for Health Marketing, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS E21, Atlanta, Georgia 30329
ABSTRACT. Objective: This study used a two-group randomized
design to assess the validity of measuring self-reported alcohol consumption among college students using the Handheld Assisted Network
Diary (HAND), a daily diary assessment administered using wireless
mobile devices. Method: A convenience sample of college students was
recruited at a large, public university in the southeastern United States
and randomized into two groups. A randomly assigned group of 86 students completed the daily HAND assessment during the 30-day study
and a Timeline Followback (TLFB) at 30-day follow-up. A randomly assigned group of 82 students completed the paper-and-pencil Daily Social
Diary (DSD) over the same study period. Data from the daily HAND
assessment were compared with the TLFB completed at follow-up by
participants who completed the HAND using 95% limits of agreement
analysis. Furthermore, individual growth models were used to examine
differences between the HAND and DSD by comparing the total drinks,
drinking days, and drinks per drinking day captured by the two assessments over the study period. Results: Results suggest that the HAND
captured similar levels of alcohol use compared with the TLFB completed at follow-up by the same participants. In addition, comparisons
of the two study groups suggest that, controlling for baseline alcohol
use and demographics, the HAND assessment captured similar levels
of total drinks, drinking days, and drinks per drinking day as the paperand-pencil DSD. Conclusions: The study findings support the validity
of wireless mobile devices as a daily assessment of alcohol use among
college students. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 70: 771-775, 2009)
H
EAVY ALCOHOL USE among college students is a
public health problem in the United States (Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2004;
Wechsler et al., 2000). Despite significant advances in alcohol surveillance, prevention, and intervention research, the
measurement of alcohol use among college students remains
a challenge for alcohol researchers because students’ drinking behaviors are characterized by infrequent, heavy drinking
episodes (Dawson, 2003; Greenfield, 2000; Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, 2004).
In part to overcome some of the methodological limitations of existing assessments of alcohol use, the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism identified the
need to determine the most effective uses of computer-based
technologies to help prevent dangerous alcohol use in college
settings (Task Force for the National Advisory Council on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002). For instance, wireless
mobile devices (MDs) such as handheld computers, cellular
phones, and smart phones provide a number of advantages
over traditional paper-and-pencil methods of measurement
and thus may be useful in improving the assessment of alcohol use among college students (Bernhardt et al., 2001).
Previous research has demonstrated that the use of MDs,
such as handheld computers, for collection of sensitive behavioral data (e.g., drug and alcohol use, sexual behavior)
from students resulted in substantially fewer missing data
points compared with paper-and-pencil questionnaires and
face-to-face interviews (van Griensven et al., 2006). Research also suggests that electronic daily diaries may be a
useful method for alcohol assessment; however, only a few
prior studies have used the wireless capabilities of MDs for
alcohol assessment among college students (Bernhardt et
al., 2007; LaBrie et al., 2006; Weitzel et al., 2007). By using existing daily reporting methods of alcohol assessment
and incorporating innovative wireless mobile technology, it
may be possible to create an accurate assessment of drinking
behaviors among college students and provide opportunities
Received: February 10, 2009. Revision: June 18, 2009.
*This research was supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism grant 5R21AA013969-03. The preparation of this manuscript was
supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program
for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) administered by
the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an agreement
between the Department of Energy and the CDC (Darren Mays). The findings
and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
†Correspondence may be sent to Jay M. Bernhardt at the above address
or via email at: jbernhardt@cdc.gov. Stuart Usdan is with the College of
Human Environmental Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Darren Mays is with the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University,
Atlanta, GA. Ryan Martin is with the Division on Addictions, Cambridge
Health Alliance, Medford, MA. Jennifer Cremeens is with the Department of
Health Education and Promotion, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
Kimberly Jacob Arriola is with the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory
University, Atlanta, GA.
771
772
JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS / SEPTEMBER 2009
to apply this technology for tailored interventions (Bernhardt
et al., 2005, 2007; Weitzel et al., 2007).
This study sought to evaluate the validity of measuring
self-reported alcohol consumption among college students
using daily Handheld Assisted Network Diary (HAND)
assessments for alcohol use administered on wireless MDs
by comparing data collected using the HAND with two
validated methods of alcohol assessment. First, reported
alcohol use on the HAND was compared with a paper-andpencil, self-completed Timeline Followback (TLFB; Sobell
et al., 1986) assessment completed at follow-up by the same
participants. Second, data collected using the HAND assessment were compared with data collected among a randomly
assigned comparison group of participants who completed
a paper-and-pencil Daily Social Diary (DSD) over the same
30-day period.
Method
Design and procedures
The study used a pre-test, post-test design with randomized group assignment to examine the validity of the HAND
for measuring alcohol use among college students at a large,
public university in the southeastern United States. The study
procedures were approved by the institutional review board
at the participating institution, and all participants provided
signed informed consent before taking part in the study.
The methods of the study are described in detail elsewhere (Arriola et al., 2009). Briefly, a convenience sample
of college students (n = 170) was randomly assigned to
complete a daily assessment of their drinking using either
the HAND (Bernhardt et al., 2007; Weitzel et al., 2007) or
the paper-and-pencil DSD each day for 30 days. Participants
were asked to complete a baseline TLFB, the daily HAND or
DSD for 30 days, and a follow-up TLFB after 30 days.
Measures
Daily drinking was measured on the TLFB, HAND, and
DSD by asking participants whether they drank alcohol
on the previous day and, if so, how many standard drinks
they consumed. Standard drinks were consistently defined
across the three assessments as 12 oz of beer, 5 oz of wine
or champagne, 3 oz of fortified wine, or 1.5 oz of distilled
spirits. Conversion factors were also provided to estimate the
number of standard drinks consumed based on state-specific
alcohol distribution laws at that time that required drinking
establishments to serve distilled spirits in single-serving
bottles rather than using conventional serving methods.
The TLFB administered at baseline and follow-up was
self-completed (i.e., paper-and-pencil). Similar to prior
research (Maisto et al., 2008), participants were provided
with the TLFB calendar and instructions and were asked to
complete information about their alcohol use each day for
the previous 30 days. The reliability of the TLFB has been
previously established by comparing it with electronic forms
of measurement, including handheld computers, interactive
voice response programs, computer-based assessments, and
telephone interviews (Carney et al., 1998; Searles et al.,
2000; Sobell et al., 1996).
The questions examining drinking on the daily HAND
and DSD assessments were identical; the only difference between the two assessments was the mode of administration.
The DSD was based on the drinking self-monitoring log, a
validated daily diary-type assessment for alcohol use (Sobell
et al., 1989), and was administered in paper-and-pencil format. At baseline, DSD group participants received a packet
containing a one-page assessment for each day of the study
period to be completed over the course of the study, which
they then turned in when completing the follow-up TLFB.
The HAND was designed using EntryWare Designer
software (Techneos Systems, Inc., Vancouver, BC) and administered using Palm Tungsten W smart phones (Palm Inc.,
Sunnyvale, CA), which were enabled to wirelessly transmit
data to a secure web-based server after each assessment was
completed. Participants who did not complete the HAND
assessment by 12:00 PM each day were sent an automated
email from the researchers reminding them to complete the
HAND. Participants who still had not completed the assessment by 5:00 PM each day received an automated phone call
from the researchers reminding them to complete the HAND.
Between administrations of the daily HAND assessments,
the MDs were locked at a waiting screen until the next day’s
assessment was available, which prevented participants from
completing multiple HAND assessments in 1 day.
Statistical analyses
Data were analyzed using SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary,
NC). Variables created for the HAND, DSD, and TLFB
assessments included total drinks consumed, number of
drinking days, and drinks per drinking day. The 95% limits
of agreement method (Bland and Altman, 2003) using a correction factor for sample sizes of less than 100 (Ludbrook,
2002) was used to assess agreement between the HAND and
the follow-up TLFB.
Three individual growth models were created using PROC
MIXED (Singer, 1998) to compare differences in total
drinks, drinking days, and drinks per drinking day between
the HAND and DSD. Each outcome variable was aggregated
at weekly intervals (Weeks 1 and 2 with 7 days, Weeks 3 and
4 with 8 days), totaling four time points for each individual
growth model. The primary independent variable of interest was a group variable coded as “1” for the HAND group
and “0” for the DSD group. Individual growth models also
BERNHARDT ET AL.
773
TABLE 1. Unstandardized parameter estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing the
Handheld Assisted Network Diary (HAND) to the Daily Social Diary (DSD) for alcohol-related
variables
Variable
Assessment (1 = HAND,
0 = DSD)
Baseline TLFB
Log (1 + total drinks)a
Drinking days
Drinks/drinking day
Gender (1 = male,
0 = female)
Age
Null model
likelihood
ratio test
Total drinks
b (95% CI)
Drinking days
b (95% CI)
Drinks/drinking day
b (95% CI)
-0.15 (-2.52, 2.21)
-0.09 (-0.37, 0.19)
0.50 (-0.41, 1.41)
7.45† (6.06, 8.90)
–
–
–
0.18† (0.14, 0.23)
–
-2.97* (-5.41, -0.54) -0.25 (-0.53, 0.04)
0.42 (-0.38, 1.35)
0.14* (0.03, 0.24)
χ2 = 90.9,
9 df,
p < .001
χ2 = 105.41
9 df,
p ≤ .001
0.66†
–
–
(0.49, 0.83)
-0.58 (-1.52, 0.37)
0.29 (-1.52, 0.37)
χ2 = 50.07
9 df,
p ≤ .001
Notes: TLFB = Timeline Followback. aNatural log transformation was applied because the baseline
total drinks variable was strongly kurtotic.
included age, gender, and the corresponding baseline TLFB
drinking-variable controls. The total drinks variable from the
baseline TLFB was transformed using a natural logarithm
(natural log + 1) because it was strongly kurtotic (Emerson
and Soto, 1983). Two participants were excluded from the
analyses reported because they had extreme outlier values
on all assessments of alcohol use.
Comparison of the HAND with the DSD
When controlling for the respective alcohol-use variables
on the baseline TLFB, age, and gender, there were no statistically significant differences between the HAND and DSD
in total drinks, drinking days, or drinks per drinking day
captured each week during the 30-day study period (Table
1).
Results
Discussion
Participants
Of the participants included in the analyses (n = 168),
50.3% were female, the majority were white (77.7%), and
the mean (SD) age was 19.96 (1.35) years. Demographic
characteristics did not differ significantly between the two
study groups. Among the participants in the DSD group (n =
82), the mean number of completed daily assessments on the
DSD was 29.29 (0.91), with an average completion rate of
97.6%. Among participants in the HAND group (n = 86), the
mean number of completed assessments on the HAND was
25.75 (5.90), with an average completion rate of 85.8%.
Comparison of the HAND with the TLFB
Overall, the mean total drinks (p = .21), drinking days (p
= .56), and drinks per drinking day (p = .54) captured on the
HAND and TLFB, respectively, did not differ significantly.
The mean difference in drinks per drinking day between
the HAND and TLFB was 0.07. The adjusted 95% limits of
agreement using the small sample size (n < 100) correction
factor (Ludbrook, 2002) were -3.68 to 3.83 standard drinks.
In total, 94.2% of data (81/86 respondents) fell within this
agreement interval.
This study sought to evaluate the validity of measuring
self-reported quantity and frequency of alcohol use among
college students using the MD-based HAND. Our analyses
suggest that the HAND assessment captured similar levels
of alcohol use over the course of the study compared with
two valid paper-and-pencil assessments of alcohol use, the
TLFB and DSD. This study contributes to a growing body of
literature on the assessment of alcohol consumption using a
number of different communication technologies (Dawson,
2003). Specifically, this study suggests that wireless MDs
may represent a valid method of assessment of daily drinking
among college students.
Technical aspects of the design of the two daily assessments may have affected the comparisons reported. For example, the average completion rate among DSD participants
(98%) was substantially higher than among HAND participants (86%). However, the design of the HAND prevented
participants from completing assessments that were missed,
and HAND group participants received reminders to complete daily assessments. Neither of these features was incorporated into the design of the DSD, which likely contributed
to the observed differences in completion rates in particular.
These technical aspects notwithstanding, the completion rate
774
JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS / SEPTEMBER 2009
observed for the HAND indicates that, despite the potential
burden for participants of completing the daily HAND assessment, the HAND can be completed daily with little
deviation.
Although research suggests that technology such as wireless MDs offers many benefits for behavioral assessment
(Bernhardt et al., 2001, 2005), the evolving technology of
wireless MDs, including enhanced multimedia and improved
wireless capabilities of more recent MDs, may expand the
benefits of applying such technology for alcohol assessment.
In particular, although preliminary evidence suggests that
wireless MDs may be an effective tool for delivering individually tailored messages to reduce drinking among college
students (Weitzel et al., 2007), future research is needed to
examine both the assessment and intervention capabilities of
more recent, more advanced wireless MDs over longer time
periods.
The results of this study should be considered in the
context of several limitations. The study used a convenience
sample of college students; therefore, generalizations to
broader populations should be made with caution. All drinking behaviors are based on participant self-reports. Although
research suggests that self-report assessments are reliable
(Del Boca and Darkes, 2003), the results should be interpreted with this limitation in mind. Because of the nature
of the DSD, it could not be determined when the daily assessment was completed, thereby limiting the comparisons
that can be drawn between the DSD and the HAND. Finally,
participants’ reported alcohol use on the follow-up TLFB
may have been affected by the fact that they completed a
daily assessment of alcohol use over the preceding 30 days.
The comparisons of the HAND with the follow-up TLFB
in particular should be interpreted with this limitation in
mind.
Two primary research implications should be considered
based on the present study. First, future research is needed
to examine both the alcohol assessment and intervention
capabilities of MDs, in particular investigating their use
over longer study periods. In addition, research is needed to
examine how advanced multimedia and communication capabilities of more recent wireless MDs can be incorporated
into assessment and intervention methods for alcohol use
and potentially other behaviors.
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to Richard E. Dixon and James B. Weaver III
for their thoughtful feedback on this manuscript.
References
ARRIOLA, K.D., USDAN, S., MAYS, D., WEITZEL, J.A., CREMEENS, J., MARTIN,
R.J., BORBA, C., AND BERNHARDT, J.M. Reliability and validity of the
Alcohol Consequences Expectations Scale. Amer. J. Hlth Behav. 33:
504-512, 2009.
BERNHARDT, J.M., STRECHER, V.J., BISHOP, K.R., POTTS, P., MADISON, E.M.,
AND THROP,
J. Handheld computer-assisted self-interviews: User comfort
level and preferences. Amer. J. Hlth Behav. 25: 557-563, 2001.
BERNHARDT, J.M., USDAN, S.L., AND BURNETT, A. Using handheld computers
for daily alcohol assessment: Results from a pilot study. J. Subst. Use
10: 347-353, 2005.
BERNHARDT, J.M., USDAN, S., MAYS, D., ARRIOLA, K.J., MARTIN, R.J., CREMEENS, J., MCGILL, T., AND WEITZEL, J.A. Alcohol assessment using
wireless handheld computers: A pilot study. Addict. Behav. 32: 30653070, 2007.
BLAND, J.M. AND ALTMAN, D.G. Applying the right statistics: Analyses
of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 22: 85-93, 2003.
CARNEY, M.A., TENNEN, H., AFFLECK, G., DEL BOCA, F.K., AND KRANZLER,
H.R. Levels and patterns of alcohol consumption using the Timeline
Follow-Back, daily diaries, and real-time “electronic interviews.” J. Stud.
Alcohol 59: 447-454, 1998.
DAWSON, D.A. Methodological issues in measuring alcohol use. Alcohol
Res. Hlth 27: 18-29, 2003.
DEL BOCA, F.K. AND DARKES, J. The validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption: State of the science and challenges for research. Addiction
98 (Suppl. No. 2): 1-12, 2003.
EMERSON, J.D. AND SOTO, M.A. Transforming data. In: HOAGLIN, D.C.,
MOSTELLER, F., AND TUKEY, J.W. (Eds.) Understanding Robust and
Exploratory Data Analysis, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1983,
pp. 97-128.
GREENFIELD, T.K. Ways of measuring drinking patterns and the difference
they make: Experience with graduated frequencies. J. Subst. Abuse 12:
33-49, 2000.
LABRIE, J., EARLYWINE, M., LAMB, T., AND SHELESKY, K. Comparing electronic-keypad responses to paper-and-pencil questionnaires in group
assessments of alcohol consumption and related attitudes. Addict. Behav.
31: 2334-2338, 2006.
LUDBROOK, J. Statistical techniques for comparing measures and methods
of measurement: A critical review. Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol. 29:
526-536, 2002.
MAISTO, S.A., CONIGLIARO, J.C., GORDON, A.J., MCGINNIS, K.A., AND JUSTICE,
A.C. An experimental study of the agreement of self-administration and
telephone administration of the Timeline Followback interview. J. Stud.
Alcohol Drugs 69: 468-471, 2008.
SEARLES, J.S., HELZER, J.E., AND WALTER, D.E. Comparison of drinking patterns measured by daily reports and Timeline Follow Back. Psychol.
Addict. Behav. 14: 277-286, 2000.
SINGER, J.D. Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 24:
323-355, 1998.
SOBELL, L.C., BROWN, J., LEO, G.I., AND SOBELL, M.B. The reliability of the
Alcohol Timeline Followback when administered by telephone and by
computer. Drug Alcohol Depend. 42: 49-54, 1996.
SOBELL, M.B., BORGARDIS, J., SHULLER, R., LEO, G.I., AND SOBELL, L.C. Is
self-monitoring of alcohol consumption reactive? Behav. Assess. 11:
447-458, 1989.
SOBELL, M.B., SOBELL, L.C., KLAJNER, F., PAVAN, D., AND BASIAN, E. The
reliability of a timeline method for assessing normal drinker college
students’ recent drinking history: Utility for alcohol research. Addict.
Behav. 11: 149-161, 1986.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (Office of
Applied Studies). Overview of Findings From the 2003 National Survey
on Drug Use and Health, DHHS Publication No. 04-3963, Rockville,
MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
2004.
TASK FORCE OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND
ALCOHOLISM. A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at
U.S. Colleges, NIH Publication No. 02-5010, Bethesda, MD: National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002.
BERNHARDT ET AL.
GRIENSVEN, F., NAORAT, S., KILMARX, P.H., JEEYAPANT, S., MANOPAIBOON,
C., CHAIKUMMAO, S., JENKINS, R.A., UTHAIVORAVIT, W., WASINRAPEE, P.,
MOCK, P.A., AND TAPPERO, J.W. Palmtop-assisted self-interviewing for the
collection of sensitive behavioral data: Randomized trial with drug use
urine testing. Amer. J. Epidemiol. 163: 271-278, 2006.
WECHSLER, H., LEE, J.E., KUO, M., AND LEE, H. College binge drinking in
VAN
775
the 1990s: A continuing problem. J. Amer. Coll. Hlth 48: 199-210,
2000.
WEITZEL, J.A., BERNHARDT, J.M., USDAN, S., MAYS, D., AND GLANZ, K. Using
wireless handheld computers and tailored text messaging to reduce the
negative consequences of drinking alcohol. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 68:
534-537, 2007.