A Randomized Pilot Study Comparing the Efficacy of a Therapist-Delivered Motivational Interview to a Brief Computer-Delivered Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The purpose of this study was to compare the preliminary efficacy of a computer-assisted intervention (CAI), in which a computer-delivered intervention was immediately followed up with a brief therapist review session, to a therapist-delivered intervention (TDI) for adolescent substance use. Design, Setting, and Participants: Both conditions were examined in a pilot randomized clinical trial. All participants were recruited from a family court in the northeast United States. The sample included a total of 36 adolescents court-referred for an adolescent substance-related offense.Measures: Measures included adolescent alcohol and marijuana-use frequency, quantity, and problems as well as self-efficacy to resist the urge to use.Findings: While no significant time-by-condition differences were noted between the CAI and TDI conditions, significant time effects were found for both the TDI and CAI indicating a decrease in the total number of alcohol- or marijuana-use days over the six-month follow-up period.Conclusions: Given that CAIs are inexpensive, require minimal training, can be implemented with a high degree of fidelity, and are portable when compared to some TDIs, their use for decreasing substance use and related problems, particularly among adolescents with low access to substance-use interventions, seems promising. A fully powered trial of CAI efficacy is indicated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".