Documents Reviewed
The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of
contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability
of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.
Study 1
Wagenaar, A. C., Gehan, J. P., Jones-Webb, R., Toomey, T. L., Forster, J. L., Wolfson, M., et al. (1999). Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol: Lessons and results from a 15-community randomized trial. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(3), 315-326.
Wagenaar, A. C., Murray, D. M., Gehan, J. P., Wolfson, M., Forster, J. L., Toomey, T. L., et al. (2000). Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol: Outcomes from a randomized community trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 85-94.
Wagenaar, A. C., Murray, D. M., & Toomey, T. L. (2000). Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA): Effects of a randomized trial on arrests and traffic crashes. Addiction, 95(2), 209-217. 
Wagenaar, A. C., Murray, D. M., Wolfson, M., Forster, J. L., & Finnegan, J. R. (1994). Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol: Design of a randomized trial. Journal of Community Psychology, 22(CSAP Special Issue), 79-101.
Supplementary Materials
Alcohol Epidemiology Program. (2000, May). Alcohol compliance checks: A procedures manual for enforcing alcohol age-of-sale laws. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program. (2001). Model ordinances to reduce the supply of alcohol to youth under age 21. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, School of Public Health.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program. (2002). What civic groups can do. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program. (n.d.). Alcohol advertising. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program. (n.d.). Beer keg registration. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Toomey, T. L., & Wagenaar, A. C. (1999). Policy options for prevention: The case of alcohol. Journal of Public Health Policy, 20(2), 192-213.
Wagenaar, A. C., & Perry, C. L. (1994). Community strategies for the reduction of youth drinking: Theory and application. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4(2), 319-345.
Wagenaar, A. C., Toomey, T. L., Murray, D. M., Short, B. J., Wolfson, M., & Jones-Webb, R. (1996). Sources of alcohol for underage drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57, 325-333.
Outcomes
| Outcome 1: Youth access to alcohol through commercial outlets |
|
Description of Measures
|
Youth access to alcohol through commercial outlets was measured by direct observation and by telephone survey of managers of alcohol sales outlets, including establishments where alcohol is consumed on site (bars and restaurants) and those where alcohol is purchased but consumed off site (liquor stores). Observations included attempts to buy alcohol by researchers who were of legal drinking age but looked younger and observations of age-ID checking. Telephone surveys of outlet managers included questions about their practices of checking age-ID of anyone who appears under 30 years old and their perceived likelihood of being cited for selling alcohol to minors.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Analysis of the overall CMCA effects on outlets where alcohol is consumed (bars and restaurants) in the treatment communities found a large effect (Cohen's d = 1.18) relative to on-site outlets in control communities that did not implement the intervention. The overall CMCA effects on on-site outlets included the summed scores on measures of buy attempts by research staff who were 21 years old but looked younger; observed age-ID checking; and managers' self-reported age-ID checking of anyone who appeared under 30 years old, perceived likelihood of being cited for selling to minors, and willingness to sell to a 21-year-old accompanied by a 19-year-old.
There were no statistically significant effects on outlets where alcohol is purchased but consumed off site (liquor stores).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.9
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 2: Youth access to alcohol through noncommercial outlets |
|
Description of Measures
|
Eighteen- to 20-year-olds were surveyed by telephone regarding their use of alcohol and their provision of alcohol to other teens. They were asked if they had attempted to buy alcohol, if they had provided alcohol to other teens, and the amount and frequency of their drinking in the past month.
|
|
Key Findings
|
Analyses of the summed scores assessing overall CMCA effects on 18- to 20-year-olds in the treatment communities found a medium effect (Cohen's d = 0.76) relative to youth in control communities that did not implement the intervention. The overall CMCA effects on 18- to 20-year-olds included the summed scores on self-reported reductions in their attempts to buy alcohol, provision of alcohol to underage teens, the number of drinks consumed the last time they drank, and the number of times in the last month that they drank. Communities implementing CMCA also experienced a 17% decline in the proportion of 18- to 20-year-olds who reported providing alcohol to other youth (p = .01).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.9
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
| Outcome 3: Driving under the influence (DUI) arrests |
|
Description of Measures
|
DUI arrest data were collected annually for 6 years following the initiation of the intervention (3 years during intervention implementation and 3 years after the intervention ended). The data came from State records and were stated in terms of arrests per population level.
|
|
Key Findings
|
DUI arrests among 18- to 20-year-olds in the treatment communities declined by about 30 arrests per 100,000 persons per year (p = .05).
|
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
2.7
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Study Populations
The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of
Research.
|
Study
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Race/Ethnicity
|
|
Study 1
|
18-25 (Young adult)
|
Data not reported/available
|
Data not reported/available
|
Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's
reported results using six criteria:
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.
|
Outcome
|
Reliability
of Measures
|
Validity
of Measures
|
Fidelity
|
Missing
Data/Attrition
|
Confounding
Variables
|
Data
Analysis
|
Overall
Rating
|
|
1: Youth access to alcohol through commercial outlets
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
3.0
|
2.9
|
|
2: Youth access to alcohol through noncommercial outlets
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
3.5
|
2.9
|
|
3: Driving under the influence (DUI) arrests
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
3.0
|
2.7
|
Study Strengths
The evaluation used diverse survey operations that included four independent surveys (school-based surveys, telephone surveys of students and of retail outlet managers, and a survey of teenagers regarding their alcohol purchase attempts). Many of the surveys used were standards in the field, and others were based on national surveys such as the Monitoring the Future survey. The instruments generally had good reliability and validity.
Several fidelity instruments were used in the implementation phase, including contact forms, telephone interviews, monthly report forms, and meeting minutes. The community organizer tailored the intervention to meet the needs of each community, and the communities had direct input into developing local strategies.
Although the rate of attrition over 2.5 years was about 40% of the students surveyed, this was largely due to relocation out of the community. Missing data were handled appropriately in the analyses. The developers minimized the impact of confounding variables by using exclusionary criteria (e.g., communities were not concurrently doing another alcohol education initiative and were not contiguous) and through the research design and analyses. Sample size and statistical power were adequate.
Study Weaknesses
While the sample was large, the cultural diversity of the sample is unclear, and the impact of cultural factors associated with alcohol use were not discussed.
