Reliability of the Timeline Followback for cocaine, cannabis, and cigarette use.

The Timeline Followback (TLFB), a retrospective calendar-based measure of daily substance use, was initially developed to obtain self-reports of alcohol use. Since its inception it has undergone extensive evaluation across diverse populations and is considered the most psychometrically sound self-report measure of drinking. Although the TLFB has been extended to other behaviors, its psychometric evaluation with other addictive behaviors has not been as extensive as for alcohol use. The present study evaluated the test-retest reliability of the TLFB for cocaine, cannabis, and cigarette use for participants recruited from outpatient alcohol and drug treatment programs and the general community across intervals ranging from 30 to 360 days prior to the interview. The dependent measure for cigarette smokers and cannabis users was daily use of cigarettes and joints, respectively, and for cocaine users it was a "Yes" or "No" regarding cocaine use for each day. The TLFB was administered in different formats for different drug types. Different interviewers conducted the two interviews. The TLFB collected highly reliable information about participants' daily use of cocaine, cannabis, and cigarettes from 30, 90, to 360 days prior to the interview. Findings from this study not only suggest that shorter time intervals (e.g., 90 days) can be used with little loss of accuracy, but also add to the growing literature that the TLFB can be used with confidence to collect psychometrically sound information about substance use (i.e., cocaine, cannabis, cigarettes) other than alcohol in treatment- and nontreatment-seeking populations for intervals from ranging up to 12 months prior to the interview.

Comparison of a quick drinking screen with the timeline followback for individuals with alcohol problems.

OBJECTIVE: Two major strategies have typically been used to assess recent drinking: (1) Daily Estimation (DE) measures such as the Timeline Followback (TLFB) and (2) Quantity-Frequency (QF) summary measures. Although QF measures provide a quick and easy measure of consumption, they have been criticized as not being able to capture sporadic and unpatterned drinking (e.g., days that reflect important social and/or health risks). The TLFB, a psychometrically sound drinking assessment method, is able to capture all drinking, including sporadic heavy days and unpatterned drinking. In some situations, however, recall of daily drinking may not be possible or practical (e.g., limited time; no resources). This article compares results obtained by using a QF measure and a DE measure to assess problem drinkers' pretreatment drinking. METHOD: The current study, part of a large community mail intervention with 825 alcohol abusers, compared results from two drinking measures covering the same time interval that were administered on two different occasions approximately 2.5 weeks apart. Both measures, the Quick Drinking Screen (QDS; a QF summary measure that collected data by telephone) and the TLFB (a self-administered daily estimation measure), collected drinking data for the year prior to the interview. RESULTS: Although the QDS and the TLFB are very different drinking measures, remarkably similar aggregate drinking data were obtained for five drinking variables. CONCLUSIONS: When it is not necessary or possible to gather detailed drinking data, the QDS produces reliable brief summary measures of drinking, at least for not severely alcohol dependent individuals. Also, respondents do not appear to use a repetitive response pattern when completing the TLFB.

Promoting self-change with alcohol abusers: a community-level mail intervention based on natural recovery studies.

BACKGROUND: By using a public health approach to the treatment of alcohol problems, this study analyzed the efficacy and cost analysis of two versions of a community-level mail intervention to promote self-change among alcohol abusers who had never sought help or treatment. METHODS: A total of 825 participants who responded to media solicitations were randomly assigned to one of two interventions: (a) for bibliotherapy/drinking guidelines (n = 411), they were given two pamphlets with information about the effects of alcohol and guidelines for low-risk drinking and self-monitoring, and (b) for motivational enhancement/personalized feedback (n = 414), personalized advice/feedback was provided on the basis of the participants' assessment of their drinking and related behaviors. RESULTS: Although both groups exhibited significant reductions in drinking from 1 year before to 1 year after intervention, there were no significant differences between the two interventions for any variable. This suggests that the materials, irrespective of whether they were personalized, facilitated the reduction of drinking. Cost analysis revealed that a brief mail intervention could reduce drinking at a very low cost per participant (US$46 to US$97). CONCLUSIONS: A brief community-level mail intervention for problem drinkers who had never sought treatment resulted in sizable reductions in alcohol use over the year after the intervention compared with the year before. Furthermore, many of those with poorer outcomes engaged in a natural stepped-care process by seeking help. These results, coupled with the low cost to deliver the intervention, suggest that public health campaigns could have a substantial effect on reducing alcohol problems and associated costs as well as getting some individuals into treatment. Such an approach would represent a shift from the alcohol field's long-standing clinical focus to a broader public health perspective.