Increasing Pre-Designated Drivers cont.

by Cristal Elwood, Lauren Lloyd, Dawn Morris, Anne Tofte, and Matt Zandecki
Florida State University

Go back to previous page

Results

The percentage of drinkers who drove is shown in Figure 1. Baseline data was fairly stable, and ranged from 66% to 100%, with a mean of 78.3%. During intervention, the range was 33% to 66%, with a mean of 46.3%. Due to time constraints, the intervention could not be run to stability. Two points to note are: first, no patrons drank alcohol the first day of observation; second, one daytime probe was conducted to determine if midday patrons showed a different level of drinking and driving.

Interobserver agreement was calculated for 75% of observations by dividing total agreements by total agreements plus total disagreements, multiplied by 100. Interobserver agreement was 100% for each calculation.

Figure 1. The percentage of drinkers who drove on each session day.
(click on graph to enlarge)

Discussion

Strengths of this study include the fact that a treatment effect was seen by visual analysis of the data, and that the results were consistent with those of previous studies including Brigham et al. (1995). Other strengths include the fact that the baseline data was more stable than in previous studies, the intervention was inexpensive and easy to implement, and there appeared to be little reactivity to the observers in the restaurant—the data collectors simply appeared to be other patrons. The target behavior is thought to be socially valid, as drinking and driving is a popular topic. The intervention is also helpful for restaurant owners themselves. Though many restaurant owners may be reticent to implement this treatment due to the fact that they do not want to lose the greater income associated with alcohol sales, owners could be liable for accidents caused by patrons who drive inebriated.

Despite this study’s strengths, there are still some limitations worth noting. First of all, the restaurant used was not a bar, but more of a family eating establishment. As such, there was a great deal of patrons who did not drink due to eating with their families, as well as parties of one who would not have had the option of a designated driver with them. Another limitation was timing of observations. Spring break began in the middle of baseline, which could explain the increase in percentage of drinkers who drove during this phase. Also, observations were only conducted two days a week in the evenings, which may also have underrepresented the data collected. A probe was made on a week day during lunch in an attempt to see if there was a difference in drinking and driving behavior and can be seen in Figure 1.

The definition used for drinking and driving was also a limitation as it did not differentiate between those who drank only one drink or multiple drinks. Most of the drinkers who drove had had one or two drinks which may not be enough to be considered driving under the influence according to Florida law. The length of treatment and lack of reversal were also limitations as they did not show experimental control.

The intervention utilized was a package treatment and would need to be evaluated for individual treatment effects. Staff training was brief and due to noise level of the restaurant it was not certain if verbal prompts were given by staff, so treatment integrity is of question. Finally, the restaurant owner reported that most alcohol sales took place through the drive through window, which could not be included in the scope of this study. Also, as reported by DeJong and Wallack (1992), other party members tend to drink more when they know that a driver has been designated and we generally did not observe this to be the case in the present study.

Some topics for future research would be to increase time spent doing observations—a greater percentage of business hours and more days of the week. It would also be worthwhile to replicate this study in a bar with a reversal and longer treatment span. Also, a study examining each part of the treatment package including an integrity checklist to assure that all aspects of the intervention are implemented by staff would be important.

References

Brigham, T.A., Meier, S.M., & Goodner, V. (1995). Increasing designated driving with a program of prompts and incentives. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 83-84.

DeJong, W., & Wallack, L. (1992). The role of designated river programs in the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving: A critical reassessment. Health Education Quarterly,19, 429-442.

Lombard, D., Neubauer, T.E., Canfield, D., & Winett, R.A.. (1991). Behavioral community intervention to reduce the risk of skin cancer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 677-686.

MacDonald, T.K., Zanna, M.P., & Fong, G.T.. (1995). Decision making in altered states: Effects of alcohol on attitudes toward drinking and driving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 973-985.

MADD Online Statistics. Retrieved January 19, 2004, from: http://www.madd.org/stats/printable/0,1068,1789,00.html