Whereas the effects of LEAP would be far more enduring. There were no additional useful effects of PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20067270 combining AACTP and LEAP more than effects achieved when each and every intervention was delivered individually. Probably the common lack of incremental effects was as a result of the manner in which delivery in the two interventions was timed. That may be, participants who received both interventions received them simultaneously, as well as the dual exposure may well have triggered them to expertise information and facts overload (Klingberg, 2009; Soucek Moser, 2010). One more possibility is the fact that intervening at distinctive levels concurrently (a cognitive and aTable six ANCOVA Results Comparing the Interventions on Modifications in Atypical Weekly Drinking (ATWD)AACTP F Pre-to-Post Pre-to-FU1 Pre-to-FU2 1.116 six.641 six.958 p .293 .013 .LEAP F .795 three.890 9.743 p .374 .052 .AACTP F .001 .762 .196 p .972 .385 .LEAP.010 .071 ..007 .044 ..0 .009 .Note. Covariates were scores from the Brief Inventory of Complications, Satisfaction with Life scale, and Leeds Dependency SCM-198 web Questionnaire. The F and p values are for the interaction involving the element for the indicated time points along with the interventions. Evidence for combined effects of AACTP and LEAP would be indicated by a three-way interaction between the unique time-point element and each and every on the two interventions. For the pre-to-post tests, degrees of freedom had been 1, 113; for the pre-to-FU1 tests, they had been 1, 85; and for the pre-to-FU2 tests, they had been 1, 70. For pre-to-post, we had N(AACTP) 32, N(LEAP) 34, N(each) 29, N(neither) 26. For pre-to-FU1, we had N(AACTP) 29, N(LEAP) 25, N(each) 20, N(neither) 18. For pre-to-FU2, we had N(AACTP) 26, N(LEAP) 19, N(both) 18, N(neither) 14.ATTENTIONAL AND MOTIVATIONAL TRAININGTable 7 ANCOVA Outcomes Exploring No matter if the Influence on the Interventions on Adjustments in Atypical Weekly Drinking (ATWD) Is determined by SexAACTP F Pre-to-Post Pre-to-FU1 Pre-to-FU2 .320 .889 .024 p .573 .348 .LEAP F two.146 .195 .454 p .146 .660 .AACTP F .127 .108 2.772 p .722 .743 .LEAP.003 .011 ..019 .002 ..001 .001 .Note. Covariates were scores from the Quick Inventory of Difficulties, Satisfaction with Life scale, and Leeds Dependency Questionnaire. The F and p values are for the interaction involving the element for the indicated time points, the interventions, and sex. For the pre-to-post tests, degrees of freedom had been 1, 109; for the pre-to-FU1 tests, they have been 1, 81; and for the pre-to-FU2 tests, they have been 1, 66.motivational level) is hard to achieve, maybe due to the work required to achieve the alterations that the interventions target. In retrospect, it would appear preferable for the two interventions to become delivered successively instead of simultaneously. The present final results recommend that AACTP must be offered prior to LEAP, since the valuable effects of AACTP may be realized more than a shorter period of time. Thus, it might be that probably the most productive strategy to bring about drinking reductions would be to teach excessive drinkers first to disattend to alcohol stimuli prior to they may be helped to address other concerns that motivate them to drink. This possibility awaits confirmation in future research. An additional possibility for future investigation would be to evaluate the relative and combined effects of (a) cognitive bias modification aside from attentional retraining, and (b) motivational interventions other people than systematic motivational counseling or LEAP on reductions in alcohol consumption across time. These other procedures could possibly includ.
