The Roles of Adolescent Problem Solving Style and Parental Involvement in Response to Brief Interventions for Adolescent Substance Use

Introduction: Evidence-based brief interventions represent a cost- and time-efficient strategy to address adolescent substance use. These interventions typically involve 1 to 4 sessions and include a motivational component. Some brief interventions include parents and youth, while others are only youth focused. It is unclear for which youth parental involvement is the most beneficial, however. Youth problem solving style is an individual difference variable previously linked to both substance use and intervention response. This study investigated the role of youth problem solving style as a predictor of individual response to either a youth-only or a combined youth and parent brief intervention targeting substance use.

Methods: A sample of 256 adolescents (aged 12 – 18 years) and their parents participated in a randomized controlled trial of two brief intervention conditions for adolescent substance use. Adolescents were divided equally by gender and two-thirds were European-American. Participants were referred by school staff due to concerns about substance use. They were randomly assigned to receive either a previously validated 2-session youth-only intervention (Youth) or a 2-session adolescent intervention with an additional parent session (Youth + Parent). Alcohol and marijuana use were assessed using a timeline followback procedure at intake and a 6-month follow-up. Youth also completed the Social Problem Solving Inventory –Revised Short Form to assess problem solving style.

Results: A path model was used to predict 6-month follow-up use of alcohol and marijuana. Predictors in the model included baseline alcohol and marijuana use, intervention condition, five social problem solving subscales, and interaction terms between each problem solving subscale and intervention condition. The model revealed two interaction effects. First, a rational problem solving style (RPS) interacted with intervention condition to predict marijuana use 6-month outcomes. Youth with high RPS (more rational) benefited nearly equally from both intervention conditions. Youth with lower RPS (less rational) showed stronger outcomes in the Youth + Parent condition. Second, impulsive/careless problem solving style (ICPS) interacted with intervention condition to predict alcohol use at 6 months. Youth with low ICPS (less impulsive) showed stronger outcomes in the Youth condition. Youth with high ICPS (more impulsive) had stronger outcomes in the Youth + Parent condition.

Conclusions: Youth problem solving style is related to response to two different types of brief interventions for adolescent substance use. These results have implications for using problem solving style as a tailoring variable in selecting those youth most likely to benefit from parental involvement in a brief intervention for substance use.