as much from a written personalized feedback alone as from an in-person BMI. The current finding that the BMI was no more efficacious than the WF appears to differ from the previous finding (White et al., 2007). The difference in the findings may be understood in the context of differences in our approaches. First, in the present study, the PFI efficacy was assessed in terms of whether mandated students could be considered as an improved case. In contrast, in the previous study we measured the PFI efficacy using quantitative increments in each outcome variable unit. Therefore, statistically significant treatment group differences from the previous study may not sufficiently translate into a case of improvement (i.e., qualitative distinction) as we examined in the current study. Second, in the present study we analyzed HED and AP simultaneously when identifying heterogeneous subgroups. In contrast, previously we examined each behavioral outcome separately. Taken together, perhaps the best way to understand the findings from these two studies is that incrementally the BMI was more efficacious than the WF especially for AP. However, there was no clear advantage of the BMI over the WF across all individuals when we defined the efficacy outcome as a qualitatively
