The stated aim of the online intervention was to increase parent-child communication on the subject of alcohol and to reduce alcohol usage amongst students. 558 participants, comprising 279 parent -- teen dyads, were studied. The design was randomized and controlled study design, specifically a Solomon four-group design "on data collected from the baseline assessment and from the first follow-up assessment, conducted 30 days post-baseline" (Donovan et al. 2012: 26). One experimental group received the baseline assessment, while the other experimental did not; one control group received the baseline assessment while the other control group did not. This was to minimize the impact that simply 'being studied' could produce a result -- i.e., that self-consciousness about being studied could act as a facilitator of communication between the dyads and lead to greater self-monitoring of alcohol consumption.

The participants in the study were not 'balanced' demographically. 85% of the parents were female and, 62% were female. It was essential that both the teen and the parent agreed to participate in the study, and if one or the other refused, than the other party was told that they were ineligible. The participants were compensated for their time, "Participants (teens and parents) were paid $25 each for completing the baseline assessment, $25 for completing the post-test, $40 for completing the three-month assessment, and $50 for completing the six-month assessment, for a possible total of $140 per person" (Donovan et al. 2012: 26). The reasons for monetary compensation were not specified, although it was presumably to encourage participation. The online program MyStudentBody-Parent the experimental group viewed was comprised of articles, web videos, photographs, interactive tools, and 'cheat sheets' parents could download to spur discussion on the topic. The control group was merely given an e-newsletter of information.

At the end of the program, "the findings suggested that parents who participated in the online intervention were more likely to discuss protective behavioral strategies," versus the control group, while "students whose parents received the intervention were more likely to use a range of protective behavioral strategies" (Donovan et al. 2012: 26). However, there are some flaws in the study design. First and foremost, the fact that a parent-child pair had to mutually agree to participate in the study suggests that those who actively agreed to the intervention may have had a closer relationship already. The dyad's behaviors were evaluated through quantitative measures such as The Parent -- Teen Communication Scale (PTCS) and The Protective Behavioral Strategies Scale (PBSS), but self-reporting of addictive behaviors and about the parent-child relationship are notoriously inaccurate. The authors acknowledge this weakness and admit "while 66% of all college students drank alcohol in a one-month period and approximately 37% engaged in heavy episodic drinking," 49% of the teen subjects drank and 20% binge drank (Donovan et al. 2012: 34). The effectiveness of online intervention for high-risk groups or parents with less of a demonstrated commitment to being involved in their teens' lives is thus more questionable.