Loading…
Examining Prevalence Differences in Three National Surveys of Youth: Impact of Consent Procedures, Mode, and Editing Rules
We examined the potential prevalence Impact of differences In consent procedures, mode of administration, and editing protocols in the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the Monitoring the Future study, and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, limiting analyses to 10th and 12th graders. NHSDA&...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of drug issues 2001-07, Vol.31 (3), p.615-642 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-e4c98918750c9001f692f49a5759ce397a0cac8664688dd9cfa1cbaefbca6a073 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-e4c98918750c9001f692f49a5759ce397a0cac8664688dd9cfa1cbaefbca6a073 |
container_end_page | 642 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 615 |
container_title | Journal of drug issues |
container_volume | 31 |
creator | Fendrich, Michael Johnson, Timothy P. |
description | We examined the potential prevalence Impact of differences In consent procedures, mode of administration, and editing protocols in the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the Monitoring the Future study, and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, limiting analyses to 10th and 12th graders. NHSDA's high level of compliance with federal regulations regarding human subjects research, including thorough parental permission prior to adolescent participation, may in part be responsible for the relatively low prevalence rates obtained in this study. Key mode effects which contribute to observed differences across surveys are survey setting and privacy. The two school-based surveys produce higher prevalence estimates than the NHSDA. Although NHSDA prevalence rates Increase with increased interview privacy, the increase Is not enough to account for discrepancies with the school surveys. The procedures used to handle Inconsistent survey responses and to Impute missing data are very different across the three surveys. These differences In editing procedures, however, are unlikely to be responsible for the observed differences in prevalence rates. Based on these analyses, we conclude that the field would benefit from a well-designed experimental study evaluating school vs. household effects as well as the impact of variation In consent procedures. Increased methodological research on the validity of school based drug surveys is also needed. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/002204260103100303 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61327328</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_002204260103100303</sage_id><sourcerecordid>82188485</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-e4c98918750c9001f692f49a5759ce397a0cac8664688dd9cfa1cbaefbca6a073</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUFP3DAQha2qSGxp_wAni0NPpIxjJ7a5Vdtti0QBUThwigZnDEFZe2snqPDrm2grVWqlcprR6HtvRm8Y2xfwQQitjwDKElRZgwApACTIV2whrKoKIWv7mi1moJiJXfYm5wcAEBqqBXte_cR1F7pwxy8SPWJPwRH_1HlPaW4z7wK_uk9E_AyHLgbs-fcxPdJT5tHzmzgO98f8ZL1BN8yDZQyZwjCZRUftmCgf8m-xpUOOoeWrthvmVZdjT_kt2_HYZ3r3u-6x68-rq-XX4vT8y8ny42nhFFRDQcpZY4XRFTg7ne1rW3plsdKVdSStRnDoTF2r2pi2tc6jcLdI_tZhjaDlHnu_9d2k-GOkPDTrLjvqewwUx9zUQpZaluZlEMCoKd4XwUorDaBm8OAv8CGOacowNyUYo0AZOUHlFnIp5pzIN5vUrTE9NQKa-bvNv9-dREdbUcY7-uP6H8UvGLKjng</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>208840483</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Examining Prevalence Differences in Three National Surveys of Youth: Impact of Consent Procedures, Mode, and Editing Rules</title><source>Criminology Collection</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>SAGE</source><creator>Fendrich, Michael ; Johnson, Timothy P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fendrich, Michael ; Johnson, Timothy P.</creatorcontrib><description>We examined the potential prevalence Impact of differences In consent procedures, mode of administration, and editing protocols in the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the Monitoring the Future study, and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, limiting analyses to 10th and 12th graders. NHSDA's high level of compliance with federal regulations regarding human subjects research, including thorough parental permission prior to adolescent participation, may in part be responsible for the relatively low prevalence rates obtained in this study. Key mode effects which contribute to observed differences across surveys are survey setting and privacy. The two school-based surveys produce higher prevalence estimates than the NHSDA. Although NHSDA prevalence rates Increase with increased interview privacy, the increase Is not enough to account for discrepancies with the school surveys. The procedures used to handle Inconsistent survey responses and to Impute missing data are very different across the three surveys. These differences In editing procedures, however, are unlikely to be responsible for the observed differences in prevalence rates. Based on these analyses, we conclude that the field would benefit from a well-designed experimental study evaluating school vs. household effects as well as the impact of variation In consent procedures. Increased methodological research on the validity of school based drug surveys is also needed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0426</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1945-1369</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/002204260103100303</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JDGIA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Administration ; Children & youth ; Comparative Analysis ; Consent ; Drug Abuse ; Editing ; Error of Measurement ; Federal government ; Informed Consent ; Methodological Problems ; National surveys ; Polls & surveys ; Prevalence ; Research Design ; Research Design Error ; Substance abuse ; Surveys ; USA ; Young people ; Youth</subject><ispartof>Journal of drug issues, 2001-07, Vol.31 (3), p.615-642</ispartof><rights>2001 Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice</rights><rights>Copyright Journal of Drug Issues Summer 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-e4c98918750c9001f692f49a5759ce397a0cac8664688dd9cfa1cbaefbca6a073</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-e4c98918750c9001f692f49a5759ce397a0cac8664688dd9cfa1cbaefbca6a073</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/208840483/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/208840483?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21376,21394,21395,27344,27924,27925,31000,33611,33612,33769,33770,33774,33775,34530,34531,43733,43814,44115,74221,74310,74639,79364</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fendrich, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Timothy P.</creatorcontrib><title>Examining Prevalence Differences in Three National Surveys of Youth: Impact of Consent Procedures, Mode, and Editing Rules</title><title>Journal of drug issues</title><description>We examined the potential prevalence Impact of differences In consent procedures, mode of administration, and editing protocols in the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the Monitoring the Future study, and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, limiting analyses to 10th and 12th graders. NHSDA's high level of compliance with federal regulations regarding human subjects research, including thorough parental permission prior to adolescent participation, may in part be responsible for the relatively low prevalence rates obtained in this study. Key mode effects which contribute to observed differences across surveys are survey setting and privacy. The two school-based surveys produce higher prevalence estimates than the NHSDA. Although NHSDA prevalence rates Increase with increased interview privacy, the increase Is not enough to account for discrepancies with the school surveys. The procedures used to handle Inconsistent survey responses and to Impute missing data are very different across the three surveys. These differences In editing procedures, however, are unlikely to be responsible for the observed differences in prevalence rates. Based on these analyses, we conclude that the field would benefit from a well-designed experimental study evaluating school vs. household effects as well as the impact of variation In consent procedures. Increased methodological research on the validity of school based drug surveys is also needed.</description><subject>Administration</subject><subject>Children & youth</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Consent</subject><subject>Drug Abuse</subject><subject>Editing</subject><subject>Error of Measurement</subject><subject>Federal government</subject><subject>Informed Consent</subject><subject>Methodological Problems</subject><subject>National surveys</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research Design Error</subject><subject>Substance abuse</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>USA</subject><subject>Young people</subject><subject>Youth</subject><issn>0022-0426</issn><issn>1945-1369</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BGRYB</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>M0O</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUFP3DAQha2qSGxp_wAni0NPpIxjJ7a5Vdtti0QBUThwigZnDEFZe2snqPDrm2grVWqlcprR6HtvRm8Y2xfwQQitjwDKElRZgwApACTIV2whrKoKIWv7mi1moJiJXfYm5wcAEBqqBXte_cR1F7pwxy8SPWJPwRH_1HlPaW4z7wK_uk9E_AyHLgbs-fcxPdJT5tHzmzgO98f8ZL1BN8yDZQyZwjCZRUftmCgf8m-xpUOOoeWrthvmVZdjT_kt2_HYZ3r3u-6x68-rq-XX4vT8y8ny42nhFFRDQcpZY4XRFTg7ne1rW3plsdKVdSStRnDoTF2r2pi2tc6jcLdI_tZhjaDlHnu_9d2k-GOkPDTrLjvqewwUx9zUQpZaluZlEMCoKd4XwUorDaBm8OAv8CGOacowNyUYo0AZOUHlFnIp5pzIN5vUrTE9NQKa-bvNv9-dREdbUcY7-uP6H8UvGLKjng</recordid><startdate>200107</startdate><enddate>200107</enddate><creator>Fendrich, Michael</creator><creator>Johnson, Timothy P.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200107</creationdate><title>Examining Prevalence Differences in Three National Surveys of Youth: Impact of Consent Procedures, Mode, and Editing Rules</title><author>Fendrich, Michael ; Johnson, Timothy P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-e4c98918750c9001f692f49a5759ce397a0cac8664688dd9cfa1cbaefbca6a073</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Administration</topic><topic>Children & youth</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Consent</topic><topic>Drug Abuse</topic><topic>Editing</topic><topic>Error of Measurement</topic><topic>Federal government</topic><topic>Informed Consent</topic><topic>Methodological Problems</topic><topic>National surveys</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research Design Error</topic><topic>Substance abuse</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>USA</topic><topic>Young people</topic><topic>Youth</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fendrich, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Timothy P.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ProQuest - Health & Medical Complete保健、医学与药学数据库</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Journal of drug issues</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fendrich, Michael</au><au>Johnson, Timothy P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Examining Prevalence Differences in Three National Surveys of Youth: Impact of Consent Procedures, Mode, and Editing Rules</atitle><jtitle>Journal of drug issues</jtitle><date>2001-07</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>615</spage><epage>642</epage><pages>615-642</pages><issn>0022-0426</issn><eissn>1945-1369</eissn><coden>JDGIA6</coden><abstract>We examined the potential prevalence Impact of differences In consent procedures, mode of administration, and editing protocols in the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the Monitoring the Future study, and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, limiting analyses to 10th and 12th graders. NHSDA's high level of compliance with federal regulations regarding human subjects research, including thorough parental permission prior to adolescent participation, may in part be responsible for the relatively low prevalence rates obtained in this study. Key mode effects which contribute to observed differences across surveys are survey setting and privacy. The two school-based surveys produce higher prevalence estimates than the NHSDA. Although NHSDA prevalence rates Increase with increased interview privacy, the increase Is not enough to account for discrepancies with the school surveys. The procedures used to handle Inconsistent survey responses and to Impute missing data are very different across the three surveys. These differences In editing procedures, however, are unlikely to be responsible for the observed differences in prevalence rates. Based on these analyses, we conclude that the field would benefit from a well-designed experimental study evaluating school vs. household effects as well as the impact of variation In consent procedures. Increased methodological research on the validity of school based drug surveys is also needed.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/002204260103100303</doi><tpages>28</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-0426 |
ispartof | Journal of drug issues, 2001-07, Vol.31 (3), p.615-642 |
issn | 0022-0426 1945-1369 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61327328 |
source | Criminology Collection; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); Sociology Collection; Sociological Abstracts; SAGE |
subjects | Administration Children & youth Comparative Analysis Consent Drug Abuse Editing Error of Measurement Federal government Informed Consent Methodological Problems National surveys Polls & surveys Prevalence Research Design Research Design Error Substance abuse Surveys USA Young people Youth |
title | Examining Prevalence Differences in Three National Surveys of Youth: Impact of Consent Procedures, Mode, and Editing Rules |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T02%3A33%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Examining%20Prevalence%20Differences%20in%20Three%20National%20Surveys%20of%20Youth:%20Impact%20of%20Consent%20Procedures,%20Mode,%20and%20Editing%20Rules&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20drug%20issues&rft.au=Fendrich,%20Michael&rft.date=2001-07&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=615&rft.epage=642&rft.pages=615-642&rft.issn=0022-0426&rft.eissn=1945-1369&rft.coden=JDGIA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/002204260103100303&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E82188485%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-e4c98918750c9001f692f49a5759ce397a0cac8664688dd9cfa1cbaefbca6a073%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=208840483&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_002204260103100303&rfr_iscdi=true |