Search

Since subjects are often uncomfortable disclosing sensitive information, questions gauging respondent reaction to survey questions about drug abuse may aid in the interpretation of responses. Such debriefing questions can be worded subjectively, i.e., asking subjects about their own reactions to questions, or projectively, i.e., asking subjects about their perceptions of the reactions of others to questions. Using data from a study employing both types of debriefing questions, we examined whether question wording made any difference. We evaluated, the extent to which drug reporting was associated with respondent reaction to the survey and whether reactions varied by type of debriefing question. A factor analysis of debriefing questions appended to an experimental household survey on drug abuse yielded factors reflecting distinct subjective and projective dimensions. Analyses suggested that debriefing question wording does make a difference with respect to respondent reaction. Contrary to expectations, analyses suggested that those reporting drug use expressed less comfort on subjectively worded items and more comfort on projectively worded items. Subjects who self-administered their survey also reported lower levels of subjective comfort. The projective measures derived from analyses were associated with three demographic variables: Younger subjects reported higher levels of projective ease than older subjects. Those with some college reported higher levels of projective ease than those with the least amount of formal education. African-Americans reported lower levels of projective ease than White/Other subjects. Implications for the design, interpretation, and analysis of drug use surveys are considered.

Although a small number of studies are available that evaluate the effects of interviewer characteristics in substance use surveys conducted in person, none have clone so using information collected via telephone interviews. We address this issue by examining the utility of social attribution and social desirability models for detecting the presence of interviewer effects in a large statewide telephone survey concerned with substance use. The specific outcome variables of interest were reports of lifetime and 18-month composite drug use. Analyses focus on the direct effects of individual interviewer characteristics (to assess social attribution) and a summary measure of interviewer-respondent similarity (to assess social distance) and employ random effects regression models to control for respondent clustering by interviewer. Results are most consistent with a social distance model and suggest that social distance between respondent and interviewer may decrease the probability of respondents reporting substance use behavior.

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.

The current study focuses on three dimensions of treatment neighborhood environments that may influence treatment retention: neighborhood disadvantage, stability, and concentrated immigration. We examined treatment outcomes for a total of 9,319 individuals who were admitted for initial treatment in 56 outpatient clinics in Cook County, Illinois. Census-tract-level data were used to measure facility neighborhood environment. We found that neighborhood disadvantage was unrelated to individual treatment completion. Immigrant concentration was found to increase the likelihood of substance abuse treatment completion, although it was attenuated after controlling for patient problem severity and referral sources. Neighborhood stability was found to be positively related to treatment completion. These results suggest that knowledge of neighborhood context should be an important consideration when making placement decisions of new treatment facilities. Knowledge of neighborhood impact on treatment attrition should also be considered essential information to be used for client placement, treatment program design, and discharge protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]