AIMS: This study examines the predictive validity of sensation seeking as a predictor of adolescent substance use, in order to optimize targeting for substance use prevention programs. DESIGN: Longitudinal study. SETTING: Random-digit dial telephone survey. Participants A total of 6522 US adolescents aged 10-14 years at baseline, resurveyed at 8-month intervals for three subsequent waves. MEASUREMENTS: Two outcomes were assessed-onset of binge drinking (more than five drinks in a short time) and established smoking (>100 cigarettes life-time). Sensation seeking level was assessed at baseline. Logistic regression was used to predict onset of substance use at any follow-up wave as a function of sensation seeking. The receiver operating characteristics curve was used to illustrate how well sensation seeking predicted substance use as a function of different cut-off points for defining high sensation seeking, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AROC) was the metric of predictive validity. FINDINGS: Of 5834 participants with one or more follow-up assessments, 5634 reported no binge drinking and 5802 were not established smokers at baseline, of whom 717 (12.7% of 5634) reported binge drinking and 144 (2.5% of 5802) reported established smoking at one or more follow-up interviews. Sensation seeking predicted binge drinking moderately well [AROC = 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.69, 0.73)] and was a significantly better predictor of established smoking onset [AROC = 0.80 (0.76, 0.83)]. For binge drinking, predictive validity was significantly lower in blacks; for established smoking it was significantly higher for Hispanics. Implications for two targeting interventions are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Sensation seeking works moderately well at identifying adolescents at risk for onset of binge drinking and established smoking. This study offers a guide for determining the appropriate targeting cut-off value, based on intervention efficacy, costs and risks.
AIMS: This study examines the predictive validity of sensation seeking as a predictor of adolescent substance use, in order to optimize targeting for substance use prevention programs. DESIGN: Longitudinal study. SETTING: Random-digit dial telephone survey. Participants A total of 6522 US adolescents aged 10-14 years at baseline, resurveyed at 8-month intervals for three subsequent waves. MEASUREMENTS: Two outcomes were assessed-onset of binge drinking (more than five drinks in a short time) and established smoking (>100 cigarettes life-time). Sensation seeking level was assessed at baseline. Logistic regression was used to predict onset of substance use at any follow-up wave as a function of sensation seeking. The receiver operating characteristics curve was used to illustrate how well sensation seeking predicted substance use as a function of different cut-off points for defining high sensation seeking, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AROC) was the metric of predictive validity. FINDINGS: Of 5834 participants with one or more follow-up assessments, 5634 reported no binge drinking and 5802 were not established smokers at baseline, of whom 717 (12.7% of 5634) reported binge drinking and 144 (2.5% of 5802) reported established smoking at one or more follow-up interviews. Sensation seeking predicted binge drinking moderately well [AROC = 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.69, 0.73)] and was a significantly better predictor of established smoking onset [AROC = 0.80 (0.76, 0.83)]. For binge drinking, predictive validity was significantly lower in blacks; for established smoking it was significantly higher for Hispanics. Implications for two targeting interventions are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Sensation seeking works moderately well at identifying adolescents at risk for onset of binge drinking and established smoking. This study offers a guide for determining the appropriate targeting cut-off value, based on intervention efficacy, costs and risks.
Authors: Madeline A Dalton; James D Sargent; Michael L Beach; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; Jennifer J Gibson; M Bridget Ahrens; Jennifer J Tickle; Todd F Heatherton Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-07-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: James D Sargent; Michael L Beach; Madeline A Dalton; Linda Titus Ernstoff; Jennifer J Gibson; Jennifer J Tickle; Todd F Heatherton Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Lois Biener; Catherine A Garrett; Elizabeth A Gilpin; Anthony M Roman; Douglas B Currivan Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Rebecca N H de Leeuw; James D Sargent; Mike Stoolmiller; Ron H J Scholte; Rutger C M E Engels; Susanne E Tanski Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-12-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Adriana Pérez; James Thrasher; Noelia Cabrera; Susan Forsyth; Lorena Peña; James D Sargent; Raúl Mejía Journal: Tob Control Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Paula Lozano; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Inti Barrientos-Gutíerrez; Luz Myriam Reynales Shigematsu; James F Thrasher Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2019-01-04
Authors: Atika Khurana; Dan Romer; Laura M Betancourt; Nancy L Brodsky; Joan M Giannetta; Hallam Hurt Journal: Addiction Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Deepa R Camenga; Jennifer Delmerico; Grace Kong; Dana Cavallo; Andrew Hyland; K Michael Cummings; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 3.913