Alvaro Castillo-Carniglia1, Esteban Pizarro2, José D Marín2, Nicolás Rodríguez2, Carolina Casas-Cordero3, Magdalena Cerdá4. 1. Violence Prevention Research Program, Department of Emergency Medicine, UC Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA 95817, United States. Electronic address: alvacasti@gmail.com. 2. Research Department, National Service for Prevention and Rehabilitation of Drug and Alcohol Consumption (SENDA), Santiago, Chile. 3. Instituto de Sociología (ISUC) y Centro de Encuestas y Estudios Longitudinales (CEEL), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 4. Violence Prevention Research Program, Department of Emergency Medicine, UC Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA 95817, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compare self-reported prevalence of drug use and indicators of data quality from two different response modes (with and without an independent answer sheet for recording responses) in a survey conducted in 2015 among secondary school students. METHODS: Stratified cluster-randomized study conducted among students in grades 8-12 from public, private and subsidized schools in Chile (N=2317 students in 122 classes). Measurements included were: percentage reporting substance use (tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy); number of inconsistent responses; number of item nonresponses; percentage of extreme reports of drug use; percentage reporting using the nonexistent drug, relevón; and completion times. RESULTS: Compared with those who responded directly in the questionnaire booklet, students who used a separate answer sheet took 17.6 more minutes (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.4-20.8) to complete the survey and had on average 1.5 more inconsistent responses (95%CI: 0.91-2.14). The prevalence and variance of drug use was higher among those who used an answer sheet for all substances except tobacco; the prevalence ratio (PR) of reported substance use for low-prevalence substances during the past year were: cocaine PR=2.5 (95%CI: 1.6-4.1); ecstasy PR=5.0 (95%CI: 2.4-10.5); relevón PR=4.8 (95%CI: 2.5-9.3). CONCLUSIONS: Using an answer sheet for a self-administered paper-and-pencil survey of drug use among students result in lower quality data and higher reports of drug use. International comparison of adolescent drug use from school-based surveys should be done with caution. The relative ranking of a country could be misleading if different mode of recording answers are used.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We compare self-reported prevalence of drug use and indicators of data quality from two different response modes (with and without an independent answer sheet for recording responses) in a survey conducted in 2015 among secondary school students. METHODS: Stratified cluster-randomized study conducted among students in grades 8-12 from public, private and subsidized schools in Chile (N=2317 students in 122 classes). Measurements included were: percentage reporting substance use (tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy); number of inconsistent responses; number of item nonresponses; percentage of extreme reports of drug use; percentage reporting using the nonexistent drug, relevón; and completion times. RESULTS: Compared with those who responded directly in the questionnaire booklet, students who used a separate answer sheet took 17.6 more minutes (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.4-20.8) to complete the survey and had on average 1.5 more inconsistent responses (95%CI: 0.91-2.14). The prevalence and variance of drug use was higher among those who used an answer sheet for all substances except tobacco; the prevalence ratio (PR) of reported substance use for low-prevalence substances during the past year were: cocaine PR=2.5 (95%CI: 1.6-4.1); ecstasy PR=5.0 (95%CI: 2.4-10.5); relevón PR=4.8 (95%CI: 2.5-9.3). CONCLUSIONS: Using an answer sheet for a self-administered paper-and-pencil survey of drug use among students result in lower quality data and higher reports of drug use. International comparison of adolescent drug use from school-based surveys should be done with caution. The relative ranking of a country could be misleading if different mode of recording answers are used.
Authors: Nancy D Brener; Laura Kann; Shari Shanklin; Steve Kinchen; Danice K Eaton; Joseph Hawkins; Katherine H Flint Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2013-03-01
Authors: José S Marcano Belisario; Jan Jamsek; Kit Huckvale; John O'Donoghue; Cecily P Morrison; Josip Car Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-07-27
Authors: Sissel Marie Kongsved; Maja Basnov; Kurt Holm-Christensen; Niels Henrik Hjollund Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2007-09-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Alexander S Perlmutter; Ariadne E Rivera-Aguirre; Pia M Mauro; Alvaro Castillo-Carniglia; Nicolás Rodriguez; Nora Cadenas; Magdalena Cerdá; Silvia S Martins Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 4.492