Johnston, Lloyd D., Jerald G. Bachman, Patrick M. O'Malley, and John E. Schulenberg. Monitoring the Future: A Continuing Study of American Youth (12th-Grade Survey), 2011. ICPSR34409-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2012-11-20. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34409.v2
Persistent URL: https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34409.v2
- RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
- EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)
high school students,
Date of Collection:
Unit of Observation:
High school seniors in the contiguous United States.
Data Collection Notes:
Conducted by the University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center.
To protect the privacy of respondents, all variables that could be
used to identify individuals have been collapsed or recoded in the
public use files. These modifications should not affect analytic uses
of the public use files.
Variables omitted from the Western region
questionnaires are noted in each codebook.
A user guide is
provided with the study documentation. It contains a year-to-year cross-time question index for the MTF 12th-grade surveys, which is
sorted by subject area, item reference number, and questionnaire
Frequency and percentage distributions displayed in the 2011 codebooks are unweighted, rather than weighted by variable V5 as they had been in previous years. This change was made to simplify both the production of the codebooks and their interpretation
by the analyst.
MTF does not release detailed geography codes in its public use files because of the disclosure risk it would cause. The MTF sample is drawn to generate representative samples of the four Census Bureau regions of the country (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West), but it does not generate representative samples of smaller geographic areas such as states, counties, or cities. For additional information about data that is withheld from the public use files please contact MTF directly at firstname.lastname@example.org.
A multistage area probability sample design was used involving three selection stages: (1) geographic areas or primary sampling units (PSUs), (2) schools (or linked groups of schools) within PSUs, and (3) students within sampled schools. Of the 72 PSUs, 8 were selected with certainty, 10 were selected with a probability of .50, and the remainder were selected using a probability based on their 2000 Census household count. Generally speaking, in schools with more than 350 seniors, a sample of seniors or classes was drawn. In schools with less than 350 seniors, all seniors were asked to participate unless logistical challenges required a sample be taken. Each school was asked to participate for two years so that each year one-half of the sample would be replaced. Schools refusing participation were replaced with similar schools in terms of geographic location, size, and type of school (e.g., public, private/Catholic, private/non-Catholic). The participation rate among schools has been between 66 and 85 percent since the inception of the study. The total sample of 12th graders was divided into 6 subsamples, each to be administered a different form of the questionnaire. "Core" drug and demographic questions were included in all questionnaire forms.
Longitudinal: Trend / Repeated Cross-section
Each of the seven parts contains a weight variable, V5.
They were originally varied by school but were modified to protect
respondent confidentiality. Users should use the weight variable for
all analyses, the results of which will differ slightly from published
data tables that used original data.
Mode of Data Collection:
The overall student response rate for 2011 was 83
Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
Standardized missing values.
Created online analysis version with question text.
Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Restrictions: Users are reminded that these data are to be used solely for statistical analysis and reporting of aggregated information and not for the investigation of specific individuals.