Differences in the Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Across Five Factors in Indianapolis, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas, 1994 (ICPSR 2706)
Version Date: Sep 11, 2000 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Andre B. Rosay, University of Delaware;
University of Maryland at College Park;
Denise C. Herz, University of Nebraska-Omaha
Series:
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02706.v1
Version V1
Summary View help for Summary
This study investigated the accuracy of self-reported drug use in three ways. First, the researchers examined differences in the accuracy of self-reported drug use across five factors: gender, race, age, type of drug, and offense seriousness. Second, an attempt was made to determine the specific sources of inaccurate self-reports in terms of differences in underreporting and overreporting. Third, the researchers sought to explain differences in underreporting and overreporting in terms of true differences or differences in opportunity to underreport or overreport. This study used data collected in 1994 as part of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program [DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)]. The DUF drug testing and measurement methodology allows the accuracy of self-reported drug use to be checked with a biological criterion, namely urine tests. The sample for this study consisted of 4,752 white and Black adults from Indianapolis, Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas. The five exogenous measures included in this study were type of drug (marijuana vs. crack/cocaine), age (18 through 30 vs. 31 or over), offense seriousness (misdemeanor vs. felony), race (Black vs. white), and gender (male vs. female). The endogenous measures were accuracy (self-report and drug test both positive or both negative vs. otherwise), underreporting (self-report negative but drug test positive vs. otherwise), and overreporting (self-report positive but drug test negative vs. otherwise). Variables include result of marijuana urine test, result of cocaine/crack urine test, marijuana self-report, cocaine/crack self-report, age group, sex, race, offense category, and ethnic/gender group.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes
-
(1) Users are encouraged to refer to the documentation for ICPSR 9477 for more information on sampling procedures used to select respondents for that study. (2) Documentation on the analyses performed for this study is provided in the appendix to the codebook. (3) The user guide and codebook are provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Website.
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
Practitioners, researchers, and policymakers all rely extensively on measures of self-reported drug use to determine which drug prevention and rehabilitation services should be offered to whom, which services are successful, and which services should be expanded and continually funded. A well-known problem with self-reports is the uncertainty about their ability to accurately indicate what is being measured, especially when the topic is as sensitive as drug use. In particular, the extent to which self-reported drug use is a valid indicator of actual drug use across social groups has been repeatedly questioned. While patterns across previous studies suggest that validity differences in self-reported drug use do exist, these differences could not be statistically evaluated because of the diversity in the types of high-risk populations studied, the types of drug use measured, and the measurement procedures and conditions of each study. This study investigated the accuracy of self-reported drug use in three ways. First, the researchers examined differences in the accuracy of self-reported drug use across five factors: gender, race, age, type of drug, and offense seriousness. Second, an attempt was made to determine the specific sources of inaccurate self-reports in terms of differences in underreporting and overreporting. Third, the researchers sought to explain differences in underreporting and overreporting in terms of true differences or differences in opportunity. Only individuals who tested positive had the opportunity to underreport drug use. Similarly, only individuals who tested negative had the opportunity to overreport drug use.
Study Design View help for Study Design
This study used data collected in 1994 as part of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program [DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)]. The DUF program interviews arrestees on their lifestyle and drug use and collects urine specimens from each interviewee. The DUF drug testing and measurement methodology allows the accuracy of self-reported drug use to be checked with a biological criterion, namely urine tests. The sample for this study consisted of 4,752 white and Black adults from Indianapolis, Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas. The five exogenous measures included in this study were type of drug (marijuana vs. crack/cocaine), age (18 through 30 vs. 31 or over), offense seriousness (misdemeanor vs. felony), race (Black vs. white), and gender (male vs. female). The endogenous measures were accuracy (self-report and drug test both positive or both negative vs. otherwise), underreporting (self-report negative but drug test positive vs. otherwise), and overreporting (self-report positive but drug test negative vs. otherwise). Procedures used to examine the differences in the accuracy of self-reported drug use and the differences in underreporting and overreporting of drug use were hierarchical loglinear, logit, and logistic regression models. The sources of differences in the underreporting and overreporting of drug use were examined with logistic regression models.
Sample View help for Sample
A stratified random sample of Black and white adults from the 1994 component of DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477) residing in Indianapolis, Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas.
Universe View help for Universe
All Black and white adults from the 1994 component of DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477) from Indianapolis, Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Source View help for Data Source
DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1994 (ICPSR 9477).
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables
Variables include result of marijuana urine test, result of cocaine/crack urine test, marijuana self-report, cocaine/crack self-report, age group, sex, race, offense category, and ethnic/gender group.
Response Rates View help for Response Rates
Not applicable.
Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales
None.
HideOriginal Release Date View help for Original Release Date
2000-09-11
Version History View help for Version History
- Rosay, Andre B., University of Maryland at College Park, and Denise C. Herz. Differences in the Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Across Five Factors in Indianapolis, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas, 1994. ICPSR02706-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02706.v1
2000-09-11 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:
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Notes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.