My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Experiment to Enhance the Reporting of Drug Use by Arrestees in Cleveland, Detroit, and Houston, 1997

Version
v0
Resource Type
Dataset : survey data, clinical data, and administrative records data
Creator
  • Wish, Eric D., (University of Maryland, College Park, Center for Substance Abuse Research (CESAR))
  • Gray, Thomas (University of Maryland, College Park, Center for Substance Abuse Research (CESAR))
  • Sushinsky, Jonathan (University of Maryland, College Park, Center for Substance Abuse Research (CESAR))
Other Title
  • Archival Version (Subtitle)
Publication Date
2001-04-12
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
Language
English
Free Keywords
drug abuse; drug dependence; drug testing; drug treatment; drug use; offenders; treatment programs; urinalysis
Description
  • Abstract

    This project involved an experiment conducted in three Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) [DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)] program sites to determine whether using a more detailed informed consent procedure and/or altering the sequence of the interview and urine specimen collection could enhance the validity of arrestees' self-reports of drug use without adversely affecting study response rates. A 2x2 factorial design was used to assess the effects of the two manipulations. The first two experimental conditions involved administering either the standard DUF informed consent or an enhanced consent that told the arrestees more about the confidential nature of the research and the capabilities of urinalysis. The second two conditions involved collecting the urine specimen either before or after the interview was administered. The experiment included 2,015 adult arrestees from Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Houston, Texas, who were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. The experiment was designed so that the only variability across the interviews was the manipulation of informed consent and the sequencing of the urine specimen request. All other procedures of a standard DUF collection were followed. Data were collected in Cleveland between July 8 and August 22, 1997, in Detroit from August 4 to September 27, 1997, and in Houston from October 17 to November 1, 1997. Variables specific to this project include the experimental condition to which the respondent was assigned, follow-up questions asking whether the arrestee would have responded differently if assigned to the other conditions, and several dummy variables on length and type of drug use. Data from the DUF interview provided detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
  • Abstract

    Findings from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program [DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)] indicate that many arrestees underreport their recent use of illicit drugs in spite of the many attempts to convince arrestees that their responses are part of a confidential and anonymous research study and cannot affect their cases. If arrestees fail to report drug use accurately in research interviews, and if the level of underreporting varies from one research site to another, then the accuracy and comparability of self-reported drug use data are suspect. This project involved an experiment conducted in three DUF sites to determine whether using a more detailed informed consent procedure and/or altering the sequence of the interview and urine specimen collection could enhance the validity of arrestees' self-reports of drug use, without adversely affecting study response rates. Further, results from the experiment had potential implications for procedures used in the DUF program's successor, the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program.
  • Abstract

    A 2x2 factorial design was used to assess the effects of the two manipulations. The first two experimental conditions involved administering either the standard DUF informed consent or an enhanced consent that told the arrestees more about the confidential nature of the research and the capabilities of urinalysis. The second two conditions involved collecting the urine specimen either before or after the interview was administered. The experiment included 2,015 adult arrestees from Cleveland, Detroit, and Houston who were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental cells. Cell A represented the typical DUF protocol in which interviewers administered the standard consent and requested the urine specimen after the interview had been completed. In Cell B, researchers also administered the standard consent, but asked for the specimen prior to conducting the interview. Cells C and D used the enhanced informed consent and asked for the specimen after or before the interview, respectively. Data collection was divided into two phases. During the first phase, arrestees were randomly assigned to Cells A or C, both of which required the collection of the specimen after the interview. After Phase I was completed, collection began for Cells B and D, where the urine specimen was collected before the interview. Four scripts were prepared representing the four experimental conditions. A single script was used for each arrestee approached, which automatically assigned the arrestee to one of the four cells. To randomize the two scripts for each phase, they were first photocopied so that the scripts alternated. The sheets were then broken into smaller stacks and shuffled by picking up varying numbers of sheets from each stack and merging them together. The shuffling step was then repeated several times. The scripts were constructed so that each guided the interviewer through the sequence of steps to be taken for the experimental condition assigned to the arrestee being interviewed. The experiment was designed so that the only variability across the interviews was the manipulation of informed consent and sequence of requesting the urine specimen. All other procedures of a standard DUF collection were followed. The DUF data processing contractor merged the interview data and urine test results and forwarded the merged data file to Center for Substance Abuse Research (CESAR) staff. CESAR staff constructed the final analysis file by merging the data file from the DUF contractor with the CESAR data containing variables denoting the cells to which the arrestee had been assigned and responses to additional questions about the experiment recorded on the script sheet. Data were collected in Cleveland between July 8 and August 22, 1997, in Detroit from August 4 to September 27, 1997, and in Houston from October 17 to November 1, 1997.
  • Abstract

    Variables specific to this project include the experimental condition to which the arrestee was assigned, follow-up questions asking whether the arrestee would have responded differently if assigned to the other conditions, and several dummy variables on length and type of drug use. Data from the DUF interview provided detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
  • Methods

    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.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
  • Methods

    Presence of Common Scales: None.
  • Methods

    Response Rates: There were no differences in the interview or urine specimen response rates across the four conditions. Between 80 and 85 percent of all arrestees approached agreed to be interviewed and between 88 and 92 percent of the participants in the four conditions provided a urine specimen.
  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS1: Dataset
Temporal Coverage
  • 1997-07 / 1997-11
    Time period: 1997-07--1997-11
  • 1997-07-08 / 1997-11-01
    Collection date: 1997-07-08--1997-11-01
Geographic Coverage
  • Cleveland
  • Detroit
  • Houston
  • Michigan
  • Ohio
  • Texas
  • United States
Sampled Universe
Booked adult arrestees in Cleveland, Detroit, and Houston in 1997.
Sampling
Sites were chosen to represent different interviewing conditions and to fit with the experiment's data collection schedule.
Collection Mode
  • (1) Users are encouraged to review the documentation for the 1997 DUF data collection for the methodology and sampling used for the standard DUF interview protocol. (2) The user guide and the codebook and data collection instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. 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 Web site.

Note
Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (94-IJ-CX-K002).
Availability
Delivery
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions; consult the study documentation to learn more on how to obtain the data.
Alternative Identifiers
  • 2890 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Relations
  • Is previous version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR02890.v1
Publications
  • Wish, Eric D., Gray, Thomas, Sushinsky, Jonathan, Yacoubian, George S., Jr., Fitzgerald, Nora. An Experiment to Enhance the Reporting of Drug Use by Arrestees. Journal of Drug Issues.30, 55-76.2000.
  • Sushinsky, Jonathan, Gray, Thomas, Wish, Erica D.. DUF Item Analysis Task. Final Report.NCJ 194921, . 1998.
  • Sushinsky, Jonathan, Gray, Thomas, Wish, Erich D.. DUF Item Analysis Tast Force Final Report. NCJ 194921, Washington, DC: Center for Substance Abuse Research [producer], National Institute of Justice [distributor]. 1998.
  • Wish, Eric D., Gray, Thomas, Sushinsky, Jonathan. An Experiment to Enhance the Reporting of Drug Use by Arrestees. Final Report.NCJ 173059, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 1998.
    • ID: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/173059NCJRS.pdf (URL)

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 6 | Registration Date: 2015-06-15

Wish, Eric D.,; Gray, Thomas; Sushinsky, Jonathan (2001): Experiment to Enhance the Reporting of Drug Use by Arrestees in Cleveland, Detroit, and Houston, 1997. Archival Version. Version: v0. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02890