自我报告药物使用数据的有效性:在保密的自我管理答卷上的回答的准确性。

NIDA research monograph Pub Date : 1997-01-01
A V Harrell
{"title":"自我报告药物使用数据的有效性:在保密的自我管理答卷上的回答的准确性。","authors":"A V Harrell","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Official records offer a relatively inexpensive, nonintrusive strategy for checking on the accuracy of self-reported drug use. Responses of a small sample (N = 67) of former drug treatment clients interviewed using procedures exactly modeled on the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse were compared to their clinic records. The accuracy of reports compared to clinic records varied by drug, with the percentage of known users reporting their use highest for marijuana, followed by cocaine and hallucinogens, and lowest for heroin. Almost half of this sample of former treatment clients denied ever receiving drug treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":76229,"journal":{"name":"NIDA research monograph","volume":"167 ","pages":"37-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The validity of self-reported drug use data: the accuracy of responses on confidential self-administered answered sheets.\",\"authors\":\"A V Harrell\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Official records offer a relatively inexpensive, nonintrusive strategy for checking on the accuracy of self-reported drug use. Responses of a small sample (N = 67) of former drug treatment clients interviewed using procedures exactly modeled on the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse were compared to their clinic records. The accuracy of reports compared to clinic records varied by drug, with the percentage of known users reporting their use highest for marijuana, followed by cocaine and hallucinogens, and lowest for heroin. Almost half of this sample of former treatment clients denied ever receiving drug treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NIDA research monograph\",\"volume\":\"167 \",\"pages\":\"37-58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NIDA research monograph\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NIDA research monograph","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

官方记录提供了一种相对便宜、非侵入性的策略来检查自我报告的药物使用情况的准确性。小样本(N = 67)的前药物治疗客户的回答使用程序完全模拟全国药物滥用家庭调查进行了访谈,并与他们的诊所记录进行了比较。与临床记录相比,报告的准确性因药物而异,已知使用者报告使用大麻的比例最高,其次是可卡因和致幻剂,最低的是海洛因。几乎一半的前治疗对象否认接受过药物治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The validity of self-reported drug use data: the accuracy of responses on confidential self-administered answered sheets.

Official records offer a relatively inexpensive, nonintrusive strategy for checking on the accuracy of self-reported drug use. Responses of a small sample (N = 67) of former drug treatment clients interviewed using procedures exactly modeled on the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse were compared to their clinic records. The accuracy of reports compared to clinic records varied by drug, with the percentage of known users reporting their use highest for marijuana, followed by cocaine and hallucinogens, and lowest for heroin. Almost half of this sample of former treatment clients denied ever receiving drug treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信