66 Ss were randomly assigned to one of three drug usage assessment conditions: anonymous group-administered questionnaires, anonymous interviews, and interviews in which S‘s name was verified at the outset. No differences appeared in terms of expressed attitudes toward drugs and self-reported use of legal drugs. In spite of promises of confidentiality, however, differences did occur when “illegal” dependent variables were introduced. Since interviewed Ss may substantially minimize their drug-taking activity, much descriptive and experimental drug abuse research may be quite invalid.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HoranJ. J.Basic experimental designs. In AbramsL. A.GarfieldE.SwisherJ. D. (Eds.), Accountability in drug education: A model for evaluation. Washington, D. C.: Drug Abuse Council, 1973. Pp. 29–35.
2.
HoranJ. J.Outcome difficulties in drug education. Review of Educational Research, 1974, in press.
3.
HoranJ. J.SwisherJ. D.Effecting drug attitude change in college students via induced cognitive dissonance. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1972.
4.
HoranJ. J.SwisherJ. D.The Pennsylvania State University Drug Education Evaluation Scales Part II: Drug Attitude Scale. In AbramsL. A.GarfieldE.SwisherJ. D. (Eds.), Accountability in drug education: A model for evaluation. Washington, D. C.: Drug Abuse Council, 1973. Pp. 92–94.
5.
RichardsL. G.CarrollE. E.Illicit drug use and addiction in the United States. Public Health Reports, 1970, 85, 1035–1040.
6.
SiegelS.Non-parametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
7.
WarnerR. W.SwisherJ. D.HoranJ. J.Drug abuse prevention: A behavioral approach. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 1973, 57(372), 49–54.
