Suchergebnisse

Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Editors and Contributors -- Overview -- 1 History of Substance Abuse Research in the United States -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 Definition of Key Terms -- 1.3 History of Substance Abuse Research in the United States -- 1.3.1 Early Addiction Research -- 1.3.2 Post War to 1965-A New Beginning in Substance Abuse Research -- 1.3.3 1965-Today -- 1.4 Increasing Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research -- 1.5 Continued Challenges and New Opportunities -- 1.6 Conclusion -- Acknowledgements -- References -- 2 Transdisciplinary Research Perspective: Epidemiological Criminology as an Emerging Theoretical Framework for Substance Abuse Research -- 2.1 Transdisciplinary Thinking: Going Down the Rabbit Hole -- 2.2 Rethinking Health and Crime in Substance Abuse Research -- 2.2.1 Language and Lexicon: Finding a Common Ground -- 2.3 Drug Users (a Challenging Group to Research): Defining a Research Protocol -- 2.4 Methods at the Intersection of Epidemiology and Criminology -- 2.5 Rethinking Our Way of Thinking for Substance Abuse Research -- 2.6 Challenges in Conducting Transdisciplinary Research on Substance Abuse -- 2.6.1 Traditionalism Versus Enlightenment -- 2.6.2 Bias While Tiptoeing Through the Tulips (Sample Selection and Reporting of Drug Use) -- 2.6.3 Case Study: The Evolution of Epidemiological Criminology -- 2.6.4 Healthy Behavior or Criminal Behavior: Identifying a Tipping Point -- 2.7 Summary -- References -- Quantitative Approaches -- 3 Randomized Controlled Trials in Substance Abuse Treatment Research: Fundamental Aspects and New Developments in Random Assignment Strategies, Comparison/Control Conditions, and Design Characteristics -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Randomized Control Trails and Substance Abuse Research -- 3.2.1 Determining the Research Question -- 3.2.2 Stage I Trials -- 3.2.3 Stage II Trials

AbstractObjective:Anecdotal evidence suggests that the term "pollster" has, in recent years, become stigmatized in the United States. We explore this and a subsequent question as to whether negative perceptions of pollsters affect people's perceived trustworthiness of survey findings.Methods:Survey experiments were administered to national probability‐based samples after the 2016 and 2020 elections.Results:In each study, pollsters obtained significantly more negative ratings when compared to "survey researchers" and "public opinion researchers," suggesting that the general public views pollsters, who are more likely to be viewed as partisan, as being less honest/ethical. In line with social identity theory, interaction models revealed that those rating pollster critic Donald Trump most favorably had the most negative ratings of pollsters and public opinion researchers, compared to survey researchers. Yet, the vignette experiment showed that negative perceptions of pollsters did not affect the perceived trustworthiness of survey result reports.Conclusions:We conclude that while there appears to be a stigmatization of pollsters, those negative perceptions do not translate into less trust in the findings of public opinion.

Survey research is a common tool for assessing public opinions, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors for analyses in many social science disciplines. Yet there is little knowledge regarding how specific elements of survey research methodology are applied in practice in public administration. This article examines five mainstream public administration journals over an eight‐year period regarding current methodological practice, organized around the total survey error framework. The findings show that survey research in the field of public administration features mainly small‐scale studies, heavy reliance on a single data collection mode, questionable sample selection procedures, and suspect sample frame quality. Survey data largely are analyzed without careful consideration of assumptions or potential sources of error. An informed evaluation of the quality of survey data is made more difficult by the fact that many journal articles do not detail data collection procedures. This study concludes with suggestions for improving the quality and reporting of survey research in the field.

We administered debriefing probes to gauge respondent discomfort in reaction to sensitive questions. These probes assessed respondents' own reactions to being asked to report on substance use (subjective discomfort), as well as their beliefs about the reaction of others (projective discomfort). We investigated whether a sample of men from the general population were more uncomfortable with questions about drug use than a sample of men who have sex with men (MSM) surveyed from the same city (Chicago). We also investigated whether those who disclosed drug use on the survey experienced higher levels of discomfort. Contrary to opinions often expressed as research ethics committee (REC) recommendations, questions about drug use do not generate much subjective discomfort. MSM did not differ from the general population with respect to subjective discomfort. General population males did, however, report higher levels of "drug specific" projective discomfort. Respondents disclosing recent drug use reported higher levels of subjective discomfort. Implications for the REC practice, researcher and REC education, and directions for future research are discussed.

Since subjects are often uncomfortable disclosing sensitive information, questions gauging respondent reaction to survey questions about drug abuse may aid in the interpretation of responses. Such debriefing questions can be worded subjectively, i.e., asking subjects about their own reactions to questions, or projectively, i.e., asking subjects about their perceptions of the reactions of others to questions. Using data from a study employing both types of debriefing questions, we examined whether question wording made any difference. We evaluated the extent to which drug reporting was associated with respondent reaction to the survey and whether reactions varied by type of debriefing question. A factor analysis of debriefing questions appended to an experimental household survey on drug abuse yielded factors reflecting distinct subjective and projective dimensions. Analyses suggested that debriefing question wording does make a difference with respect to respondent reaction. Contrary to expectations, analyses suggested that those reporting drug use expressed less comfort on subjectively worded items and more comfort on projectively worded items. Subjects who self-administered their survey also reported lower levels of subjective comfort. The projective measures derived from analyses were associated with three demographic variables: Younger subjects reported higher levels of projective ease than older subjects. Those with some college reported higher levels of projective ease than those with the least amount of formal education. African-Americans reported lower levels of projective ease than White/Other subjects. Implications for the design, interpretation, and analysis of drug use surveys are considered.

The current study focuses on three dimensions of treatment neighborhood environments that may influence treatment retention: neighborhood disadvantage, stability, and concentrated immigration. We examined treatment outcomes for a total of 9,319 individuals who were admitted for initial treatment in 56 outpatient clinics in Cook County, Illinois. Census-tract-level data were used to measure facility neighborhood environment. We found that neighborhood disadvantage was unrelated to individual treatment completion. Immigrant concentration was found to increase the likelihood of substance abuse treatment completion, although it was attenuated after controlling for patient problem severity and referral sources. Neighborhood stability was found to be positively related to treatment completion. These results suggest that knowledge of neighborhood context should be an important consideration when making placement decisions of new treatment facilities. Knowledge of neighborhood impact on treatment attrition should also be considered essential information to be used for client placement, treatment program design, and discharge protocols.

This article focuses on the interviewer's role in obtaining access to an elite respondent through a gatekeeper and considers the characteristics of interviewers that may make some more successful than others in circumventing gatekeepers. Analysis of data from a national survey of physicians suggests that experienced interviewers have greater success than inexperienced interviewers in bypassing gatekeepers. These findings persist after taking into account the number of interviewing hours and the portion of the field period worked, two considerations that have been neglected in previous investigations of interviewer effects.