Randomized Response Estimates for the 12‐Month Prevalence of Cognitive‐Enhancing Drug Use in University Students

Dietz, Pavel; Striegel, Heiko; Franke, Andreas G.; Lieb, Klaus; Simon, Perikles; Ulrich, Rolf

doi:10.1002/phar.1166

Cited by 162 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Within the last almost 50 years, a large number of RRT models have been developed with various objectives such as improving efficiency (e.g., Boruch, 1971;Dawes & Moore, 1980;Eriksson, 1973;Mangat, 1994;Mangat & Singh, 1990;Moors, 1971), including questions with multicategorical or quantitative answers (e.g., Abul-Ela, Greenberg, & Horvitz, 1967;Himmelfarb & Edgell, 1980;Liu & Chow, 1976;Pollock & Bek, 1976), increasing respondents' cooperation (e.g., Greenberg, Abul-Ela, Simmons, & Horvitz, 1969;Daniel G. Horvitz, Shah, & Simmons, 1967;Kuk, 1990;Ostapczuk, Moshagen, Zhao, & Musch, 2009), and accounting for cheating or noncompliance with the instructions (e.g., Clark & Desharnais, 1998;. The RRT has been applied in surveys covering a variety of sensitive topics such as drug use (Dietz et al, 2013;Goodstadt & Gruson, 1975), doping (James, Nepusz, Naughton, & Petroczi, 2013;Simon, Striegel, Aust, Dietz, & Ulrich, 2006;Striegel, Ulrich, & Simon, 2010), crime (IIT Research Institute and the Chicago Crime Commission, 1971;Wolter & Preisendörfer, 2013), unwed motherhood (Abul-Ela et al, 1967), promiscuity (Liu, Chow, & Mosley, 1975), abortion (Abernathy, Greenberg, & Horvitz, 1970;Greenberg, Kuebler, Abernathy, & Horvitz, 1971), rape (Fidler & Kleinknecht, 1977;Soeken & Damrosch, 1986), homosexuality (Clark & Desharnais, 1998), tax evasion (Edgell, Himmelfarb, & Duchan, 1982), fraud (van der Heijden, van Gils, Bouts, & Hox, 2000), academic cheating (J.-P. …”

Section: The Randomized Response Technique (Rrt)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the validity of two indirect questioning techniques: A Stochastic Lie Detector versus the Crosswise Model

Hoffmann

Musch

2015

Behav Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimates of the prevalence of sensitive attributes obtained through direct questions are prone to being distorted by untruthful responding. Indirect questioning procedures such as the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) aim to control for the influence of social desirability bias. However, even on RRT surveys, some participants may disobey the instructions in an attempt to conceal their true status. In the present study, we experimentally compared the validity of two competing indirect questioning techniques that presumably offer a solution to the problem of nonadherent respondents: the Stochastic Lie Detector and the Crosswise Model. For two sensitive attributes, both techniques met the Bmore is better^criterion. Their application resulted in higher, and thus presumably more valid, prevalence estimates than a direct question. Only the Crosswise Model, however, adequately estimated the known prevalence of a nonsensitive control attribute.

show abstract

Section: The Randomized Response Technique (Rrt)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the validity of two indirect questioning techniques: A Stochastic Lie Detector versus the Crosswise Model

Hoffmann

Musch

2015

Behav Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An online survey carried out with 8 000 students in Germany showed that around 5 % of participants took prescription substances to deal with the requirements of studying [ 9 ] . Using the randomized response technique (RRT) in a paper-and-pencil survey among 2 569 students in Germany, the estimated 12-month prevalence of cognitive-enhancing drug use (stimulant drugs, caff eine tablets, cocaine, methylphenidate and mephedrone) was found to be 20 % [ 10 ] . The lifetime prevalence for the non-medical usage of psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate or amphetamine salts was found to be 18 % in an online survey of 2 732 medical students in the USA [ 11 ] .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We focused in our survey on Ritalin, Adderall and Modasomil because these 3 products are the most dominant ones in the current literature about NE as well as in previous surveys. Another reason for the wide range of frequencies could be due to diff erent data collection methods and techniques, such as RRT [ 10 ] . This randomized response technique is used to try to overcome the problem of desired responses being given, due to stigmatization and the social norms around illicit products, by off ering full privacy protection and by adding random noise to the data [ 21 ] .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroenhancement among Swiss Students – A Comparison of Users and Non-Users

Ott

Biller‐Andorno

2013

Pharmacopsychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: This survey aims to contribute to the current discussion about neuroenhancement by comparing cognitive enhancer(s) (CE) users with CE non-users with a focus on their characteristics and attitudes. Methods: An online survey was sent out to all undergraduate and graduate students of the University of Z?rich who allow such e-mails (n=8?642), accompanied by advertisement for the survey in lectures. 1?765 students completed the survey, which was about healthy people?s use of Ritalin, Adderall and/or Modasomil to increase concentration and/or alertness. A complementary paper-and-pencil survey (n=97 students, response rate: 95.1%) was also carried out in order to compare data. Results: Non-therapeutic CE users (6.2%) were more often male, considered religion to be of less importance and had more experience with drugs. CE had been taken for study purposes by 4.7% of all students. CE users had tried Ritalin most often, which about half of them received from friends and colleagues. The CE users had more reasons for and fewer concerns about taking CE than non-users. The most common reasons for both groups were ?the effects of learning quicker? and ?for finishing more work in less time?. The most common concerns for both groups were ?the worries about possible side effects? and ?the goal of CE to achieve more?, and ?an unnatural interference of such products with our bodies? (CE-users) or ?the gut feeling of not using such products? (CE non-users). Discussion: The comparison of CE users with CE non-users reveals insights about their attitudes, which will add to the understanding of why students take or could imagine taking such products.

show abstract

“…For example, in a study of the University at Mainz, Germany, the estimated 12-month prevalence of CE drug use among the students was 20%. Prevalence varied by sex (male 23.7%, female 17.0%), field of study (highest in students studying sports-related fields, 25.4%), and semester (first semester 24.3%, beyond first semester 16.7%) [150].…”

Section: Summary Of Desired Effects and Side Effects Of Drugs For Cementioning

confidence: 99%

Doping for Chess Performance

Golf¹

2015

J Sports Med Doping Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During a chess game, the needed energy is first derived instantly from ATP and creatine-phosphate, then within a few seconds later from glycogen stores in brain, glycogen, muscle and liver and finally, 1-2 hours later from adipose tissue. Anaerobic oxidation of glucose-derivative from glycogen delivers energy 6 times faster than aerobic oxidation of glucose and oxidation of fatty acids; correspondingly, mental activity can perform as well 6 times faster as long as glycogen is available.The mental profile of chess players correlates with cerebral processes such as attention, conflict solution, memory, motivation and recognition, which together constitute a specific chess-domain expertise.A chess player may compete best when a) regularly physical exercise is carried out to compete in strenuous chess tournaments and to stimulate mental cognition, b) super compensated glycogen is accumulated in brain, muscle and liver by corresponding nutrition and physical and mental activities, and c. an active mental disposition is available for complex brain tasks during chess by complementary treatment schemes e.g., cogni-tive enhancement (CE) by chess training with chess boards, chess books, building chess images, visual observation of chess games, vocational training with chess, metacognitive training, and additionally regular light physical stress. An illicit improvement of brain performance for chess playing may be achieved by several measures:1.Increase of O 2 supply by therapy with erythropoietin (EPO) for chess tournaments at high altitudes and for chess players with lung diseases 2.Increase of body glycogen by therapy with insulin Regular non-medical use of steroid and proteohormones in elevated concentrations and CE-drugs must also consider numerous side effects ranging from simple metabolic disturbances through cardiac problems to cognitive decline to tumorgenesis and sudden death.

show abstract

Randomized Response Estimates for the 12‐Month Prevalence of Cognitive‐Enhancing Drug Use in University Students

Cited by 162 publications

References 42 publications

Assessing the validity of two indirect questioning techniques: A Stochastic Lie Detector versus the Crosswise Model

Assessing the validity of two indirect questioning techniques: A Stochastic Lie Detector versus the Crosswise Model

Neuroenhancement among Swiss Students – A Comparison of Users and Non-Users

Doping for Chess Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About