Validity of Adolescent Self-Report of Substance Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The validity of self-report of substance use was examined in 367 adolescents referred for a substance use assessment between 1996 and 2000. Referrals came from a wide variety of sources, including pediatricians, the courts, and social services, as well as their parents. Average age of the sample was 15, 52% were male, and 82% were Caucasian. Adolescents were first asked about the details of their substance use by a clinician using a structured interview with established reliability and validity (Adolescent Drug and Alcohol Diagnosis). They were subsequently asked to provide a urine sample, a requirement they were unaware of when being interviewed about their substance use. If the urine sample was deemed valid by the laboratory technician, it was analyzed by means of fluorescence polarization immunoassay and paper chromatography. If positive screens were obtained for any substance, the sample was subjected to gas chromatographyl mass spectrometry for confirmation and quantification. Biochemical test results were compared to self-report. Overall, 28% (96/338) of the self-reports were not corroborated by urinalysis. In adolescents who reported nonuse of a substance, 26% (56/219) had a positive urinalysis. More surprisingly, 34% (40/119) of adolescents reporting substance use in the urinalysis detection window had a negative urinalysis. The present study found self-report of substance use in adolescents to only have fair validity. It is recommended that biochemical corroboration be routinely used for this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".