A meta‐analysis of the association between substance use and emerging adult development using the IDEA scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Much debate exists surrounding Arnett's theory of emerging adulthood in terms of its breadth and application. Researchers have attempted to capture dimensions of emerging adulthood (eg, experimentation, negativity/instability, other-focus, self-focus, and feeling in-between) through self report assessment, using variations of the Inventory of the Dimensions of Emerging Adulthood or IDEA. Results from studies investigating this relationship have been mixed. We conducted a meta-analysis on the association between substance use and the IDEA. METHOD: Data were extracted to calculate correlational associations with substance use as well as typical moderators found in the literature. Twelve studies were meta-analyzed. RESULTS: We found small associations (range: ρ = -.03 to .15; d = .06 to 30) between the IDEA scores and substance use. We found higher severity (dependence diagnosis) of participants yielded larger associations across all dimensions (ρ = .16), and proportion of college students to be a subscale-specific moderator (experimentation, negativity/instability, other-focus, self-focus, and feeling in-between). Alcohol use outcomes also provided larger subscale-specific associations (experimentation, negativity/instability, other-focus, self-focus). CONCLUSIONS: The dimensions of emerging adulthood may be less effective in predicting substance use among non-college samples and those studies focusing on drug use. Further research should prioritize exploring variation in the transition to emerging adulthood among non-college samples and the longitudinal associations between IDEA and substance use. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Important contributions include the modest association between IDEA and substance use as well as specific participant characteristics that amplify or mitigate the association between IDEA and substance use. (Am J Addict 2018;27:166-176).
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 | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".