evaluation review - onidpeople.oregonstate.edu/~flayb/my publications... · cigarette smoking is of...

http://erx.sagepub.comEvaluation Review

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9602000504 1996; 20; 552 Eval Rev

Burton and Brian R. Flay Thomas R. Simon, Steve Sussman, Clyde W. Dent, Alan W. Stacy, Dee

AdolescentsPredictors of Misreporting Cigarette Smoking Initiation Among

http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/5/552 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Evaluation Review Additional services and information for

http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://erx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/20/5/552SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 10 articles hosted on the Citations

distribution.© 1996 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO on August 25, 2007http://erx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://erx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/20/5/552

http://erx.sagepub.com

552

PREDICTORS OF MISREPORTING

CIGARETTE SMOKING INITIATION

AMONG ADOLESCENTS

THOMAS R. SIMONSTEVE SUSSMANCLYDE W. DENTALAN W. STACY

University of Southern California

DEE BURTONBRIAN R. FLAY

University of Illinois at Chicago

This study examines the prevalence of invalid reports of cigarette smoking initiation amongadolescents (i.e., reporting cigarette smoking at one time point and denying ever trying cigarettesat a subsequent time point) and the association of misreports with scores on other problem-pronevariables. Misreports did not vary as a function of item complexity and did not reflect carelessresponding. In the seventh grade, misreporters’ scores on the problem-prone variables werehigher than those of nonsmokers and lower than those of smokers. In contrast, when measuredin the eighth grade, misreporters’ scores did not differ from those of nonsmokers. Misreportersdid show a greater decrease in intentions to smoke, alcohol use, and number of friends whosmoke compared to nonsmokers and consistent smokers. Explanations for these findings arediscussed

A variety of factors can interfere with the accuracy of behavioral self-report data. For example, the validity of behavioral self-reports can benegatively impacted by a subject’s lack of motivation to complete the surveyitem, the complexity of the response requested, or ambiguity in the wordingof the questionnaire item. Subjects also may forget their previous behaviorand thus underreport some aspect of their behavior. When the behavior being

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute(CA44907) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA07601). Please send all correspondenceto Steve Sussman, IPR-USC, 1540 Alcazar Street, CHP 209, Los Angeles, CA 90033.

EVALUATION REVIEW, Vol. 20 No. 5, October 1996 552-567

(Q 1996 Sage Publications, Inc.




553

measured has social implications, the researcher must also consider thepossibility that subjects will provide inaccurate data deliberately.

Students may falsely report initiation of cigarette smoking for a variety ofreasons. Cigarette smoking is of great social significance during adolescence.Adolescents perceive cigarette smokers as rebellious or as nonconformers(e.g., Burton et al. 1989). Adolescents may feel a need to demonstrate socialidentification with friends who smoke even if they do not smoke themselves.It is possible that adolescents will misreport smoking on surveys in order todemonstrate their loyalty to their tobacco-using friends or to appear rebel-lious. When these students no longer associate with smokers as friends oridentify themselves as rebellious, they may no longer claim to have smokedthemselves. Alternatively, a smoker may report never trying a cigarette toavoid appearing rebellious. An individual may be unwilling to reveal behav-iors that are nonconventional, perhaps in order to minimize the likelihood ofrecrimination or maximize the likelihood of receiving social rewards (e.g.,see Crowne and Marlowe 1960).

The present study examined the potential sources of invalid self-reportsusing data from a large, longitudinal cigarette smoking prevention study.Adolescents’ self-reports of trial of cigarettes were measured in the seventhand eighth grades. Adolescents who reported not smoking or smoking in bothgrades were compared to adolescents who reported in seventh grade havingtried cigarettes and subsequently reported in eighth grade never having triedcigarettes. This study explored several issues related to the problem ofmisreporting cigarette smoking initiation among these adolescents. First, theprevalence of misreporting was examined to determine the extent of theproblem. A high percentage of misreporters in a sample may call into questionthe integrity of this type of data. Second, the association between misreport-ing and the number of response choices offered per cigarette smoking surveyitem was examined to determine the extent to which misreporting may be dueto the complexity of the survey items. It is possible that the survey item withthe fewest response alternatives would be the easiest to complete and there-fore yield the lowest rate of misreporting.

Third, the association between misreports of tobacco use and problem-prone characteristics of individuals was examined. Self-reports of risk-takingpreference, self-esteem, perceived stress, perceived susceptibility to socialinfluence to use tobacco, intentions to smoke in the future, number of friendswho smoke, and use of alcohol were obtained because these measures havebeen found to be associated with tobacco use and are considered measures of

problem-prone tendencies (e.g., Simon et al. 1993; Jessor 1984,1987). First,we examined the internal consistency and test-retest reliability of these scales




554

across report status. If misreporters simply respond more inconsistently onquestionnaire items, then they would be more likely to respond inconsistentlyon the problem-prone items as well as on the smoking items. Second, weexamined the level of scores on each of the indicators of problem pronenessacross report status. Scores of the misreporters on these seven psychosocialor behavioral variables were compared to the scores of consistent smokersand consistent nonsmokers at each time point. If misreporters are overreport-ing their initiation of cigarette smoking in seventh grade, one might expectthe pattern of their scores on the problem-prone variables to most resemblethat of consistent nonsmokers. However, if misreporters are underreportingtheir initiation of cigarette smoking in eighth grade, one might expect thepattern of their scores on the problem-prone variables to resemble that ofconsistent smokers. Finally, we examined change on psychosocial variablesto discern whether misreporters were showing changes to other items and totobacco status compared to nonsmokers and smokers. Such changes couldsuggest a motivation for misreporting.

METHOD

SUBJECTS

A sample of 2,597 junior high school students was used for these analyses.Approximately 4% of the subjects in the sample were African American, 55%were White, 27% were Latino, and 14% were Asian or reported &dquo;other&dquo; for

their ethnic background. Forty-eight percent of the sample was male. Half ofthe schools were urban and half were suburban/rural (definition from the U.S.Bureau of the Census 1983).

MEASURES

Cigarette Smoking

Cigarette smoking was measured when the subjects were in seventh gradeand was measured again 1 year later when the subjects were in eighth grade.Two types of questionnaire items were used to measure initiation of cigarettesmoking at each time point. Each subject was given both types of items. Thecontent of the two items was very similar. The main difference between the




555

items was the number of response choices offered. Item type A requested,&dquo;Have you ever tried cigarettes?&dquo; The response choices were &dquo;yes&dquo; and &dquo;no.&dquo;Item type B inquired, &dquo;How many times have you tried cigarettes?&dquo; Theresponse choices were &dquo;never tried,&dquo; &dquo;1 time,&dquo; &dquo;2 to 5 times,&dquo; &dquo;6 to 10 times,&dquo;and &dquo;more than 10 times.&dquo; Each item type included one response to indicatenever trying cigarettes. Subjects could therefore be categorized as smokersor never smokers with either of the item types at both waves of measurement.One report status variable with three levels was created to reflect smokingstatus. Subjects who reported trial of cigarettes on both question types at bothtime periods were considered &dquo;smokers.&dquo; Subjects who reported never havingsmoked a cigarette on both question types at both time periods were consid-ered &dquo;nonsmokers.&dquo; Subjects who reported having smoked a cigarette on bothquestion types at the first wave of data collection and subsequently reportedhaving never smoked a cigarette on both question types at the second waveof data collection were considered &dquo;misreporters.&dquo;

At the eighth-grade measurement, subjects also were asked to provideretrospective reports of cigarette smoking. Subjects were instructed to &dquo;thinkback to what you were doing at this time last year.&dquo; They were then asked tochoose the response category that best described their smoking behavior atthat time. The subjects were provided with the following response choices:&dquo;I had not even thought about ever using cigarettes at that time,&dquo; &dquo;sometimesI thought I might try a cigarette, but had not,&dquo; and &dquo;I had tried a cigarettebefore this time last year.&dquo;

Alcohol Use

Two items were used to assess use of alcohol. Subjects were asked, &dquo;Howmany times have you tried drinking alcohol?&dquo; The response choices were&dquo;never tried,&dquo; &dquo;1 time,&dquo; &dquo;2 to 5 times,&dquo; &dquo;6 to 10 times,&dquo; and &dquo;more than 10times.&dquo; The second item was, &dquo;How often do you drink alcohol?&dquo; The eightresponse choices ranged from &dquo;I never drink alcohol&dquo; to &dquo;many times everyday.&dquo; The responses for these two items were standardized and averaged toform an alcohol use scale.

Intention to Smoke Cigarettes

The following survey item was used to assess intention to smoke cigarettesin the future: &dquo;When is the next time you will smoke a cigarette?&dquo; The sevenresponse choices ranged from &dquo;I probably will never smoke&dquo; to &dquo;later today.&dquo;




556

Risk Taking

Responses to three items assessing risk taking were averaged to form amean risk-taking score (Collins et al. 1987; Sussman et al. 1990). These itemsincluded &dquo;I like to take chances,&dquo; &dquo;it is worth getting in trouble to have fun,&dquo;and &dquo;I enjoy doing things people say should not be done.&dquo;

Self-Esteem

Five items were adapted from Rosenberg’s 10-item scale to form ameasure of self-esteem (Rosenberg 1965; Sussman et al. 1990). These itemsincluded &dquo;I have a number of good qualities&dquo; and &dquo;I am able to do things aswell as most other people.&dquo;

Perceived Stress

As a measure of perceived stress, three items were adapted from thePerceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, and Mermelstein 1983). Theseitems were as follows: &dquo;In the last month, I have often been upset because ofsomething that happened,&dquo; &dquo;in the last month, I have often felt unable tocontrol the important things in my life,&dquo; and &dquo;in the last month, I have oftenfelt nervous and stressed.&dquo;

Susceptibility to Peer Social Influence

’Itwelve items were used to evaluate perceived susceptibility to peer socialinfluence to use tobacco products (Stacy et al. 1992). Among these items werethe following: &dquo;I can talk to students my age about lots of things, not justtobacco&dquo; and &dquo;I don’t have to use tobacco to have fun with students my age.&dquo;

Friends’ Smoking

Students were asked the following: &dquo;How many of your five closestfriends have tried cigarettes?&dquo; and &dquo;How many of your five closest friendsusually smoke at least one cigarette a week?&dquo; (Collins et al. 1987).

Cronbach’s alphas for the psychosocial and alcohol use items are providedin Table 2. Alpha is a lower bound to the reliability of an unweighted scaleof N items (Carmines and Zeller 1979) and provides a relatively conservativeestimate of the internal consistency of items in an index.




557

PROCEDURE

The items used for this study were part of a larger cigarette smokingassessment project. In the fall of 1989, subjects in seventh-grade glassescompleted a 20-page questionnaire that assessed tobacco and alcohol use aswell as tobacco knowledge and attitudes, and various psychosocial variables.The questionnaire consisted of a core section at the front, which containeditems that assessed demographic and behavioral information, followed bythree sections that rotated in order on three different forms of the question-naire (which were randomly distributed to the subjects). Subjects wereinstructed that they were not expected to complete the full questionnaire.Rather, they were to complete however many items they were able to in asingle class period. Subjects who completed the questionnaires at differentrates were balanced across these rotated sections because the different formswere randomly distributed within classrooms. The questionnaires were ad-ministered by trained data collectors who were not employees of the schools.Approximately 80% of the subjects, based on classroom enrollment as thedenominator, participated in the survey in seventh grade. Confidentiality wasassured in a verbal script. Follow-up surveys were collected one year laterwhen the subjects were in eighth grade. Each subject received the same formof the questionnaire at both waves of data collection. Seventy-five percent ofthe subjects who completed the scales used in this study at seventh grade werealso sampled in eighth grade. Tests of attrition revealed that the measuredsample did not differ from the initial sample in demographic composition orcigarette smoking.

ANALYSIS

We began the analysis by calculating the percentage of subjects whomisreported on each of the cigarette smoking items. We then compared thelevels of cigarette smoking reported in seventh grade among misreporters tothe levels reported by consistent smokers using t-test analysis. Next, chi-square analysis was used to compare the retrospective reports of smokingintentions among misreporters to those of consistent nonsmokers. Misre-porters then were compared to consistent reporters (smokers and nonsmokers)on the problem-prone variables. First, intraindex consistency was examinedto determine if consistency of responses on these psychosocial and alcoholuse variables differed across the three groups. This was accomplished bycalculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each scale by level of reportstatus and year of data collection. Second, the test-retest validity of each of




558

the scales was examined by report status. For each level of report status, thecorrelation between seventh-grade scores on the problem-prone measuresand eighth-grade scores on the same problem-prone measures was calculated.Fisher’s r to z transformation was used to test for significant differences inthe level of correlation across report status.

Finally, we sought to examine the association between report status andscores on each of the psychosocial/alcohol use measures. All of the psycho-social/alcohol use variables were standardized to a mean of 0 and a standarddeviation of 1. Pairwise deletion was used to handle missing data. Therefore,the number of subjects included in each model varied depending on thesection of the survey in which the scale was locatedl (model ns ranged from1,141 to 2,253). To determine the association between report status and levelof problem proneness, separate multivariate analysis of variance models werecalculated for each of the psychosocial/alcohol use variables for both sev-enth- and eighth-grade measurements. The main effect of report status(smoker, nonsmoker, and misreporter) was tested while adjusting for genderand ethnicity. Post hoc least squares means comparisons were calculated onthe psychosocial/alcohol use variables across the three tobacco use groups.Finally, change scores were calculated by subtracting eighth-grade scores oneach of the psychosocial/ alcohol use measures from seventh-grade scores.Multivariate analysis of variance models were used to test the associationbetween report status and change in each of the psychosocial/alcohol usemeasures while adjusting for gender and ethnicity.

RESULTS

The percentage of misreporters varied only slightly by type of survey item.Among the responses to item type A, 102 subjects who reported smoking inseventh grade reported never smoking in eighth grade. Among the responsesto question type B, 103 subjects who reported smoking in seventh gradereported never smoking in eighth grade. Because the majority of misreporters(96, or 93%) provided consistent responses across type of survey item, itemtype was considered to not have a substantial influence on misreporting, andsubjects who provided inconsistent responses across type of survey item weredeleted from the sample. As shown in Table 1, 33% of the sample reportedsmoking, 50% reported never having smoked at both time points, 11 %reported having initiated cigarette smoking in the year between seventh andeighth grade, 4% provided misreports of initiation, and 2% provided incon-




559

TABLE 1: Smoking Initiation Status

sistent responses across type of survey item. For ease of comparison, subjectswho provided inconsistent responses across type of survey item, and initia-tors, were not included in subsequent analyses. Therefore, the final sampleconsists of the 2,255 subjects who were identified as either smokers, non-smokers, or misreporters.

Next, we tested for significant differences between misreporters andconsistent reporters in the levels of smoking in seventh grade. Misreporterswere found to report significantly lower levels of smoking than consistentsmokers (t = 4.5, p < .01). Furthermore, significantly more misreportersreported having tried smoking only once (68% vs. 38%; x2 = 30.6, p < .O1).Next, chi-square analysis was used to compare the retrospective reports ofsmoking intentions (eighth-grade recall of seventh-grade intentions) amongmisreporters to those of consistent nonsmokers. Misreporters were signifi-cantly more likely to report recalling an intention to smoke cigarettes at thetime of the previous survey than nonsmokers (16% vs. 9%; x2 = 5.1, p < .05).We then examined the pattern of internal consistency and test-retest

coefficients for each of the psychosocial/alcohol use scales by report status(misreporter, nonsmoker, and smoker). As shown in Table 2, the Cronbach’salpha coefficients were nearly identical for each of the three groups ofsubjects. Similar results were found for analyses of test-retest reliabilityacross report status. As shown in Table 3, the test-retest correlations formeasures of risk taking, susceptibility to social influence to use tobacco,perceived stress, and alcohol use for misreporters were not significantlydifferent from smokers or nonsmokers. The test-retest correlation for the

number of friends who smoke was significantly lower among misreportersrelative to smokers. Self-esteem was found to yield a higher test-retestcorrelation among misreporters.

Next, the scores on the problem-prone variables were compared acrossreport status. Gender and ethnicity were included as covariates. All of the




560

TABLE 2: Cronbach’s Alphas for Each of the Psychosocial and Alcohol UseMeasures by Grade

TABLE 3: Test-Retest Reliability for Each of the Psychosocial and Alcohol UseMeasures by Report Status

*Significant difference from misreporters at p < .05.

psychosocial/alcohol use variables were found to be significantly associatedwith report status (F values ranged from 11.00 to 356.17), as shown in Table 4.Also shown in Table 4, significant differences between the mean scores ofmisreporters and consistent reporters were found for both grades. In seventhgrade, misreporters generally reported scores that were more problem pronethan those of nonsmokers and less problem prone than those of smokers. Theonly notable exception was susceptibility to social influence to use tobacco.Misreporters scored lower on susceptibility to social influence than smokersand were not significantly different from nonsmokers.




561

TABLE 4: Standardized Mean Scores for Each of the Psychosocial and AlcoholUse Measures by Grade

NOTE: Similar superscripted letters indicate no significant difference for a variablebetween groups; different superscripted letters indicate a significant difference. Scoreswere standardized to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.

&dquo;’p < .001.

A different pattern of associations emerged from the analysis of theproblem-prone variables obtained when the subjects were in eighth grade. Ineighth grade, scores on the problem-prone variables for the misreportersgenerally were significantly lower than the scores of smokers and notsignificantly different from the scores of nonsmokers. The exceptions in-cluded scores on self-esteem and stress, which fell in the middle but did not

distinguish misreporters from nonsmokers or smokers. Also, misreporterswere found to be significantly more likely than nonsmokers and less likelythan smokers to report alcohol use.

With the exception of alcohol use, change in the level of problem prone-ness reported on the psychosocial/alcohol use measures was found not todiffer between smokers and nonsmokers. However, as shown in Table 5,misreporters were found to have significantly stronger reductions in levelsof alcohol use, perceptions of friends’ tobacco use, and intentions to smokethan either smokers or nonsmokers.




562

TABLE 5: Change Scores for Each of the Psychosocial and Alcohol Use Measures

NOTE: Similar superscripted letters indicate no significant difference for a variablebetween groups; different superscripted letters indicate a significant difference.*p < .001.

DISCUSSION

In previous longitudinal smoking-related research, cases with inconsistentdata have typically been overlooked, deleted, or ignored. The results fromthis study indicate that approximately 4% of a junior high school sample ( 11 %of smokers) provided responses to smoking initiation items that were implau-sible over a 1-year period. Although data from smoking-related research isreasonably accurate, this rate of misreporting is sufficiently high to justifyconcern. Researchers may benefit from an increased awareness of the factorsthat influence misreporting of socially discouraged behaviors such as initia-tion of cigarette smoking. This study examined the extent to which misreportsof cigarette smoking initiation were associated with the following: complex-ity of the survey item, general patterns of inconsistent responding, and scoreson problem-prone variables.

Misreports apparently were not due to the complexity of the survey item,because the percentage of misreporters varied only slightly across the twotypes of items studied, which differed in terms of the number of responsechoices offered. Future research is needed to determine the extent to whichthe wording of the item and the number of response options influence thereliability of self-reports of such behaviors. It is important to note that thesesurvey items addressed specific behaviors, thereby reducing ambiguity in theinterpretation of the item. Subjects were not asked to report whether theyconsidered themselves to be a smoker. This type of survey item would requirethe subject to make a subjective evaluation of what it means to be a smoker,which may not necessarily be related to behavior, and is likely to be associatedwith a higher level of misreporting.

Another potential source of misreporting is generalized inconsistent re-sponding. It is possible that subjects who were indifferent or careless when




563

completing the surveys were simply responding in an inconsistent fashion toall survey items. If this were true, one would expect that the measures ofinternal consistency and test-retest reliability for the scales would be loweramong the misreporters. The results indicate that this is not the case. Thelevels of internal consistency did not differ substantially across report status.Furthermore, with the exception of the measure of friends’ smoking, thereliability of the measures for misreporters was not significantly lower thanthe reliability observed for smokers and nonsmokers. Therefore, it is unlikelythat careless responding had a significant impact on this type of misreporting.

Thus these results are consistent with the hypothesis that the observedmisreports of initiation of cigarette smoking reflect deliberate responses tothe survey items. Therefore, we are left with at least two other possibilities.The first possibility is that misreporters initiated cigarette smoking prior tocompletion of the survey in seventh grade and falsely reported never havingtried smoking. The second possibility is that misreporters may have reportedtrial of cigarettes in seventh grade without actually having smoked, and thenin eighth grade they may have accurately reported their smoking abstention.We hypothesized that, to the extent the first explanation is accounting for

misreporting, misreporters would provide responses on the psychosocial/alcohol use variables that were similar to smokers and more problem pronethan nonsmokers. On the other hand, if the second explanation is accountingfor misreports, then misreporters should provide responses that are similar tononsmokers. Unfortunately, the results regarding the association betweenmisreports of smoking initiation and other problem-prone variables did notprovide clear support for either explanation. In the seventh grade, misre-porters’ scores on the problem-prone variables were higher than those ofnonsmokers and lower than those of smokers. In eighth grade, the pattern ofscores on the problem-prone variables for the misreporters tended to be thesame as the pattern for consistent nonsmokers.

One possible explanation for these results is that the misreporters did nottry cigarettes in seventh grade. Seventh-grade students who are high in risktaking and/or low in self-esteem, and who perceive a greater number of peerssmoking, may falsely report trying cigarettes. These students may be overre-porting their smoking in order to appear rebellious. Perhaps, in eighth grade,these students felt under less pressure to report smoking because of anonsmoking peer group to which they now belonged and/or they no longerfelt a need to appear rebellious. The fact that misreporters generally scoredlower than smokers, but higher than nonsmokers, on problem-prone variablesin seventh grade, and did not differ from nonsmokers in eighth grade, can beseen as consistent with this explanation. Future research is necessary to




564

determine the circumstances under which adolescents are motivated to over-report participation in problem behaviors and the prevalence of this specificform of misreporting.

Another possible explanation of the results is that the misreporters actuallyhave tried smoking by seventh grade and are falsely reporting nonuse ineighth grade. One could offer several speculations for how this could occur.For example, despite the fact that onset of cigarette smoking represents adistinct event, it is possible that these youths could forget initiation ofsmoking or choose not to report initiation of cigarette smoking if the behavioris inconsistent with how they currently perceive themselves. Previous re-search has shown that even very traumatic events (i.e., reports of sexualabuse) can be forgotten and denied at a later time (Williams 1994). Also, itis plausible that youths who have tried tobacco only rarely prior to completionof the survey in seventh grade and did not smoke again may considerthemselves to be nonsmokers and may perceive their previous smoking as sotrivial as to be irrelevant. The finding that misreporters are significantly morelikely than smokers to report having tried smoking only once is consistentwith forgetting or minimization explanations.

Several of the findings assist us in describing the characteristics of thesubsample of misreporters, which suggests several plausible explanations formisreporting. For example, the fact that eighth-grade levels of problemproneness for misreporters tended not to vary from the levels for nonsmokerssuggests that misreporters are unlikely to be current smokers in eighth grade.In addition, reports of the number of friends who smoke were found to behighly inconsistent for misreporters, and estimates of the number of friendswho smoke were found to decrease over time significantly more for misre-porters than for smokers or nonsmokers. These findings suggest that peerinfluence may play a role in misreporting. However, it is not clear whethersubjects were yielding to perceived pressure to report smoking in seventhgrade or to not report smoking in eighth grade.

There are at least three limitations to this study. First, the motives formisreporting were not directly assessed. One can only attempt to infer thereasons why youths make these particular reports. Second, the measures thatwere used in this study require further validation. However, the psychosocialitems have been adapted from larger scales and have shown predictivevalidity in other studies (e.g., Collins et al. 1987). Also, in the current study,all of the scales were found to distinguish smokers from nonsmokers in thedirection consistent with previous research (e.g., Collins et al. 1987). Third,the present study only examined misreporting of cigarette smoking. Misre-porting is likely regarding use of other drugs (Fendrich and Vaughn 1994).




565

Future research should use measures that are validated through multiplemeans to examine motives for misreporting initiation of cigarette smokingand use of other drugs.

Despite these limitations, this study has succeeded in identifying misre-porters as a distinct subsample in need of additional study. Although the rateof misreporting is relatively low (only 4%), it represents 11 % of the self-reported smokers. This finding is particularly problematic for cross-sectionalresearch because these potentially inconsistent responders cannot be identi-fied. To minimize the prevalence of misreports in a cross-sectional sample,one might choose to study only those who have smoked two or more timesin their life. Furthermore, the results from this study indicate that this formof misreporting is unlikely to be due to confusion regarding the meaning ofthe survey item or to random responding. Instead, we speculate that misre-ports result from either the lack of memory of smoking, deliberate disregardof previous smoking, or deliberate overreporting.How can we determine whether youths misreport trial of smoking?

Perhaps motivational items could be used to discriminate misreporters fromtrue reporters within a time point. However, the best process through whichto attempt this objective is unclear. Unfortunately, biochemical validation ofself-reports of initiation of tobacco use is ineffective because only recenttobacco use can be detected. Corroborative reports from peers or family maynot be valid, since a single trial is relatively unlikely to be observed ordiscussed with others. The most direct approach might be to request thatsubjects elaborate on their responses, which would increase the pressure ontheir part to respond accurately. Also, items referring to the trial of cigarettescould be clarified in their construction. What does &dquo;trying a cigarette&dquo; meanto an adolescent (e.g., even a puff, a full cigarette)?We are unable to determine the best way to categorize the smoking

behavior of this subsample. Therefore, at this time, we have to recommendthat future longitudinal studies identify misreporters and omit them fromhypothesis-testing analyses. Perhaps with future research we can understandthe motivations for misreporting.

NOTE

1. Due to the use of rotated sections in the survey, scales from the core section of the surveysuch as intentions to smoke, alcohol use, and susceptibility to social influence to use tobaccowere completed by the majority of the sample while the other scales were completed by a smallerpercentage of the sample. In preliminary analyses, the pattern of results was determined to be




566

very similar to more conservative methods of dealing with missing data. Therefore, due to thedescriptive nature of this study, we decided to keep as many subjects as possible in each model.

REFERENCES

Burton, D., S. Sussman, W. B. Hansen, C. A. Johnson, and B. R. Flay. 1989. Image attributionsand smoking intentions among seventh grade students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology19 (8): 656-64.

Carmines, E. G., and R. A. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. In Quantitativeapplications in the social sciences. Sage University Paper Series 07-017. Beverly Hills andLondon: Sage.

Cohen, S., T. Kamarck, and R. Mermelstein. 1983. A global measure of perceived stress. Journalof Health and Social Behavior 24:385-95.

Collins, L. M., S. Sussman, J. M. Rauch, C. W. Dent, C. A. Johnson, W. B. Hansen, and B. R.

Flay. 1987. Psychosocial predictors of young adolescent cigarette smoking: A sixteen-month,three wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 17:554-73.

Crowne, D. P., and D. Marlowe. 1960. A new scale of social desirability independent ofpsychopathology. Journal of Counseling Psychology 24 (4): 349-54.

Fendnch, M., and C. Vaughn. 1994. Diminished lifetime substance use over time: An inquiryinto differential underreporting. Public Opinion Quarterly 58:96-123.

Jessor, R. 1984. Adolescent development and behavioral health. In Behavioral health: Ahandbook of health enhancement and disease prevention, edited by J. D. Matarazzo, S. M.Weiss, J. A. Herd, N. E. Miller, and S. M. Weiss. New York: John Wiley.

—. 1987. Problem-behavior theory, psychosocial development, and adolescent problemdrinking. British Journal of Addictions 82:331-42.

Rosenberg, M. D. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ. PrincetonUniversity Press.

Simon, T. R., S. Sussman, C. W. Dent, D. Burton, and B. R. Flay. 1993. Correlates of exclusiveor combined use of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco among male adolescents. AddictiveBehaviors 18:623-34.

Stacy, A. W., S. Sussman, C. W. Dent, D. Burton, and B. R. Flay. 1992. Moderators of peer socialinfluence in adolescent smoking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18:163-72.

Sussman, S., C. W. Dent, A. W. Stacy, C. Burciaga, A. Raynor, G. E. Turner, V. Charlin, S. Craig,W. B. Hansen, D. Burton, and B. R. Flay. 1990. Peer group association and adolescenttobacco use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 99:349-52.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983. 1980 census of population and housing. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Williams, L. M. 1994. Recall of childhood trauma: A prospective study of women’s memoriesof child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (6): 1167-76.




567

Thomas R. Simon is a doctoral candidate In the Department of Preventive Medicine and theInstitute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention at the University of Southern California.His interests include etiology and prevention of Interpersonal violence and substance abuseamong adolescents.

Steve Sussman graduated from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1984 with a doctorate inpsychology. He served on a clinical psychology residency at Jackson VA and University ofMississippi Medical Centers and now is associate professor of preventive medicine in theDepartment of Preventive Medicine and the Institute for Health Promotion and DiseasePrevention Research at the University of Southern California. His interests include etiology andprevention of substance abuse, high-risk populations, relapse prevention, and the use ofempirical curriculum development methods In health research. He has pubhshed over 100articles, chapters, and books.

Clyde W Dent graduated from the University of North Carohna In 1984 with a doctorate Inpsychology. He is now an assistant professor of research In the Department of PreventiveMedicine and the Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research at theUniversity of Southern California. His interests include evaluation of drug abuse preventionprograms, especially as pertaining to Hispanic populations.

Alan W Stacy received his M.A. and Ph.D. in soctal psychology fi-om the University of California,Riverside. He is now research assistant professor of preventive medicine In the Department ofPreventive Medicine and the Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Researchat the University of Southern California. His research emphasizes studies of memory models ofaddiction andprevention.

Dee Burton received her doctorate In sociallpersonalzty psychology from the New School forSocial Research, New York, In 1977. She is now associate professor and director of theCommunity Communications Lab at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of PublicHealth. She has worked in the tobacco control field for over 20 years, researching and developingcessation andprevention programs for media, self-help, and in-person formats. Her most recentresearch has focused on the roles of cigarette packaging and antismoking warning labels on theinitiation of smoking among youth. Her current work focuses on providing communicationstraining and other support to neighborhood groups In Chicago’s low-income communittes.

Bnan R. Flay received his D. Phil. In social psychology from Waikato University in New ZealandIn 1976. After receiving postdoctoral training at Northwestern University (Evanston, IL) undera FulbnghtlHays fellowship, he started research on smoking prevention at the University ofWaterloo (Ontano, Canada). He continued to work on smoking prevention and developed workin the areas of drug use prevention and the use of mass media for smoking cessation at theUniversity of Southern Cahfornta. He is now director of the Prevention Research Center in theSchool of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, where he continues his research Inthe above areas as well as AIDS prevention and violence prevention.




evaluation review - onidpeople.oregonstate.edu/~flayb/my publications... · cigarette smoking is of...

Documents