Data Analysis Practices in Drug Prevention Evaluation

描述（申请人提供）：研究表明，一些最广泛倡导的以学校为基础的酒精和药物预防计划的评估在其数据分析和呈现中采用了有问题的做法，例如在众多结果变量中选择性报告，分析前改变测量量表，多亚组分析，以及选择性使用高于0.05的α水平和单尾显著性检验（Brown，2001; Gerstein &绿色色，1993; Gorman，1998; 2002 a; 2002 B; 2003; in press-a; in-press-B; Manski，Pepper & Petrie，2001; Moskowitz，1989; 1993）。这导致人们高估了这些方案在预防儿童和青年酗酒和吸毒方面的效果。 然而，目前还不清楚这种做法在酒精和毒品预防的整体领域中的使用有多广泛，因为现有批评的重点是相当狭窄的校本课程。很少注意以社区和家庭为基础的干预措施，只详细审查了最突出的学校课程。因此，本文所述的项目旨在以比迄今为止更系统和全面的方式评估酒精和毒品预防方案研究基础的质量。因此，它将处理下列具体问题： I.在已发表的药物和酒精预防研究文献中，不规范和有问题的数据管理和分析做法的流行率如何？ 二.使用这种不规则和有问题的数据管理和分析实践是否会导致对计划效果的显著高估？ 三.酒精和毒品预防计划有多少比例是独立评估的（即由研究人员而不是开发计划的人评估）？ 四.独立进行的评价是否采用了更好的数据管理和分析做法？ 这些问题将通过以下两个程序来解决：第一，对药物滥用预防中心药物滥用示范项目清单上的54个项目评估中使用的数据管理和分析实践进行系统审查; 第二，重新分析来自独立的药物滥用抵抗教育（DARE）评价的数据，该评价主要产生无效结果。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Research has shown that evaluations of some of the most widely advocated school-based alcohol and drug prevention programs employ questionable practices in their data analysis and presentation such as selective reporting among numerous outcome variables, changes in measurement scales before analysis, multiple subgroup analysis, and selective use of alpha levels above 0.05 and one-tailed significance tests (Brown, 2001; Gerstein & Green, 1993; Gorman, 1998; 2002a; 2002b; 2003; in press-a; in-press-b; Manski, Pepper & Petrie, 2001; Moskowitz, 1989; 1993). This has resulted in an overestimation the effects that these programs have in terms of preventing alcohol and drug use among children and youth. However, it is unclear just how widespread the use of such practices is within the overall field of alcohol and drug prevention since the focus of the existing critiques has been on a fairly narrow range of school-based programs. Very little attention has been focused on community and family-based interventions, and only the most prominent school-based curricula have been examined in any detail. The project described herein is therefore intended to assess the quality of the research base of alcohol and drug prevention programs in a more systematic and comprehensive manner than has been conducted to date. Accordingly, it will address the following specific questions: i. What is the prevalence in the published drug and alcohol prevention research literature of irregular and questionable data management and analysis practices? ii. Does the use of such irregular and questionable data management and analysis practices result in significant overestimation of program effects? iii. What proportion of alcohol and drug prevention programs is independently evaluated (that is, evaluated by researchers other than those who developed the program)? iv. Do evaluations that are conducted independently employ better data management and analysis practices? These questions will be addressed through the following two procedures: First, a systematic review of the data management and analysis practices used in the evaluations of the 54 programs t hat appear on the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention's list of model substance abuse programs; Second, reanalysis of data from an independent Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) evaluation that produced predominantly null results.