The undeniable problem of recanting

Addiction

Volumn 100, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 143-144

  Fendrich, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL; CANNABIS; COCAINE; DIAMORPHINE;

DRUG USE; EDITORIAL; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; PREVALENCE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE; SELF DISCLOSURE; STUDENT;

ADOLESCENT; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; TRUTH DISCLOSURE;

EID: 13844297158     PISSN: 09652140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00993.x     Document Type: Editorial

References (8)

1. Fendrich, M. & Johnson, T. P. (2001) Examining prevalence differences in three national surveys of youth: impact of consent procedures, mode, and editing rules. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 615-642.
2. Fendrich, M., Johnson, T., Wislar, J. S., Hubbell, A. & Spiehler, V. (2004) The utility of drug testing in epidemiological research: results from a general population survey. Addiction, 99, 197-208.
3. Fendrich, M. & Kim, J. Y. S. (2001) Multiwave analysis of retest artifact in the national longitudinal survey of youth drug use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 62, 239-253.
4. Fendrich, M. & Mackesy-Amiti, M. E. (2000) Decreased drug reporting in a cross-sectional student drug use survey. Journal of Substance Abuse, 11, 161-172.
5. Fendrich, M. & Rosenbaum, D. P. (2003) Recanting of substance use reports in a longitudinal prevention study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 70, 241-253.
6. Midanik, L. T. & Greenfield, T. K. (2004) Methodological articles in addiction journals: do we need more, less, or about the same amount? [Editorial]. Addiction. 99, 145-151.
7. Percy, A., McAlister, S., Higgins, K., McCrystal, P. & Thornton, M. (2005) Response consistency in young adolescents' drug use self-reports: a recanting rate analysis. Addiction, 100, 189-196.
8. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J. & Rasinski, K. (2000) The Psychology of Survey Response. New York: Cambridge University Press.