Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29763428›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Physical and cognitive doping in university students using the unrelated question model (UQM): Assessing the influence of the probability of receiving the sensitive question on prevalence estimation.

Pavel Dietz, Anne Quermann, Mireille Nicoline Maria van Poppel, Heiko Striegel, Hannes Schröter, Rolf Ulrich, Perikles Simon

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Pavel DietzResearch Group Physical Activity and Public Health, Institute of Sports Science, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8390-0594
Anne QuermannDepartment of Sports Medicine, Rehabilitation and Disease Prevention, Institute of Sports Science, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Mireille Nicoline Maria van PoppelResearch Group Physical Activity and Public Health, Institute of Sports Science, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Heiko StriegelDepartment of Sports Medicine, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Hannes SchröterGerman Institute for Adult Education, Bonn, Germany.
Rolf UlrichDepartment of Psychology, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Perikles SimonDepartment of Sports Medicine, Rehabilitation and Disease Prevention, Institute of Sports Science, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DEGerman Institute for Adult Education – Leibniz Centre for Lifelong Learning · DEKarlsruhe Institute of Technology · DEUniversity of Graz · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectivesIn order to increase the value of randomized response techniques (RRTs) as tools for studying sensitive issues, the present study investigated whether the prevalence estimate for a sensitive item [Formula: see text] assessed with the unrelated questionnaire method (UQM) is influenced by changing the probability of receiving the sensitive question p. MATERIAL AND

methodsA short paper-and-pencil questionnaire was distributed to 1.243 university students assessing the 12-month prevalence of physical and cognitive doping using two versions of the UQM with different probabilities for receiving the sensitive question (p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3). Likelihood ratio tests were used to assess whether the prevalence estimates for physical and cognitive doping differed significantly between p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3. The order of questions (physical doping and cognitive doping) as well as the probability of receiving the sensitive question (p ≈ 1/3 or p ≈ 2/3) were counterbalanced across participants. Statistical power analyses were performed to determine sample size.

resultsThe prevalence estimate for physical doping with p ≈ 1/3 was 22.5% (95% CI: 10.8-34.1), and 12.8% (95% CI: 7.6-18.0) with p ≈ 2/3. For cognitive doping with p ≈ 1/3, the estimated prevalence was 22.5% (95% CI: 11.0-34.1), whereas it was 18.0% (95% CI: 12.5-23.5) with p ≈ 2/3. Likelihood-ratio tests revealed that prevalence estimates for both physical and cognitive doping, respectively, did not differ significantly under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3 (physical doping: χ2 = 2.25, df = 1, p = 0.13; cognitive doping: χ2 = 0.49, df = 1, p = 0.48). Bayes factors computed with the Savage-Dickey method favored the null ("the prevalence estimates are identical under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3") over the alternative ("the prevalence estimates differ under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3") hypothesis for both physical doping (BF = 2.3) and cognitive doping (BF = 5.3).

conclusionThe present results suggest that prevalence estimates for physical and cognitive doping assessed by the UQM are largely unaffected by the probability for receiving the sensitive question p.

Indexed as

Doping in SportsIllicit DrugsModels, StatisticalPsychotropic DrugsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceStudentsSubstance-Related DisordersUniversitiesYoung AdultIllicit DrugsPsychotropic Drugs

Identifiers

PMID29763428
PMCPMC5953456
OpenAlexW2804430430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.