ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023
Assessing the self-reported honesty threshold in adolescent epidemiological research: comparing supervised machine learning and inferential statistical techniques.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Substance use patterns from late childhood to mid-adolescence: Updates on the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2026Article
- Adolescent Self-Reported Recovery for Substance Use in Illinois: Statewide Representative Epidemiological Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Are Adolescents Sensitive About Sensitive Data? Exploring Student Concerns About Privacy, Confidentiality, and Data Use in Health Research.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2025Article
- A Comparison of Remote Versus in-Person Assessments of Substance Use and Related Constructs Among Adolescents.Substance use & misuse · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEpidemiological surveys offer essential data on adolescent substance use. Nevertheless, the precision of these self-report-based surveys often faces mistrust from researchers and the public. We evaluate the efficacy of a direct method to assess data quality by asking adolescents if they were honest. The main goal of our study was to assess the accuracy of a self-report honesty item and designate an optimal threshold for it, allowing us to better account for its impact on point estimates.
methodsThe participants were from the 2020 Illinois Youth Survey, a self-report school-based survey. We divided the primary dataset into subsets based on responses to an honesty item. Then, for each dataset, we examined two distinct data analysis methodologies: supervised machine learning, using the random forest algorithm, and a conventional inferential statistical method, logistic regression. We evaluated item thresholds from both analyses, investigating probable relationships with reported fake drug use, social desirability biases, and missingness in the datasets.
resultsThe study results corroborate the appropriateness and reliability of the honesty item and its corresponding threshold. These contain the agreeing honesty thresholds determined in both data analyses, the identified association between reported fake drug use and lower honesty scores, increased missingness and lower honesty, and the determined link between the social desirability bias and honesty threshold.
conclusionsConfirming the honesty threshold via missing data analysis also strengthens these collective findings, emphasizing our methodology's and findings' robustness. Researchers are encouraged to use self-report honesty items in epidemiological research. This will permit the modeling of accurate point estimates by addressing questionable reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.