ArticleAlcohol, clinical & experimental research2025
Check your data before you wreck your model: The impact of careless responding on substance use data quality.
Article in Alcohol, clinical & experimental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- University Students and the Stimulant Shortage: A Survey of Strategies to Obtain Medication, Consequences of Shortages, and Mental Health Correlates.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2026Article
- Check your data before you wreck your model: The impact of careless responding on substance use data quality.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of survey responses is a concern in research data quality, especially in college student samples. However, examination of the impact of removing participants from analyses who respond inaccurately or carelessly is warranted given the potential for loss of information or sample diversity. This study aimed to understand if careless responding varies across a number of demographic indices, substance use behaviors, and the timing of survey completion.
methodCollege students (N = 5809; 70.7% female; 75.7% White, non-Hispanic) enrolled in psychology classes from six universities completed an online survey assessing a variety of demographic and substance use-related information, which included four attention check questions dispersed throughout the hour-long survey. Differences in careless responding were assessed across multiple demographic groups, and we examined the impact of careless responding on data quality via a confirmatory factor analysis of a validated substance use measure, the Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised Short Form.
resultsCareless responding varied significantly by participant race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Substance use was generally unassociated with careless responding, though careless responding was associated with experiencing more alcohol-related problems. Careless responding was more prevalent when the survey was completed near the end of the semester. Finally, the factor structure of the drinking motives measure was affected by the inclusion of those who failed two or more attention check questions.
conclusionsIncluding attention checks in surveys is an effective method to detect and address careless responding. However, omitting participants from analyses who evidence any careless responding may bias the sample demographics. We discuss recommendations for the use of attention check questions in undergraduate substance use cross-sectional surveys, including retaining participants who fail only one attention check, as this has a minimal impact on data quality while preserving sample diversity.
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.