Introduction
Binge
drinking, other forms of alcohol abuse, and illicit drug use create numerous
problems on college campuses. Deaths
from binge drinking are too common and substance abuse is a factor in as many
as two-thirds of on-campus sexual assaults (Finn, 1997; National Institute of
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1995). College
presidents now rate alcohol abuse as the number one campus problem (Wechsler,
Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens, & Castillo, 1994) and many schools have been
devising new substance abuse prevention policies and programs. However, in
spite of increasing recognition of and knowledge about substance abuse problems
at colleges as a whole, little attention has been focused on substance abuse at
commuter schools.
This
report presents findings from a survey about substance use and abuse at the
Growing
awareness of problems due to substance abuse among college students has stimulated
many campus-based prevention activities and some systematic research. University Health Services at UMass Boston
began the PRIDE prevention program in 1989.
In that same year, Health Services sponsored the first survey of student
substance abuse. The
In
1996, Health Services sponsored a second comprehensive survey of student
substance abuse in collaboration with the Graduate Program in Applied
Sociology. This report presents the 1996
survey results, in order to:
·
describe the proportion of students who
are at risk of substance abuse at UMass Boston;
·
identify risk factors and motivations
for substance abuse;
·
compare substance abuse at UMass Boston
in 1996 with the results of previous surveys and national samples;
·
assess experience with and interest in
campus-based prevention programs.
The 1996 Health Services Survey
The
1996 Health Services Survey was designed in the Fall, 1996 by students in
Professor Russell Schutt’s Methods of Research seminar in the Graduate Program
in Applied Sociology. Much of the survey was modeled after the CORE survey and
the survey designed in 1989 by Tony Roman for the University’s Center for
Survey Research. Linda Jorgensen,
Director of the University’s PRIDE Program, helped to shape questionnaire
development, and numerous sociology faculty consulted with students on
instrumentation.
Questionnaires
were mailed to a random sample of UMass Boston undergraduates, stratified by
year in school. After followup calls and mailings, 482 students returned their
questionnaires, for a response rate of 65% (after excluding students with
incorrect addresses). (See the appendix for details.)
Substance
abuse was assessed with questions to indicate the quantity and frequency of
drinking and the experience of problems due to drinking. One question identified binge drinking as the
frequency of drinking four or more drinks in one sitting in the past two
weeks. A composite index, risk of
substance abuse, identifies students as at risk of substance abuse if they
report at least two of the following:
drinking four or more drinks in a row at least twice in the past two
weeks; using marijuana, cocaine, or other illicit drugs at least a few times in
the past year; or, after using alcohol or other drugs, experiencing a
hangover/nausea, missing scheduled activities, engaging in sex that was
regretted, regretting having used substances, getting in trouble with
officials, or feeling depressed or bad about myself.
In addition to questions about
substance abuse among students, questionnaire included items on substance abuse
involving friends and family, experience with and interest in substance abuse
prevention services, and measures of depression, self-control, social support,
self-efficacy, physical health. Several
questions were also included to measure such social background characteristics
as age race, sex, marital and family status, religious affiliation, and
employment status. (See the appendix for details.)
There
have been two major recent national studies to examine substance use among
college students. Wechsler et al. (1994)
surveyed 17,096 respondents from 140 colleges in 1993. (Wechsler and associates
will soon release findings from a more recent college survey). The Core Institute (Presley et al., 1996)
coordinates surveys at more than 77 colleges nationwide, with the dataset
obtained from 1991 to 1993 alone including 41,667 student respondents. We use data from these surveys for
comparative purposes.
Substance Use and Abuse at UMass Boston
The
many indicators of experiences with substance use and abuse in the survey
provide a comprehensive picture of the extent of the problem at UMass Boston.
Current Level of Use & Abuse
|
27%
of respondents were identified as at risk of substance abuse. |
The
composite index identifies 27% of respondents as at risk of substance abuse (an
index score of 2 or higher).[1]
(exhibit 1) One-quarter reported having smoked or used smokeless tobacco in the
past two weeks.
Exhibit 1
Overall Risk of Substance Abuse
Binge Drinking
Binge
drinking was common. About one of every
three respondents (31%) had drunk four or more drinks in a row at least once in
the past two weeks, while 19% had done so at least twice and 10% at least three
times. (exhibit 2) Only 27% of students
reported they had never used alcohol.
One in every five had used alcohol more than four times a month.
Exhibit 2
Binge Drinking
|
Binge
drinking is less common at UMassBoston than in national samples of college
students. |
The
Wechsler and Core surveys yielded similar estimates of binge drinking (44% and
39%), and both estimates were higher than that obtained at UMass Boston (31%),
even though the UMassBoston measure used a somewhat more lenient criterion than
that used by Wechsler and the Core Institute (4 drinks in one sitting for both
men and women rather than five drinks in one sitting for men and four for
women) (exhibit 3). When binge drinking
estimates are examined by gender, the comparisons still suggest that binge
drinking is less common at UMassBoston than in the national samples of college
students. Forty percent of men at
UMassBoston were estimated to be binge drinkers, compared to national estimates
of 50% by Wechsler and 48% by the Core Institute; 27% of women at UMassBoston
were estimated to be binge drinkers, compared to national estimates of 39% by
Wechsler and 33% by the Core Institute.
Exhibit 3
Binge Drinking by Gender in
The
rate of abstinence from alcohol use was higher at UMass Boston than in the
national student samples. Twenty-seven
percent of UMB students said they abstained from alcohol use, compared to 16%
in the Wechsler sample and 15% in the CORE sample.
Illicit Drug Use
One-third
of students had used marijuana at some time, but just 18% had used marijuana at
least a few times in the past year (exhibit 4). Eight percent reported
marijuana use as often as 1-4 times a month in the past year.
Nine
percent of respondents reported ever using cocaine and just 4% reported use at
least a few times in the past year.
Other illicit drug use was also reported by 9% of the respondents, with
just 2% reporting use of other illicit drugs as often as a few times in the
past year. A total of 19% had used any
illicit drug at least a few times in the past year, but just 3% had done so at
least once per month.
Exhibit 4
Frequency of Alcohol and Drug Use
Change over time
|
There
are indications of modest declines in the level of substance use since 1989. |
Comparisons
with previous surveys of UMassBoston students suggest some modest changes in
the level of substance use since 1989 (exhibit 5). In the annual UMB CORE surveys, the level of
binge drinking estimated each year is about 20%. This is lower by 10% than the 1996 estimate,
but it is based on the more stringent criterion of five or more drinks at one
sitting in the past two weeks. The
percentage of students who report any use of alcohol in the past year is about
10 percentage points lower in the 1996 survey (73%) than in the 1989 CSR survey
(81%), (the annual CORE surveys have also yielded estimates of any drinking of
about 80%). The rate of tobacco use has
been similar in the annual CORE surveys, the 1989 CSR survey, and the 1996
survey-—approximately 25 percent.
There
are some indications of decline in the level of drug use and in the level of
reported problems due to substance abuse from 1989 to 1996. Rates of marijuana and cocaine use had
changed by small amounts. Compared to
the 1989 CSR survey, marijuana use in the past year was down by 5 percentage
points (from 22.8% to 17.6%) and cocaine use had declined by 4 percentage
points (from 7.4% to 3.6%). The
likelihood of run-ins with police due to substance use changed from 2.2% to
1.4% from 1989 to 1996; the likelihood of missed classes due to substance use
was 10.2% in 1996 compared to 14.4% in 1989; engaging in behavior that was
later regretted declined from 18.8% to 15.1%; reports of being taken advantage
of sexually declined from 8.8% to 6.8%; and reports of being hung over or
experiencing nausea declined from 48.9% to 38.9%.
Exhibit 5
Any Use of Substances in 1989 and 1996
Social Background and Substance Abuse
Students
who were white, younger, and never married or separated were more at risk of
substance abuse than those who were Asian, African-American, or Hispanic,
older, and married or divorced. Almost
one-third of white students were classified as at risk of substance abuse,
compared to 13-18% of Asian, Black and Hispanic students. Students under the
age of 36 were also much more likely to be classified as at risk of substance
abuse (about 30%) than were students 36 or older (about 10%). About one-third of students who had never
married or who were separated were at risk of substance abuse, compared to
about 15% of those who were married or divorced (and none of the 10 students
who were widowed). Risk of substance
abuse did not vary appreciably with student gender, income, year in school,
religion, veteran status, or employment status.
|
Students who were white, younger, and
never married or separated were more at risk of substance abuse than those
who were Asian, African-American, or Hispanic, older, and married or
divorced. |
The
patterns of association with substance abuse differed somewhat for alcohol and
other drugs. Men were more likely to
report binge drinking at least twice in the past two weeks (25%) than were
women (15%), but drug use did not vary by gender. There was no association of
binge drinking with family income.
However, students whose family incomes were under $15,000 or above
$60,000 were more likely to report illicit drug use (23-25%) than those whose
family incomes were between $15,000 and $60,000 (8-16%). Students who reported
no religious preference were more likely to report drug use (27%) than students
who identified a religious preference (12-19%).
Experiences of family and friends
Respondents
reported higher levels of substance use by their closest friends (“the ones you
most frequently socialize with”) than by themselves (exhibit 6). Only 18% said their closest friends had not
used alcohol in the past year and 58% reported their closest friends had used
alcohol at least once per month.
Marijuana
use was reported among close friends by 44%, with 18% reporting marijuana use
by their close friends at least once per month.
Use of other illicit drugs was reported as only slightly more prevalent
among close friends than among the respondents themselves. Six percent of close friends had used cocaine
at least a few times in the past year and 8% had used some other illicit drugs
at least that often.
Exhibit 6
Frequency of Alcohol and Drug Use by
Friends
|
One-third
of the respondents reported at least one family member whose substance use
they had been very concerned about. |
Many
students were concerned about drinking or drug use among family members
(exhibit 7). Two-thirds of the respondents
had at least one close family member whose drinking or drug use had ever been
of concern to them. One-third of the
respondents reported at least one family member whose substance use had been a
matter of much concern.
Exhibit 7
Maximum
Concern with Family Member Substance Use
Siblings
were the most likely to have been the object of such concern, with 53% having
warranted at least a little concern and 32% having been the object of at least
moderate concern about drinking or drug use at some time (exhibit 8). Fathers were more likely to have been an
object of concern than mothers: 30% of fathers had been the object of at least
moderate concern, compared to 22% of mothers.
Exhibit 8
Concern with Substance Use by Specific
Family Members
Attitudes Toward Substance Abuse
|
Students
believed the risks of alcohol and marijuana use to be much lower than risks
from use of cocaine and other illicit drugs. |
About
nine in ten students thought that people were at great risk of harming themselves physically and in other
ways if they used cocaine/crack or other illicit drugs (exhibit 9). Students believed the risks of alcohol and
marijuana use to be much lower. Just
over one quarter of respondents (28%) thought alcohol use posed a great risk of
harm, while 38% thought marijuana use posed a great risk. On the other hand, only 3-4% thought that
alcohol and marijuana risk posed no risk at all. The average (mean) score on the perceived
risk was 3.4 (with 4 indicating great risk).
Exhibit 9
Perceived Risk of Harm from Substance use
Reasons for Substance Use
Those
respondents who did not abstain from alcohol use (76 students) reported that
they used alcohol for a variety of reasons (exhibit 10). Most who used alcohol (90%) said they did so
for fun and two-thirds said they did so because they liked the taste. Just over one-third of the alcohol users
mentioned as a reason for their use relieving problems and being more at ease
in a group. About one-quarter of
respondents reported that they used alcohol because their friends did or to
help sleep or calm down. Use of alcohol
to enhance performance was rare.
Exhibit 10
Reasons for Alcohol & Drug Use (%)
Drugs
were used much less often than alcohol and the reasons given for doing so were
somewhat different. Drug users almost
universally reported doing so for fun.
The next most popular reasons, reported by 80%, were to escape problems,
be more at ease and help sleep or calm down.
Just under one-third used drugs to be at ease, because their friends
did, or because they liked the taste.
Few used drugs to enhance performance.
Experiences with Alcohol and Other Drugs
Students reported many negative
experiences after using alcohol or other drugs (exhibit 11). The most common
negative experience, reported by almost two-thirds of the users, was a hangover
or nausea. Between 10 and 24 percent
reported regretting using alcohol or other drugs, feeling depressed or bad
about themselves, missing some activity, or engaging in sex that they
regretted. Just 2% had had trouble with campus officials.
In
spite of these negative experiences, students also identified some positive
experiences due to using substances. The
most common experience, by 80% of users, was feeling more relaxed. More than half reported having more fun and
being more outgoing, although only about one-quarter felt more confident.
Exhibit 11
Experiences
with Alcohol and Other Drugs (%)
Counting
up their separate experiences, 56% of respondents reported at least one
positive experience after using alcohol or other drugs, while 42% reported at
least one negative experience (exhibit 12). A total of 39% of respondents
reported none of the positive or negative experiences mentioned, 38% had
experienced both positive and negative experiences, and 18% had had positive
experiences but no negative experiences.
Just 5% had had negative but no positive experiences after alcohol or
drug use.
Exhibit 12
Experiences with Substances
Abstaining from Substances
Just
over one-third of the respondents said they abstained from alcohol and drugs
(exhibit 13). Forty percent said they
only abstained from drugs; 3% said they abstained only from alcohol. About one in five said they abstained from
neither.
Exhibit 13
Abstaining
from Alcohol and/or Drugs (%)
|
Of
those who abstained from either alcohol or drugs, the majority (53%) did so
to protect personal health (exhibit 14). |
Of
those who abstained from either alcohol or drugs, the majority (53%) did so to
protect personal health (exhibit 14).
About 38% abstained due to not liking the effects and about 26% cited
their religious or moral beliefs.
Nineteen percent referred to negative effects they had seen in their
families. Financial reasons, friends who
don’t use, and being in recovery were less common reasons for abstaining from
alcohol use.
Exhibit 14
Reasons for Abstaining from Alcohol
& Drugs
The distribution of reasons for abstaining
from drug use was similar to that for abstaining from alcohol use.
Stress, Feelings, and Substance Abuse
Students
who reported fewer strategies for dealing with stress were more at risk of
substance abuse. Those with lower levels
of self-control also were more at risk of substance abuse. More than one-third (36%) of those with a
low level of self-control were classified as at risk of substance abuse,
compared to one in five (21%) of those with a high level of self-control.
Depressed
feelings also were associated with higher levels of substance abuse. Of those with lower depression index scores,
22% were at risk of substance abuse, compared to 35% of those with a high
depression score. Those with higher
depression scores were more likely to report binge drinking, by 8 percentage
points, and to report illicit drug use, by 7 percentage points, than were those
with lower depression scores.
Those
who perceived great risk of harm due to substance abuse were less likely to be
substance abusers themselves. Over
one-third (34%) of those who perceived less than great risk of harm to people
from substance use were themselves at risk of substance abuse, while just 13%
of those who perceived great risk due to substance use were at risk of
substance abuse themselves.
Risk
of substance abuse, binge drinking and use of illicit drugs were not associated
with perceived social support, feelings about physical health, or belief in
being unfairly blamed for things.
Campus Substance Use Policies and Programs
|
Respondents indicated
little involvement in campus prevention activities but much interest in them. |
Respondents indicated little
involvement in campus prevention activities but much interest in them. Over half (57%) of the respondents knew that
UMass Boston had policies about alcohol and drug use and had a drug/alcohol
prevention program (exhibit 15).
However, only 3% reported being actively involved in prevention programs
on campus.
Exhibit 15
UMB Prevention Activities: Knowledge and
Involvement
Participation
in particular prevention activities varied from 16% who had picked up
literature on campus to 8% who had attended a classroom presentation on alcohol
and drug issues and between 2-4% who had participated in campus-based support
groups, substance abuse workshops, or special prevention events (exhibit 16).
Exhibit 16
Participation in Prevention Activities (%)
In
total, just over one in five respondents had participated in at least one
prevention activity.
Interest
in prevention activities was much higher than past participation. Support for particular campus-based
prevention activities varied between 47% and 59% for peer education training,
classroom presentations, workshops on women’s substance abuse issues,
connecting with other students in recovery, and workshops about adult children
of alcoholics (exhibit 17). Fourteen
percent of the respondents said they would like to be actively involved in
efforts to prevent drug and alcohol use problems at UMassBoston [exhibit 15].
Exhibit 17
Interest in Prevention Activities (%)
Correlates of Knowledge, Participation, and Interest in Prevention
Knowledge,
participation, and interest in campus-based prevention activities varied with
concern about substance abuse b a family member, with depressed feelings, with
risk of substance abuse, and with ethnicity, marital status, and income.
Knowledge of campus substance abuse policies tended to be higher among those
who scored higher on the index of depressed feelings and those who had
experienced more stress in the past year. Both of these variables also were
associated with higher risk of substance abuse, although risk of substance
abuse itself was not associated with policy knowledge. In addition, those who were more concerned
with family members’ substance abuse were more knowledgeable about campus
substance abuse policies.
Respondents
who were at risk of substance abuse were more likely than others to have
participated in prevention activities (32% to 21%). Participation in prevention activities was
not associated with a report of binge drinking, but it was associated with prior
use of illegal drugs. Students whose
family incomes were under $15,000 were more likely to have participated in
prevention activities than those with higher family incomes (34% compared to
20%). Participation in prevention
activities also varied by ethnicity, with Asian students reporting less
participation (13%) and Hispanic students reporting more participation (48%)
than white or African American students (22%).
Participation in prevention activities was also more frequent among
those who were separated (33%) or divorced (43%) than among those who had never
married (24%) or were currently married (16%).
More frequent depressed feelings were also correlated with participation
in prevention activities. Participation
in prevention activities did not vary with year in school or with other social
background indicators.
|
The main predictor of
interest in prevention activities was level of concern with substance abuse
by a family member. |
The
main predictor of interest in prevention activities was level of concern with
substance abuse by a family member.
Fifty-six percent of students who were at least moderately concerned
with a family member’s drinking or drug use were interested in prevention
programs, compared to 43% of those who were no more than a little concerned by
a family member’s substance abuse.
Interest in prevention activities was not related to risk of substance
abuse, nor to social background, year in school, or employment status. Respondents who were separated had a
particularly high level of interest in prevention programs (83%), while those
who were married were less interested than others (38%).
Conclusions
The
survey findings can inform campus officials about the scope of the substance
abuse problem at UMass Boston as well as guide new prevention activities.
Alcohol,
tobacco, and marijuana are the most frequently used drugs at UMass Boston. The 1996 Student Health Services Survey
indicates that one-third of students binge drink within just a two week
interval. About 10% smoke marijuana
weekly. One-quarter reported smoking
tobacco within the previous two weeks.
Reports of other illicit drug use were uncommon. In general, the level of substance abuse
seems to be lower at UMass Boston than at most colleges and may have declined
somewhat since 1989.
We
believe that the lower apparent rate of substance abuse at UMass Boston can be
explained by two features of the student population at this urban commuter
campus. The national studies show that
binge drinking is associated with younger age and with residence in a
fraternity or sorority (Wechsler, 1995a).
UMass Boston has an older student population and has no campus
residences or fraternity houses.
More
than nine in ten students believed that cocaine/crack or other illicit drug use
posed physical risks, but fewer than one-third thought alcohol use posed a
serious risk of harm. However, there
were many negative consequences reported by students who used alcohol and other
drugs. Among the students as a whole,
forty-one percent reported at least one negative experience due to substance
abuse, most often nausea or a hangover.
Up to one-quarter of substance users reported such consequences as
feeling depressed, missing activities, or engaging in sex that later was
regretted. Many substance users also
reported such positive consequences as feeling more relaxed.
Levels
of participation in campus prevention activities were low, but there was much
interest in prevention activities.
concern for a substance abusing family member was a very strong
predictor of interest in prevention activities.
Recommendations
In this section, we recommend a series of steps to increase awareness about and support for campus-based prevention activities. The recommendations take into account what the survey reveals both about the extent of the problem and the characteristics of students that are associated with risk of substance abuse and interest in prevention activities.
1. Greater
publicity for conferences, campus policies, community meetings. Encourage displays on substance abuse in the
library and other prominent locations.
2. Increase
efforts to infuse course content with relevant information about substance
abuse. This requires developing
educational resources that faculty in a range of departments can use to help
integrate alcohol and drug topics in their course plans. Encourage faculty involvement on curriculum
and other committees that could be used to increase the visibility of alcohol
and drug problems as a campus concern.
3. Develop
new research to explore the relation between substance abuse and student
retention.
4. Send
the UMass Boston alcohol and drug policy to all faculty each semester. Suggest it be read in each class. Give all faculty a one-page information sheet
about resources for dealing with alcohol and drug problems.
5. Review
and refine the campus alcohol and drug policies.
6. Publicize
opportunities to participate in the PRIDE presentation, How to Help a Friend
With a Drinking Problem. Encourage
articles in campus publications.
7. Increase
publicity about the connection between substance use and HIV/AIDS and other
sexually transmitted diseases. Develop
leadership training programs that increase recognition of the relation between
substance abuse and academic and athletic performance.
8. Enforce
campus rules and regulations about substance use. When possible and where appropriate,
communications from campus officials to students should heighten awareness of
the UMass Boston commitment to an alcohol- and drug-free environment.
9. Encourage
those students involved in campus alcohol or drug-related problems or crises to
connect with the PRIDE program.
10.Take advantage of widespread student
interest in prevention by forming a university-wide council to monitor and
stimulate interest in prevention activities.
11.Publicize the 1996 Health Services
Survey findings.
12.Publicize the Alcohol and Substance
Abuse Studies program (ASAS) as a way to learn about substance abuse.
13.Develop and publicize family-oriented
programs that help students cope with substance abuse among loved ones.
14.Offer non-alcoholic social
opportunities geared to students most at risk of substance abuse: younger, single men.
15.Coordinate mental health counseling
with prevention services. Sponsor
outreach programs to teach students skills for dealing with stress.
16.Ensure the availability to students of
routine screening, evaluation, intervention, and treatment referral
opportunities.
Bibliography
Center
for Survey Research. 1990. Student Health Survey: Final Report.
Boston: Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts at Boston.
Cohen,
S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H.M. (1985) Measuring the
functional components of social support.
In I.G. Sarason and B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social Support: Theory,
Research and Applications. Dordrecht:
Nijhoff.
Finn,
Peter. Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems on Campus: Acquaintance Rape.
Newton, MA: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.
Grasmick,
Harold, Charles Tittle, Robert Bursik, and Bruce Arneklev. 1993. “Testing the
Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of
Crime.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30:5-29.
National
Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. 1995. “College Drinking.” Alcohol
Alert, 29(July).
OIR.
1996. Student Statistical Portrait. Boston: Office of Institutional
Research, University of Massachusetts Boston.
Presley,
C.A., P.W. Meilman, J.R. Cashin, and R. Lyerla. 1996. Alcohol and Drugs on
American College Campuses: Use, Consequences, and Perceptions of the Campus
Environment. Carbondale, IL: The Core
Institute, Southern University at Carbondale, vol. III: 1991-1993.
Radloff,
Lenore. 1977. "The CES-D Scale: A Self-report Depression Scale for
Research in the General Population." Applied Psychological Measurement,
1:385-401.
Wechsler,
Henry, A. Davenport, George Dowdall, B. Moeykens, and S. Castillo. 1994.
“Health and Behavioral Consequences of Binge Drinking in College.” Journal
of the American Medical Association, 272:1672-1677.
Wechsler,
Henry, George Dowdall, A. Davenport, and S. Castillo. 1995a. “Correlates of
College Student Binge Drinking.” American Journal of Public Health,
85:921-926.
Wechsler,
Henry, B. Moeykens, A. Davenport, S. Castillo, and J. Hansen. 1995b. “The
Adverse Impact of Heavy Episodic Drinkers on Other College Students.” Journal
of Studies on Alcohol, 56:628-634.
Appendix on Methodology
Sampling
A
disproportionate stratified random sample was selected from the student roster
by the University Registrar. Strata were
defined by year in school, with 217-218 students selected from each of four
classes. Several types of students were excluded by this sampling
strategy: graduate students, certificate
and non-degree or second degree students, and students in the College of Public
and Community Service. In the Fall,
1996, there were 6,985 students in the population eligible for sampling. This represented 78% of the entire
undergraduate student body of 8,918 and 60% of the entire student body of
11,736.
Questionnaires
were first mailed in January 1997 to a total of 875 students. Although questionnaires were anonymous, each
survey packet included a pre-addressed response postcard so that students could
indicate that they had returned their questionnaire. Three followup mailings were then sent to
apparent nonrespondents and reminder phone calls were made in June and
July. Ultimately, 123 questionnaires
were returned due to a wrong address or were assumed to have been sent to a
wrong address when a phone followup identified a wrong telephone number. This leaves a total of 752 students who are
presumed to have received a questionnaire at their correct address. Twenty-four students explicitly refused to
participate.
Questionnaires
were returned by 482 students, representing a response rate of 65% of those
with correct addresses (55% of the originally selected sample). This rate of return is close to the maximum
usually obtained with mailed questionnaires and followup mailings. It is lower, by 5 percentage points, than
that obtained in the 1989 Health Services Survey conducted by the Center for
Survey Research and using more concerted telephone followup procedures (CSR
obtained a 70% response rate, after discounting invalid addresses and phone
numbers and nonstudents in the sample; the response rate for their entire
originally selected sample was 62%). (CSR, 1990)
The
resulting sample underrepresents underclasspersons by 19 percentage points (see
table). This is somewhat less severe
than the underrepresentation of underclassmen in the 1989 survey (in which
freshmen and sophomores accounted for only 19% of the sample). The 1996 sample contains a percentage of
racial and ethnic minorities about comparable to that in the UMB undergraduate
population as a whole (30% for the obtained sample; 33% for the population),
although with a somewhat higher percentage of Asian-American students (14%) and
a somewhat lower percentage of African-American students (8%), relative to the
population of undergraduates in the College of Arts and Sciences (respectively,
11% and 14%). The sample has a slightly
higher percentage of women (62%) than does the actual undergraduate student
body in CAS (56%).[2] The median age of 25.0 for the 1996 sample
was similar to the median age of 24 for the CAS undergraduate student body as a
whole.
Year in School, Sample and Population,
1996
|
Year |
Selected Sample |
Obtained Sample |
Official Enrollment |
|
Freshman |
25% |
20% |
27% |
|
Sophomore |
25 |
13 |
25 |
|
Junior |
25 |
29 |
25 |
|
Senior |
25 |
32 |
24 |
|
Total 4-year undergrad |
100% (875) |
98%* (482) |
101% (6,985)** |
*A total of 9 additional respondents
were graduate or special students and another 18 did not indicate their year in
school.
**Percents do not add to 100 due to
rounding error.
The distribution of cases in the
selected sample is similar to that indicated by official enrollment statistics
for the entire population of undergraduates, so weighting is used to adjust for
the stratified sampling strategy.
Measures
The
questionnaire designed for the 1996 Health Services Survey was a 13-page instrument
with 39 questions, many having multiple subparts. In addition to questions about substance
abuse among students, the questionnaire included items on substance abuse
involving friends and family, experience with and interest in substance abuse
prevention services, and measures of depression, self-control, social support,
self-efficacy, physical health. Several
questions were also included to measure such social background characteristics
as age race, sex, marital and family status, religious affiliation, and
employment status.
Substance
abuse was assessed with questions to indicate the quantity and frequency of
drinking and the experience of problems due to drinking. One question identified binge drinking in
terms of the standard customarily used to identify binge drinking in women:
Consider the past two weeks. How many times have you had four or more
drinks in a row? (1 drink = 1 beer bottle, can, 6 oz wine, liquor shot, mixed
drink).
Another series of questions asked about
frequency of use of both alcohol and drugs:
We are interested in HOW OFTEN you use
the substances listed below. Considering
the past year, how often have you used the following substances.
Possible responses for alcohol,
marijuana/hashish, cocaine/crack and “other illicit drugs” were never, not in the past year, a few times in
the past year, 1-4 times a month, more than 4 times a month.
Problems due to substance use were
identified with yes/no responses to a series of potential problems.
Please fill in the bubbles which best
describe the experiences you have had in the past year after using alcohol or
other drugs. If you do not use alcohol
or other drugs, skip this question.
I had a hangover or nausea; I missed
work, class or other scheduled activity; I engaged in sex that I was later
sorry for or embarrassed about; I regretted using alcohol or other drugs; I got
into trouble with the police or campus officials; I felt depressed or bad about
myself.
Additional experiences included in this
list identified reactions that might have been perceived as positive: having more confidence, feeling more
relaxed, being more outgoing, and having more fun.
Due to a printing error, some
questionnaires were mailed without the page that contains the index of problems
due to substance use. Questionnaires
missing this page were returned from 103 respondents. All analyses involving the problem index are
repeated for the entire sample and for only those who received the complete
questionnaire. Discrepancies are noted
in the text.
A
composite index is used in order to provide the most reliable possible
indicator of substance abuse. This index
and other substance abuse indicators are dichotomized for some analyses to
indicate those students who seem to be at risk of substance abuse and those for
whom there are no such indications. It
is not possible with these questions to measure the level of substance abuse
itself.
Risk
of substance abuse, the composite index, identifies students as at risk of
substance abuse if they report at least two of the following: drinking four or more drinks in a row at
least twice in the past two weeks; using marijuana, cocaine, or other illicit
drugs at least a few times in the past year; or, after using alcohol or other
drugs, experiencing a hangover/nausea, missing scheduled activities, engaging
in sex that was regretted, regretting having used substances, getting in
trouble with officials, or feeling depressed or bad about myself.
Another
index of exposure to problems with substance abuse is provided by degree of
concern expressed with drinking or drug use by family members. Scores on this concern index are based on the highest level of concern expressed
about substance use by any of the following family members: mother/stepmother, father/stepfather, brother/sister,
grandparent, child.
Perceived
risk of harm to others from substance use is measured with an index that
averages ratings of risk due to use of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and other
illicit drugs. Ratings ranged from “no
risk” to “slight risk,” “moderate risk,” and “great risk.” Cronbach’s alpha was .64.
Indices
to measure knowledge about campus substance abuse policies and programs,
participation in prevention activities, and interest in prevention activities
are based on counts of the number of affirmative responses given to a series of
questions.
Depression
is measured with the 11-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies’ Depression Index
(Radloff, 1977). Cronbach’s alpha is
.88. Social support is measured with
four items selected from the 40-item ISEL (Cohen et al., 1985). Cronbach’s
alpha is .64. Self-control is measured
with five items selected from Grasmick et al.’s (1993) 24-item self-control
index. Questions ask whether respondents: act on the spur of the moment without
thinking; are more concerned with the short run than with the long run; attach
more importance to excitement and adventure than security; are not concerned
when things they do upset other people; and take risks “just for the fun of
it.” Cronbach’s alpha is .67. The coping scale is used to identify coping
strategies. However, since Cronbach’s alpha for the six items in this scale is
only .39, the scale is considered unreliable and is not included in the
analysis.