Advertisement

Prevention Science

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 205–212 | Cite as

Self-Generated Identification Codes in Longitudinal Prevention Research with Adolescents: A Pilot Study of Matched and Unmatched Subjects

  • Alfgeir Logi Kristjansson
  • Inga Dora Sigfusdottir
  • Jon Sigfusson
  • John P. Allegrante
Article

Abstract

Self-generated identification codes (SGICs) are an increasingly utilized methodological feature of longitudinal prevention research among adolescents. This study sought to test the differences between the matched and unmatched groups at baseline on a number of background, health, and well-being and risk behavior measures in a prevention study among 13- to 16-year-old Icelandic adolescents where a SGIC was constructed and used to link individual-level respondent data over two data collection points one year apart. We use pilot data from two Reykjavik city secondary schools collected as part of the population study Youth in Iceland in February 2010 and 2011 (N = 366, SGIC matching rate 61 %). Baseline results for the matched and unmatched participants are compared. Findings indicate that the unmatched subjects are both more likely to be substance users than their matched counterparts as well as being more likely to be boys and/or from disrupted families. Five out of the seven scaled measures for risk and protective factors and personality indicators reveal no difference between the matched and unmatched subjects and the significantly different measures reveal small effect sizes between the two groups. However, the effect sizes for substance use are significantly different between the matched and unmatched groups for all seven substance use measures with effect sizes from 0.52 to 1.32. These findings therefore indicate that the measurement validity of adolescent risk behaviors such as substance use may be put in jeopardy when using SGIC and that unmatched subjects may be more likely to distrust the SGIC process.

Keywords

Self-generated identification codes Adolescence Prevention research Anonymous link 

References

  1. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., & Covi, L. (1973). SCL-90: Am outpatient psychiatric rating scale—Preliminary report. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 9, 13–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. DiIorio, C., Soet, J. E., Van Marter, D., Woodring, T. M., & Dudley, W. N. (2000). An evaluation of a self-generated identification code. Research in Nursing and Health, 23, 167–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Foxcroft, D., & Lowe, G. (1995). Adolescent drinking, smoking and other substance use involvement: Links with perceived family life. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galanti, R., Siliquini, R., Cuomo, L., Melero, J. C., Panella, M., & Faggiano, F. (2007). Testing anonymous link procedures for follow-up of adolescents in a school-based trial: The EU-DAP pilot study. Preventive Medicine, 44, 174–177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gorman, D. M. (2009). Hypothesis testing and the EU-Dap evaluation of the Unplugged curriculum. Preventive Medicine, 48, 604–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hibell, B., Guttormsson, U., Ahlström, S., Balakireva, O., Bjarnason, T., Kokkevi, A., et al. (2009). The 2007 ESPAD Report. Substance Use Among Students in 35 European Countries. Stockholm, Sweden: CAN and the Pompidou Group.Google Scholar
  9. Huang, J. L., Curran, P. G., Kenney, J., Poposki, E. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding in surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Isensee, B., Morgenstern, M., Stoolmiller, M., Maruska, K., Sargent, J. D., & Hanewinkel, R. (2012). Effects of smokefree class competition 1 year after the end of intervention: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 66, 334–341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kearney, K. A., Hopkins, R. H., Mauss, A. L., & Weisheit, R. A. (1984). Self-generated identification codes for anonymous collection of longitudinal questionnaire data. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 370–378.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kristjansson, A. L., James, J. E., Allegrante, J. P., Sigfusdottir, I. D., & Helgason, A. R. (2010). Adolescent substance use, parental monitoring, and leisure time activities: 12-year outcomes of primary prevention in Iceland. Preventive Medicine, 51, 168–171.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kristjansson, A. L., Sigfusdottir, I. D., Karlsson, T., & Allegrante, J. P. (2011). The perceived parental support (PPS) scale: Validity and reliability in the 2006 youth in Europe substance use prevention survey. Child Indicators Research, 4, 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Morgenstern, M., Wiborg, G., Isensee, B., & Hanewinkel, R. (2008). School-based alcohol education: Results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Addiction, 104, 402–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Offer, D. (1969). The psychological world of the teenager. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  17. Ong, A. D., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive questions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1691–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pérez, A., Ariza, C., Sánchez-Martínez, F., & Nebot, M. (2010). Cannabis consumption initiation among adolescents: A longitudinal study. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 129–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Schnell, R., Bachteler, T., & Reiher, J. (2010). Improving the use of self-generated identification codes. Evaluation Review, 34, 391–418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sigfusdottir, I. D., Thorlindsson, T., Kristjansson, A. L., Roe, K. M., & Allegrante, J. P. (2009). Substance use prevention for adolescents: The Icelandic Model. Health Promotion International, 24, 16–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sigfusdottir, I. D., Kristjansson, A. L., Gudmundsdottir, M. L., & Allegrante, J. P. (2010). A collaborative community approach to adolescent substance use in Iceland. International Psychiatry, 7, 86–87.Google Scholar
  22. Sigfusdottir, I. D., Kristjansson, A. L., Gudmundsdottir, M. L., & Allegrante, J. P. (2011). Substance use prevention through school and community-based health promotion. A transdisciplinary approach from Iceland. Global Health Promotion, 18, 23–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Siliquini, R., Bert, F., Alonso, F., Berchialla, P., Colombo, A., Druart, A., et al. (2011). Correlation between driving-related skill and alcohol use in young-adults from six European countries. The Ten-D by Night Project. BMC Public Health, 11, 526.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Tagliabue, M., Gottero, C., Zuffranieri, M., Negro, M., Carletto, S., Picci, R. L., et al. (2011). Sexual function in women with type 1 diabetes matched with a control group: Depressive and psychosocial aspects. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8, 1694–1700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Thorlindsson, T., Bjarnason, T., & Sigfusdottir, I. D. (2007). Individual and community processes of social closure—A study of adolescent academic achievement and alcohol use. Acta Sociologica, 50, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yurek, L. A., Vasey, J., & Havens, D. S. (2008). The use of self-generated identification codes in longitudinal research. Evaluation Review, 32, 435–452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfgeir Logi Kristjansson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Inga Dora Sigfusdottir
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jon Sigfusson
    • 2
  • John P. Allegrante
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Social and Behavioral SciencesWest Virginia University, School of Public HealthMorgantownUSA
  2. 2.Icelandic Centre for Social Research and AnalysisReykjavik UniversityReykjavikIceland
  3. 3.Department of Health & Behavior StudiesTeachers College, Columbia UniversityColumbiaUSA
  4. 4.Mailman School of Public HealthColumbia UniversityColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations