Risk and protective factors for adolescent substance use
Files
Date
2000-01-01
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
ORCID
Type
Degree Level
Doctoral
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the degree to which a set of 17 psychosocial variables could predict group membership of adolescent substance users versus adolescent non-users of substances. Past research has shown each of these 17 variables in isolation to be related to adolescent substance use. However, they have not been studied collectively in a manner allowing prioritization of their predictive strength. Variables that accurately predict substance use are labeled "risk factors", whereas variables that accurately predict non-use are labeled "protective factors". The total sample consisted of 429 central-Saskatchewan adolescents in Grades 8-12. A subgroup of the total sample consisted of youth tested in a Saskatoon residential addictions clinic; this subgroup (Group 3) constituted the clinical sample. Youth who were tested in their schools comprised the non-clinical sample; this sample was split into subgroups of substance users (Group 2) and non-users (Group 1), dependent upon participant responses to questions assessing substance use behaviors. A series of discriminant function analyses (DFAs) were conducted, in an attempt: (1) to predict group membership of non-users (Group 1) versus all users (Groups 2 and 3); and (2) to predict group membership of non-clinical users (Group 2) versus clinical users (Group 3). For the first classification (Group 1 versus Groups 2/3), a set of variables emerged which yielded excellent predictive accuracy, both within and across the groups. Conversely, for the second classification (Group 2 versus Group 3), none of the variables demonstrated predictive strength from either a statistical or clinical perspective. Subsequent to these classifications, two sets of post-hoc DFAs were conducted, in an attempt: (1) to predict group membership of non-users (Group 1) versus non-clinical users (Group 2); and (2) to predict group membership of non-users (Group 1) versus clinical users (Group 3). Both sets of post-hoc DFAs yielded good to excellent correct classification rates. All results are discussed both in terms of susceptibility to problematic substance use, and practical implications for addressing this issue.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
Department
Psychology
Program
Psychology