Strasbourg, 5 July 2004
P-PG/Med (2004) 2 E
Validity and reliability of school surveys based on the European ESPAD methodology
in Algeria, Libya and Morocco
(MEDSPAD pilot school survey project)
RUUD BLESS and RICHARD MUSCAT
PREFACE
1. SAMPLE AND RESPONSE ANALYSIS
2.3.... Declared missing values
3. IMPUTATION OF MISSING VALUES
ANNEX 1: ITEM NON-RESPONSE AND MISSING VALUES in % PER (SUB)QUESTION
ANNEX 2: PATTERNS OF ITEM NON-RESPONSE IN TABLE FORMAT QUESTIONS
PREFACE
The development of a questionnaire that addresses the issue of drug use among 15-16 year olds throughout Europe has as its early foundations in a PG working group that goes back to 1989. Subsequently, the 1994 report on the pilot survey conducted in six European countries paved the way for the first full survey in 1995 in which 26 European countries participated. Following this first wave, a number of issues arose that were tackled successfully in a 1998 survey among eight countries in which issues of drunkenness and validity were tested and presented at the 25th annual Alcohol Epidemiology Symposium in Montreal, Canada in 1999. Moreover, the necessary changes were then adopted by all countries for the next survey that was conducted in 1999 among 30 European countries. In 2003 the third survey conducted in 35 European countries was carried out and the report is due at the end of 2004.
Moreover, the success of the European School Survey, a Pompidou Group initiative, demonstrated that it is possible to co-ordinate, collect, collate, compare and publish data in relation to the prevalence of alcohol and other drugs amongst youth. In much the same regard, Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study (WHO) has been able to collect specific data on children’s health in most European countries and those of North America.
These two projects per se demonstrate that it is viable to collect reliable information on the behaviour of youth that in turn may be used by policy makers to address specific issues. The only apparent caveat with either of these projects in regard to the Mediterranean is that the HBSC does not make any reference to drug use while the ESPAD is mainly based on Western European society norms in the targeted population. Thus it was not considered appropriate to completely adapt either to the Mediterranean context, however in light of the fact that the ESPAD does consider drug use in youth the working group supported the concept of adapting the ESPAD for piloting in the Mediterranean.
This report presents the result of an analysis on validity and reliability of pilot school surveys in Algeria, Libya and Morocco based on the methodology of the European ESPAD survey.
1. SAMPLE AND RESPONSE ANALYSIS
The pilot surveys are based on convenient samples that more or less cover the variations in school types and socio-economic environments of the areas chosen (Boumerdes and surrounding area in Algeria, metropolitan Tripoli in Libya and Rabat and surrounding area in Morocco). The intention was to cover in all countries the mandatory school-going age group of 15-16 year olds, which would imply more or less equal numbers of boys and girls in the sample.
The results however show that the assumptions underlying the convenience sample are not consistent with the target group actually reached. The age group covered is much more varied, in particular in Morocco (Figure 1). Median as well as modal age is 15 in both Algeria and Libya and 16 in Morocco. In Algeria and Libya females are over-represented in the response (
Figure 2).
As we don’t have information about the age and gender distributions of the school classes surveyed, we cannot assess if this deviation from the intended survey population is caused by the selection of schools and classes, incorrect assumptions about the expected age distributions in the selected classes or by non-response of the class populations addressed.
Figure 1: Age distributions in the response of the pilot samples
Figure 2: Gender distribution in the response of the pilot samples
2. MISSING VALUES ANALYSIS
2.1 Introduction
We distinguish two types of missing values. First, missing values resulting from item non-response, and second, values that are declared as missing because of data entry errors (entering a code that doesn’t correspond to the pre-coded answer categories) or because the answer category itself implies that the respondent cannot (“don’t know”) or doesn’t want to reply to a question (refusal).
Item non-response, i.e. survey questions (items) that deliberately or inadvertently have been skipped by the respondents, affects the accuracy of the population estimates that statistically can be inferred from the survey data, as the net response for the items concerned will be lower than the overall response rate, which results in larger margins of error. When item non-response is not randomly distributed, it can also imply bias in the survey results.
In computer assisted surveys item non-response normally doesn’t occur because the software prevents incorrect skipping of questions by requiring an answer to a question before one can move to the next one. Also in interviewer assisted surveys item non-response is usually rare when the interviewers are well trained and experienced. But in pen-and-paper self-completion surveys, like MEDSPAD, item non-response can be a serious problem. Respondents may skip questions by mistake, but large numbers of skipped questions more likely indicate that they do not understand the questions or answer categories or that they feel uncomfortable with the content of the survey or do not want to answer particular questions, which in turn might indicate poor questionnaire design, failing completion instructions, inadequate survey introduction or might signal that the survey addresses issues that are beyond the interests or experiences of the target group.
Declared missing values can have a similar effect on population estimates when they are caused by data entry errors, but their main problem is that they limit the options for analysis. Many “don’t know” answers can also indicate that a question is not appropriate for the target group.
The purpose of the analysis below on the pilot school surveys of Algeria, Libya and Morocco is to assess the extent and patterns of missing values and to identify problems in the design and content of the MEDSPAD questionnaire.
2.2 Item non-response
The questionnaire of the MEDSPAD pilot survey contains 46 (Algeria, Morocco) or 48 questions (Libya). Many questions however are split into sub-questions or have a table format in which the rows actually represent separate sub-questions. If we take these as separate questions the total number of questions varies from 190 (Morocco) to 191 (Algeria) and 196 (Libya). The questionnaire is designed in such a way that every respondent should answer each question; there are no instructions to skip questions on the basis of answers to preceding questions. Non-response is left blank in the survey data files (Algeria, Libya) or coded with a value that is labelled as “missing” (Algeria).
The average percentage of questions skipped by the respondents varies from 10.5% (Algeria) to 14.9% (Libya) and 17.2% (Morocco). In Morocco and Libya almost 50% and in Algeria almost 30% of the respondents skipped more than 10% of the questions; in Morocco 10% (Libya 8%, Algeria 5%) of the respondents skipped even more than 50% of the questions (Figure 3).
This level of item non-response should be considered very high as most drug use school surveys show less than 5% item non-response[1]. When non-response is very high, analysis of the items concerned will not give reliable results and researchers should reconsider or abandon the questions.
Item non-response can also imply bias in the survey results if the non-response is associated with respondent attributes or other characteristics of the sampling. We have tested this for gender and age of the pupils and for the schools participating in the survey.
The results, based on analysis of variances within and between groups, show that in Morocco and Libya boys skip more questions than girls; in Algeria it seems the opposite but the difference is not statistically significant (Table 1). In all countries older pupils skip more questions than younger ones, although in Libya pupils of over 17 skip less than 16 year olds (Table 2).
Figure 3.Distribution of % skipped questions
Table 1: % skipped (sub) questions by gender
|
Gender |
Mean |
N |
Std. Dev. |
Sig. |
|
|
ALGERIA |
Male |
9.1 |
154 |
13.4 |
n.s. |
|
Female |
11.2 |
276 |
15.4 |
||
|
LIBYA |
Male |
17.2 |
387 |
21.2 |
0.002 |
|
Female |
13.4 |
592 |
16.7 |
||
|
MOROCCO |
Male |
21.5 |
159 |
22.6 |
0.000 |
|
Female |
11.9 |
145 |
16.2 |
Table 2: % skipped (sub) question by age
|
Age |
Mean |
N |
Std. Dev. |
Sig. |
|
|
ALGERIA |
7.5 |
109 |
11.0 |
0.000 |
|
|
15 |
7.9 |
125 |
11.6 |
||
|
16 |
12.6 |
107 |
15.8 |
||
|
17 + |
15.3 |
87 |
19.5 |
||
|
LIBYA |
< 15 |
11.9 |
345 |
14.0 |
0.000 |
|
15 |
15.0 |
386 |
19.5 |
||
|
16 |
22.3 |
100 |
25.3 |
||
|
17 + |
17.3 |
82 |
20.8 |
||
|
MOROCCO |
< 15 |
7.2 |
38 |
10.1 |
0.000 |
|
15 |
11.2 |
62 |
15.3 |
||
|
16 |
15.6 |
68 |
19.3 |
||
|
17 + |
22.0 |
129 |
22.6 |
At the level of individual schools item non-response varies from 3% to 26% in Algeria and from 9% to 27% in Libya; the differences are statistically significant (Table 3). This implies that the setting (school) of the survey is a key factor for the non-response rates. For Morocco this relation could not be tested because the schools in which the survey took place have not been recorded in the data file.
Table 3: % skipped (sub) questions per school
|
School |
Mean |
N |
Std. Dev. |
Sig. |
|
|
ALGERIA |
Bordj Menaiel |
10.5 |
72 |
10.9 |
0.000 |
|
Boumerdes |
10.7 |
67 |
14.1 |
||
|
Cap Djinet |
6.5 |
68 |
11.4 |
||
|
Corso |
7.4 |
77 |
12.6 |
||
|
Ouled Moussa |
3.0 |
77 |
3.4 |
||
|
Sidi Daoued |
25.9 |
69 |
20.1 |
||
|
LIBYA |
School 1 |
17.6 |
121 |
20.1 |
0.000 |
|
School 2 |
26.6 |
85 |
29.3 |
||
|
School 3 |
13.0 |
138 |
16.7 |
||
|
School 4 |
11.8 |
112 |
15.5 |
||
|
School 5 |
14.7 |
157 |
19.8 |
||
|
School 6 |
9.2 |
116 |
9.6 |
||
|
School 7 |
13.7 |
126 |
14.9 |
||
|
School 8 |
16.0 |
138 |
18.1 |
We have also tested if item non-response relates to the type of question format. The results show that in general table formats with many sub-questions have higher non-response scores than single questions, in particular on the second and consecutive sub-questions (Table 4). This applies to all pilot surveys, although the differences are less prominent in the Algerian survey.
A complete overview of the non-response per question is presented in Annex 1, which also shows that the Algerian pilot survey on almost all questions has less item non-response than the Libyan survey, whereas the Moroccan survey in most cases has the highest non-response rates. At the same time the overview reveals that in general in all pilot surveys high non-responses are found for the same questions, which confirms the suggestion that non-response is related to the type of questions.
Table 4: % skipped questions by type of question format
|
ALGERIA |
LIBYA |
MOROCCO |
||
|
Single questions |
6.2 |
7.6 |
6.6 |
|
|
Table format questions (average) |
11.2 |
16.2 |
19.1 |
|
|
8.4 |
8.9 |
10.0 |
||
|
Consecutive sub-questions |
11.6 |
17.1 |
20.2 |
|
Analysis of the response patterns in table format questions shows that if skipping occurs, the common patterns are to complete only the first sub-question, to halt somewhere halfway down the table or to skip everything, which suggests that the structure of these table formats is not always properly understood or explained in the completion instructions.
In the case of table format questions that ask for life-time, last year and last month prevalence of substance use, skipping might be caused by the fact that a respondent considers asking for last year and last month prevalence obsolete when he already has already stated that he has never used the substance. This assumption can then be used to impute the missing data (see below). The response patterns of table format questions are presented in Annex 2.
2.3 Declared missing values
The data files that we used for the analysis had already been corrected for possible data entry errors. About one-third of all sub-questions have a pre-coded answer category that corresponds to “don’t know” and in most analyses this category would be treated as a missing value.
Combining item non-response and “don’t know” answers substantially increases the percentages of missing values for Q9 (drinking alcohol at 25) and the sub-questions of Q32 (disapprovals), Q33 (risk perceptions) and Q34 (perceived availability of drugs). These combined percentages are specified in Annex 1.
3. IMPUTATION OF MISSING VALUES
As mentioned before we observed many missing values in sub-questions that ask for last year and last month prevalence when the respondent has already denied lifetime prevalence in the preceding sub-question. In these cases we can assume that the respondent has skipped the last year and last month questions because he thought that these didn’t apply to him. There are several other questions about substance use, in particular related to alcohol use, that in a similar way seem obsolete to the respondent when he has already stated that he didn’t use the substance.
This type of item non-response can be corrected afterwards by imputing the missing values on the basis of the logical argument that once the use of a substance has been denied, skipping of any consecutive question, which phrasing refers to actual use of that substance, should be interpreted as confirming the previous denial of use.
Implementing these imputations on (sub)questions, which implicitly or explicitly require reconfirmation of previous answers, indeed results in a substantial reduction of missing values, in particular in the Libyan and Moroccan pilot surveys (Table 5). This suggests that either the instructions to the respondents should be improved or that the design of these questions should be reconsidered. The effects of the imputations on item non-response of individual (sub)questions are included in the overview of Annex 1.
Table 5: Item non-response before and after imputation of missing values
|
Number of imputed questions |
Average % of item non-response |
||
|
before imputation |
after imputation |
||
|
ALGERIA |
38 |
9.7 |
5.6 |
|
LIBYA |
48 |
11.6 |
4.0 |
|
MOROCCO |
39 |
15.1 |
5.7 |
4. VALIDITY
Validity refers to the extent to which the answers to the questions of a survey could be true. Large numbers of item non-response might indicate validity problems and the results of the missing values analysis above suggest that such problems do exist in the pilot surveys.
The MEDSPAD questionnaire contains some questions that directly attempt to assess validity. Two questions ask for the respondent’s honesty with regard to self-reported cannabis (Q44) and heroin (Q45) use. As the answer patterns on Q44 and Q45 are very similar[2], we present only results on Q44 (honesty cannabis). Four table format questions, Q21 (having heard of), Q26 (lifetime prevalence), Q27 (age of onset) and Q28 (first drug), include a sub-question about a non-existent drug, which may indicate exaggeration of drug use.
Honesty
The results with regard to honesty are not very positive. In Algeria and Morocco 32% and in Libya 46% of all respondents state that they would not have reported – probably not or definitively not – cannabis use if they actually would have used it. Considering also the relative high non-response rate on Q44 (see Annex 1) we can hardly expect that the pilot surveys have produced valid cannabis prevalence rates and the same applies to heroin prevalence.
In most countries girls are more honest than boys (Table 6) and younger pupils are more honest than older ones (Error! Reference source not found.) and these differences are statistically significant. Reported dishonesty of course does not mean that respondents have concealed actual drug use, but indicates that the questionnaire was not adequate to measure such use. Extending the survey population to older age groups, which is advocated by the research teams in all countries, might increase the number of respondents that actually have experienced some drug use, but the pilot results suggest that this at the same time would further decrease the validity of survey outcomes.
Table 6: Self-reported honesty regarding cannabis use in % of the response per gender
|
Already admitted |
Definitive YES |
Probably YES |
Probably NO |
Definitive NO |
Total |
||
|
ALGERIA |
Male |
14.7 |
46.0 |
8.7 |
8.7 |
22.0 |
100 |
|
Female |
8.5 |
50.8 |
8.5 |
1.7 |
30.5 |
100 |
|
|
Total |
10.9 |
49.0 |
8.5 |
4.4 |
27.2 |
100 |
|
|
LIBYA |
Male |
6.7 |
35.9 |
6.3 |
4.1 |
47.0 |
100 |
|
Female |
2.2 |
46.2 |
8.1 |
3.4 |
40.0 |
100 |
|
|
Total |
4.0 |
42.2 |
7.4 |
3.7 |
42.7 |
100 |
|
|
MOROCCO |
Male |
19.4 |
47.8 |
3.0 |
6.7 |
23.1 |
100 |
|
Female |
7.1 |
51.6 |
6.3 |
5.6 |
29.4 |
100 |
|
|
Total |
13.5 |
49.6 |
4.6 |
6.2 |
26.2 |
100 |
References to Relevin
Despite the fact that 16% of the respondents in Algeria and Morocco and 8% in Libya claim to have heard of the non-existing drug Relevin listed in Q21, only one or two in each pilot survey report actual lifetime use. This dummy test drug therefore does not reveal any further validity problems.
5. RELIABILITY
Reliability is a necessary, though not sufficient condition for validity and usually refers to the extent to which repeated measurements under the same conditions yield the same results. To assess the reliability of the results of a single survey a more practical way is to check for internal consistency of responses to different questions within the same questionnaire.
The MEDSPAD questionnaire has some build-in options for such consistency checks. For the purpose of this report the following have been explored:
- Life-time use of substances and age of first use of those substances (Algeria, Morocco; in Libya age of first use has not been recorded);
- Life-time, last year and last month prevalence of alcohol, cannabis and inhalants (Algeria, Morocco) or all substances (Libya);
- Honesty of responses on cannabis use and actual reported use of cannabis.
For most substances the Algerian and Moroccan pilot surveys (in Libya age of first use has not been recorded) the rates of inconsistency between reported life-time use (Q6 smoking, Q8a alcohol, Q23a cannabis, Q24a inhalants and Q26 for other drugs) and age of first use (Q27 for all substances) are very high, both for boys and girls (Table 7). In several cases inconsistent answers, i.e. admitting use in one question but denying it in the other, outnumber the consistent answers. The total numbers of users may be small, but given the observed inconsistencies the reported prevalences can hardly be considered reliable.
To some extent these inconsistencies may be related to the phrasing of the questions concerned, as there are subtle differences –at least in the original English or French versions- between the prevalence and the age of first use questions in wording and semantic meaning or interpretation. These differences may have been accentuated in the Arab version of the questionnaire.
Table 7: Inconsistencies between life-time prevalence of substance use and reported age of first use
|
Boys |
Girls |
Total |
|||||||
|
Country / substance |
Valid N |
Use reported |
% in- consis-tent |
Valid N |
Use reported |
% in- consis-tent |
Valid N |
Use reported |
% in- consis-tent |
|
ALGERIA |
|||||||||
|
Tobacco |
152 |
72 |
27.8 |
258 |
4 |
50.0 |
410 |
76 |
28.9 |
|
Alcohol |
151 |
8 |
0.0 |
263 |
2 |
50.0 |
414 |
10 |
10.0 |
|
Cannabis |
148 |
17 |
35.3 |
260 |
4 |
25.0 |
408 |
21 |
33.3 |
|
Inhalants |
147 |
16 |
87.5 |
259 |
6 |
66.7 |
406 |
22 |
81.8 |
|
Tranquillisers |
147 |
9 |
55.6 |
263 |
8 |
50.0 |
410 |
17 |
52.9 |
|
Amphetamines |
146 |
10 |
80.0 |
248 |
5 |
60.0 |
394 |
15 |
73.3 |
|
LSD |
144 |
3 |
33.3 |
248 |
2 |
0.0 |
392 |
5 |
20.0 |
|
Crack |
145 |
2 |
50.0 |
248 |
2 |
0.0 |
393 |
4 |
25.0 |
|
Cocaine |
145 |
1 |
100.0 |
248 |
2 |
0.0 |
393 |
3 |
33.3 |
|
Relevin |
145 |
0 |
248 |
2 |
0.0 |
393 |
2 |
0.0 |
|
|
Heroin |
143 |
1 |
0.0 |
247 |
2 |
0.0 |
390 |
3 |
0.0 |
|
Ecstasy |
145 |
0 |
248 |
2 |
0.0 |
393 |
2 |
0.0 |
|
|
MOROCCO |
|||||||||
|
Tobacco |
157 |
66 |
30.3 |
143 |
5 |
40.0 |
300 |
71 |
31.0 |
|
Alcohol |
154 |
38 |
34.2 |
144 |
3 |
33.3 |
298 |
41 |
34.1 |
|
Cannabis |
155 |
30 |
33.3 |
144 |
4 |
50.0 |
299 |
34 |
35.3 |
|
Inhalants |
152 |
19 |
57.9 |
144 |
4 |
100.0 |
296 |
23 |
65.2 |
|
Tranquillisers |
151 |
15 |
66.7 |
141 |
15 |
86.7 |
292 |
30 |
76.7 |
|
Amphetamines |
136 |
8 |
37.5 |
138 |
6 |
66.7 |
274 |
14 |
50.0 |
|
LSD |
132 |
4 |
75.0 |
137 |
0 |
269 |
4 |
75.0 |
|
|
Crack |
132 |
3 |
100.0 |
137 |
0 |
269 |
3 |
100.0 |
|
|
Cocaine |
131 |
2 |
50.0 |
137 |
1 |
100.0 |
268 |
3 |
66.7 |
|
Relevin |
132 |
3 |
66.7 |
137 |
0 |
269 |
3 |
66.7 |
|
|
Heroin |
131 |
1 |
100.0 |
137 |
0 |
268 |
1 |
100.0 |
|
|
Ecstasy |
132 |
2 |
50.0 |
137 |
0 |
269 |
2 |
50.0 |
|
Rates of inconsistent answers on self-reported life-time, last year and last month prevalences for alcohol, cannabis and inhalants (Algeria, Morocco) or all substances covered in the questionnaire (Libya) are also very high (Table 8). Here inconsistencies can occur either by reporting last month or last year use after having denied last year or life-time use, or by reporting more frequent use in last month or last year than has been reported for last year or life-time use. Again total numbers of users are small, but the prevalences reported are far from consistent and therefore not reliable. In this case inconsistencies cannot be attributed to the phrasing of the questions
Table 8: Inconsistencies between reported life-time, last year and last month prevalences
|
Boys |
Girls |
Total |
|||||||
|
Country / substance |
Valid N |
Use reported |
% in- consis-tent |
Valid N |
Use reported |
% in- consis-tent |
Valid N |
Use reported |
% in- consis-tent |
|
ALGERIA |
|||||||||
|
Alcohol |
149 |
9 |
44.4 |
255 |
1 |
100.0 |
404 |
10 |
50.0 |
|
Cannabis |
148 |
15 |
26.7 |
257 |
3 |
33.3 |
405 |
18 |
27.8 |
|
Inhalants |
146 |
16 |
6.3 |
258 |
6 |
16.7 |
404 |
22 |
9.1 |
|
LIBYA |
|||||||||
|
Alcohol |
371 |
13 |
23.1 |
568 |
3 |
66.7 |
939 |
16 |
31.3 |
|
Cannabis |
380 |
12 |
16.7 |
585 |
9 |
11.1 |
965 |
21 |
14.3 |
|
Inhalants |
377 |
9 |
22.2 |
584 |
1 |
0.0 |
961 |
10 |
20.0 |
|
Tranquillisers |
380 |
10 |
50.0 |
584 |
9 |
44.4 |
964 |
19 |
47.4 |
|
amphetamines |
353 |
11 |
45.5 |
559 |
6 |
66.7 |
912 |
17 |
52.9 |
|
LSD |
353 |
5 |
40.0 |
556 |
0 |
909 |
5 |
40.0 |
|
|
Crack |
352 |
3 |
33.3 |
556 |
0 |
908 |
3 |
33.3 |
|
|
Cocaine |
352 |
3 |
100.0 |
556 |
0 |
908 |
3 |
100.0 |
|
|
Relevin |
352 |
4 |
75.0 |
555 |
0 |
907 |
4 |
75.0 |
|
|
Heroin |
353 |
3 |
66.7 |
555 |
0 |
908 |
3 |
66.7 |
|
|
ecstasy |
352 |
4 |
75.0 |
555 |
0 |
907 |
4 |
75.0 |
|
|
Drug injecting |
353 |
5 |
80.0 |
555 |
1 |
0.0 |
908 |
6 |
66.7 |
|
Alcohol+pills |
380 |
5 |
40.0 |
590 |
0 |
970 |
5 |
40.0 |
|
|
Alcoh.cannabis |
382 |
5 |
40.0 |
591 |
2 |
50.0 |
973 |
7 |
42.9 |
|
Hasj+marihuana |
353 |
6 |
50.0 |
555 |
1 |
100.0 |
908 |
7 |
57.1 |
|
MOROCCO |
|||||||||
|
Alcohol |
156 |
35 |
34.3 |
143 |
3 |
33.3 |
299 |
38 |
34.2 |
|
Cannabis |
156 |
31 |
25.8 |
143 |
3 |
0.0 |
299 |
34 |
23.5 |
|
Inhalants |
153 |
21 |
47.6 |
144 |
4 |
0.0 |
297 |
25 |
40.0 |
Finally, comparing the responses on the honesty question Q44 about cannabis use shows that most respondents who declare that they “already said to have used cannabis” in fact previously had denied the use of cannabis in the prevalence question Q23a (Table 9). The reverse could be observed in Libya, where 6 out of 14 self-reported users declare that they “definitively would not have said so if they had used cannabis”.
Table 9: Inconsistencies between self-reported cannabis use (Q23) and honesty with regard to cannabis use *Q44).
|
Boys |
Girls |
Total |
|||||||
|
Country / substance |
Valid N |
Use reported |
% in- consis-tent |
Valid N |
Use reported |
% in- consis-tent |
Valid N |
Use reported |
% in- consis-tent |
|
ALGERIA |
144 |
22 |
220 |
20 |
364 |
42 |
85.0 |
||
|
LIBYA |
313 |
21 |
488 |
11 |
801 |
32 |
90.6 |
||
|
MOROCCO |
131 |
26 |
125 |
9 |
256 |
35 |
46.9 |
||
6. CONCLUSIONS
· The analyses show that the results of the MEDSPAD pilot surveys in Algeria, Libya and Morocco cannot be considered valid or reliable. Without substantial changes in methods and instruments a survey based on the European ESPAD model will not produce valid and reliable prevalence estimates for these countries. Considering the similarities in the problems encountered in all pilot countries, this might apply to all Arab countries.
· Some of the validity and reliability problems might be solved by improving the design of the questionnaire, for example by reducing the number of table format questions, or by providing better instructions on how to complete the questions.
· It is likely that validity and reliability problems relate to the content of the questionnaire itself. Pupils are not familiar with the situation of being subjects of a survey by means of a questionnaire with pre-coded answer categories and pupils are not used to the idea of reporting honestly about issues that are considered taboo or forbidden. This might be addressed by better preparation and instruction prior to administering the questionnaire, but it could also imply that the instrument is not appropriate to assess drug use prevalence in the countries involved.
· The over-representation of females in the response in Algeria and Libya might indicate that the reality of school participation at the age of 15-16 years differs from the expected situation based on the mandatory age until pupils have to attend school. This affects the basic assumption of the project that the target group chosen will more or less cover the general population of 15-16 year olds.
ANNEX 1: ITEM NON-RESPONSE AND MISSING VALUES in % PER (SUB)QUESTION
The column “item non-response + declared missing values” in the table below only presents figures if declared missing values exist as pre-coded categories. The column “item non-response after imputation” presents only figures if imputations have been made.
|
< 5% |
|
|
|
5-15% |
|
15-30% |
|
|
> 30% |
|
(Sub) question |
Label |
ALGERIA |
LIBYA |
MOROCCO |
||||||
|
Item non-response |
Item non-response + declared missing values |
Item non-response after imputation |
Item non-response |
Item non-response + declared missing values |
Item non-response after imputation |
Item non-response |
Item non-response + declared missing values |
Item non-response after imputation |
||
|
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
||
|
Q1 |
Sex |
0.0 |
1.5 |
4.7 |
||||||
|
Q2 |
Age |
0.5 |
8.1 |
6.9 |
||||||
|
Q3 |
Doing things |
|||||||||
|
Q3a |
Doing ride |
4.2 |
5.4 |
2.8 |
||||||
|
Q3b |
Doing games |
4.4 |
7.7 |
7.5 |
||||||
|
Q3c |
Doing sport |
6.5 |
9.0 |
6.3 |
||||||
|
Q3d |
Doing read |
3.7 |
8.9 |
6.3 |
||||||
|
Q3e |
Doing party |
6.0 |
8.6 |
7.8 |
||||||
|
Q3f |
Doing other |
72.6 |
30.8 |
6.6 |
||||||
|
Q4 |
Missing school |
|||||||||
|
Q4a |
Absent illness |
9.3 |
14.8 |
12.9 |
||||||
|
Q4b |
Absent skipped |
41.4 |
43.0 |
42.0 |
||||||
|
Q4c |
Absent other |
71.2 |
35.1 |
29.8 |
||||||
|
Q5 |
Grade |
1.2 |
9.2 |
4.7 |
||||||
|
Q6 |
LTF smoke |
6.0 |
3.1 |
1.6 |
||||||
|
Q7 |
LMF smoke |
3.3 |
2.1 |
4.9 |
2.0 |
3.1 |
1.9 |
|||
|
Q8 |
Prevalence alcohol |
|||||||||
|
Q8a |
LTF alcohol |
6.7 |
4.3 |
4.1 |
||||||
|
Q8b |
LYF alcohol |
16.5 |
6.7 |
32.3 |
5.0 |
29.2 |
6.0 |
|||
|
Q8c |
LMF alcohol |
17.4 |
7.7 |
32.4 |
5.0 |
28.5 |
6.0 |
|||
|
Q9 |
Drink 25 |
5.8 |
17.7 |
3.6 |
13.9 |
6.0 |
21.9 |
|||
|
Q10 |
Last month prevalence alcoholic drinks |
|||||||||
|
Q10a |
LMF beer |
10.0 |
6.0 |
6.7 |
2.1 |
5.3 |
2.8 |
|||
|
Q10b |
LMF wine |
12.8 |
8.8 |
15.3 |
10.7 |
16.6 |
14.1 |
|||
|
Q10c |
LMF spirits |
12.8 |
8.8 |
14.5 |
9.9 |
16.3 |
13.8 |
|||
|
Q11 |
Last=beer |
4.4 |
3.7 |
3.7 |
0.9 |
4.1 |
1.9 |
|||
|
Q13 |
Last=wine |
4.7 |
4.0 |
4.2 |
1.1 |
3.1 |
0.9 |
|||
|
Q14 |
Last=spirits |
4.7 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
1.4 |
4.1 |
1.3 |
|||
|
Q15 |
Where drink |
4.7 |
3.7 |
2.3 |
0.7 |
2.8 |
1.3 |
|||
|
Q16 |
LMF 5 drinks |
4.7 |
0.0 |
2.4 |
0.3 |
3.1 |
0.3 |
|||
|
Q17 |
Perceived effects of alcohol |
|||||||||
|
Q17a |
Relaxed |
25.6 |
42.3 |
37.6 |
||||||
|
Q17b |
Police |
21.6 |
44.2 |
37.9 |
||||||
|
Q17c |
Health |
19.1 |
37.1 |
29.5 |
||||||
|
Q17d |
Happy |
26.7 |
46.2 |
40.1 |
||||||
|
Q17e |
Forget |
28.8 |
46.5 |
40.8 |
||||||
|
Q17f |
No stop |
29.1 |
47.0 |
40.8 |
||||||
|
Q17g |
Hangover |
26.0 |
44.7 |
38.6 |
||||||
|
Q17h |
Friendly |
28.6 |
47.7 |
42.3 |
||||||
|
Q17i |
Regret |
25.6 |
45.9 |
39.2 |
||||||
|
Q17j |
Fun |
27.9 |
40.7 |
35.1 |
||||||
|
Q17k |
Sick |
24.2 |
47.0 |
41.4 |
||||||
|
Q17l |
Guilty |
19.8 |
44.0 |
37.6 |
||||||
|
Q18 |
Prevalence of drunkenness |
|||||||||
|
Q18a |
LTF drunk |
8.1 |
4.9 |
5.0 |
0.7 |
7.5 |
3.8 |
|||
|
Q18b |
LYF drunk |
15.6 |
4.9 |
29.1 |
0.9 |
32.0 |
5.0 |
|||
|
Q18c |
LMF drunk |
15.3 |
4.4 |
29.1 |
0.8 |
32.0 |
4.7 |
|||
|
Q19 |
How drunk |
5.6 |
9.3 [3] |
24.3 |
6.9 |
|||||
|
Q20 |
Amount drunk |
5.6 |
3.5 |
3.0 |
0.2 |
5.6 |
1.9 |
|||
|
Q21 |
Having heard of drugs |
|||||||||
|
Q21a |
Heard tranq. |
35.3 |
16.6 |
35.7 |
||||||
|
Q21b |
Heard cannabis |
6.5 |
12.0 |
12.9 |
||||||
|
Q21c |
Heard LSD |
18.6 |
20.0 |
35.7 |
||||||
|
Q21d |
Heard amphet. |
21.9 |
21.0 |
38.9 |
||||||
|
Q21e |
Heard crack |
20.5 |
20.5 |
36.7 |
||||||
|
Q21f |
Heard cocaine |
7.9 |
17.1 |
19.4 |
||||||
|
Q21g |
Heard relevin |
20.5 |
19.9 |
37.9 |
||||||
|
Q21h |
Heard heroin |
9.8 |
13.8 |
26.3 |
||||||
|
Q21i |
Heard ecstasy |
20.7 |
20.9 |
37.3 |
||||||
|
Q21j |
Heard methad. |
20.9 |
20.1 |
37.6 |
||||||
|
Q22 |
Want try drug |
9.1 |
4.6 |
4.7 |
||||||
|
Q23 |
Prevalence cannabis |
|||||||||
|
Q23a |
LTF cannabis |
6.7 |
1.6 |
3.8 |
||||||
|
Q23b |
LYF cannabis |
12.3 |
6.0 |
24.4 |
1.8 |
31.0 |
6.6 |
|||
|
Q23c |
LMF cannabis |
13.0 |
6.7 |
24.6 |
1.9 |
30.4 |
5.6 |
|||
|
Q24 |
Prevalence sniffing |
|||||||||
|
Q24a |
LTF sniff |
6.0 |
1.8 |
3.4 |
||||||
|
Q24b |
LYF sniff |
13.7 |
7.4 |
25.9 |
2.2 |
30.7 |
4.7 |
|||
|
Q24c |
LMF sniff |
13.7 |
7.4 |
25.7 |
2.2 |
30.4 |
4.1 |
|||
|
Q25 |
Prescr. tranq. |
2.8 |
3.2 |
1.9 |
||||||
|
Q26 |
Lifetime prevalence of drugs |
|||||||||
|
Q26a |
LTF tranq. |
5.8 |
3.5 |
6.0 |
||||||
|
Q26b |
LTF amphet. |
9.1 |
9.0 |
12.5 |
||||||
|
Q26c |
LTF LSD |
9.5 |
9.0 |
13.8 |
||||||
|
Q26d |
LTF crack |
9.3 |
9.0 |
13.5 |
||||||
|
Q26e |
LTF cocaine |
9.3 |
9.0 |
13.8 |
||||||
|
Q26f |
LTF relevin |
9.3 |
9.1 |
13.5 |
||||||
|
Q26g |
LTF heroin |
9.3 |
9.3 |
13.5 |
||||||
|
Q26i |
LTF ecstasy |
9.3 |
9.6 |
13.5 |
||||||
|
Q26j |
LTF injecting |
9.5 |
9.4 |
13.8 |
||||||
|
Q26k |
LTF alc.+pills |
9.5 |
5.3 |
9.5 |
1.2 |
13.8 |
4.1 |
|||
|
Q26l |
LTF alc.+cann. |
9.5 |
3.5 |
9.1 |
0.7 |
11.9 |
1.6 |
|||
|
Q26m |
LTF steroids |
9.5 |
||||||||
|
Q26n |
LTF hasj+mari. |
9.1 |
||||||||
|
Q26_2 |
Last month prevalence of drugs (LIBYA only) |
|||||||||
|
Q26_2a |
LMF tranq. |
4.9 |
1.8 |
|||||||
|
Q26_2b |
LMF amphet. |
10.4 |
6.9 |
|||||||
|
Q26_2c |
LMF LSD |
10.5 |
7.1 |
|||||||
|
Q26_2d |
LMF crack |
10.9 |
7.2 |
|||||||
|
Q26_2e |
LMF cocaine |
10.6 |
7.2 |
|||||||
|
Q26_2f |
LMF relevin |
10.6 |
7.3 |
|||||||
|
Q26_2g |
LMF heroin |
10.4 |
7.3 |
|||||||
|
Q26_2i |
LMF ecstasy |
10.5 |
7.4 |
|||||||
|
Q26_2j |
LMF injecting |
10.7 |
7.3 |
|||||||
|
Q26_2k |
LMF alc.+pills |
10.5 |
1.0 |
|||||||
|
Q26_2l |
LMF alc.+cann. |
10.4 |
0.7 |
|||||||
|
Q26_2n |
LMF hasj+mari. |
10.4 |
7.4 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3 |
Last year prevalence of drugs (LIBYA only) |
|||||||||
|
Q26_3a |
LYF tranq. |
5.0 |
2.0 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3b |
LYF amphet. |
10.1 |
7.2 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3c |
Lyf lsd |
10.2 |
7.2 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3d |
LYF crack |
10.3 |
7.3 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3e |
LYF cocaine |
10.4 |
7.3 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3f |
LYF relevin |
10.4 |
7.4 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3g |
LYF heroin |
10.6 |
7.5 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3i |
LYF ecstasy |
10.3 |
7.5 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3j |
LYF injecting |
10.3 |
7.4 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3k |
LYF alc.+pills |
10.7 |
1.0 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3l |
LYF alc.+cann. |
10.8 |
0.7 |
|||||||
|
Q26_3n |
LYF hasj+mari. |
10.7 |
7.6 |
|||||||
|
Q27 |
Age of first use substances |
|||||||||
|
Q27a |
Age beer |
5.1 |
4.0 |
6.9 |
3.4 |
|||||
|
Q27b |
Age wine |
10.2 |
5.8 |
14.1 |
4.7 |
|||||
|
Q27c |
Age spirits |
10.5 |
5.8 |
15.0 |
4.4 |
|||||
|
Q27d |
Age drunk |
10.2 |
3.7 |
14.1 |
3.8 |
|||||
|
Q27e |
Age first cig |
9.8 |
5.1 |
13.2 |
6.0 |
|||||
|
Q27f |
Age day smoke |
10.7 |
16.0 |
|||||||
|
Q27g |
Age amphet. |
10.9 |
8.8 |
15.4 |
11.0 |
|||||
|
Q27h |
Age tranq. |
10.5 |
4.7 |
15.4 |
5.3 |
|||||
|
Q27i |
Age cannabis |
10.7 |
5.6 |
16.9 |
5.0 |
|||||
|
Q27j |
Age LSD |
10.5 |
17.6 |
|||||||
|
Q27k |
Age crack |
10.2 |
8.6 |
16.9 |
11.3 |
|||||
|
Q27l |
Age cocaine |
10.2 |
8.6 |
17.2 |
11.6 |
|||||
|
Q27m |
Age relevin |
10.5 |
8.6 |
17.2 |
11.6 |
|||||
|
Q27n |
Age ecstasy |
10.7 |
8.6 |
17.2 |
11.6 |
|||||
|
Q27o |
Age heroin |
17.2 |
11.6 |
|||||||
|
Q27p |
Age sniff |
10.9 |
5.8 |
16.9 |
4.4 |
|||||
|
Q27q |
Age steroids |
10.5 |
8.6 |
20.7 |
20.7 |
|||||
|
Q28 |
First drug |
4.4 |
4.7 |
3.0 |
2.1 |
2.3 |
0.4 |
5.3 |
6.6 |
2.2 |
|
Q29 |
How obtained |
5.3 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
0.4 |
5.3 |
1.3 |
|||
|
Q30 |
Reason taking |
5.1 |
3.0 |
2.5 |
0.5 |
3.4 |
1.3 |
|||
|
Q31 |
Easy buy can. |
5.3 |
3.7 |
6.9 |
||||||
|
Q32 |
Disapproval substance use |
|||||||||
|
Q32a |
Smoke occas. |
2.6 |
8.6 |
6.0 |
16.0 |
4.7 |
11.9 |
|||
|
Q32b |
Smoke 10 |
3.7 |
6.7 |
11.8 |
19.1 |
13.8 |
16.9 |
|||
|
Q32c |
Drink few year |
2.8 |
8.1 |
11.7 |
19.3 |
12.9 |
16.6 |
|||
|
Q32d |
Drink 1-2 week |
12.0 |
19.3 |
16.6 |
20.1 |
|||||
|
Q32e |
Drunk once wk |
2.8 |
6.7 |
12.1 |
20.0 |
16.0 |
18.5 |
|||
|
Q32f |
Cannabis try |
3.5 |
7.9 |
12.0 |
19.6 |
16.0 |
19.4 |
|||
|
Q32g |
Cannabis occ. |
2.8 |
7.9 |
12.5 |
19.5 |
16.9 |
19.7 |
|||
|
Q32h |
Cannabis reg. |
2.8 |
8.8 |
12.1 |
19.5 |
16.0 |
19.1 |
|||
|
Q32i |
LSD try |
3.5 |
10.2 |
12.8 |
20.2 |
17.6 |
20.4 |
|||
|
Q32j |
Heroin try |
4.2 |
10.9 |
12.2 |
19.6 |
17.6 |
21.0 |
|||
|
Q32k |
Tranquill. try |
3.3 |
12.1 |
12.4 |
20.7 |
18.2 |
21.3 |
|||
|
Q32l |
Amphet. Try |
3.7 |
10.0 |
12.2 |
20.0 |
16.6 |
19.4 |
|||
|
Q32m |
Crack try |
3.7 |
10.0 |
12.4 |
19.7 |
17.6 |
21.0 |
|||
|
Q32n |
Cocaine try |
3.7 |
8.6 |
12.3 |
19.4 |
17.6 |
20.4 |
|||
|
Q32o |
Ecstasy try |
4.4 |
10.9 |
12.3 |
19.7 |
17.2 |
20.4 |
|||
|
Q32p |
Sniff try |
4.0 |
10.7 |
12.3 |
19.7 |
16.9 |
19.7 |
|||
|
Q33 |
Risk perception substance use |
|||||||||
|
Q33a |
Smoke occas. |
1.4 |
12.3 |
7.9 |
35.5 |
4.7 |
31.3 |
|||
|
Q33b |
Smoke heavy |
2.3 |
10.0 |
13.0 |
36.6 |
10.7 |
25.7 |
|||
|
Q33c |
Drink 1-2 day |
2.6 |
14.4 |
13.7 |
39.5 |
11.6 |
26.0 |
|||
|
Q33d |
Drink 4-5 day |
3.3 |
15.1 |
13.9 |
39.1 |
12.5 |
27.9 |
|||
|
Q33e |
Drink 5 wk’end |
3.3 |
15.6 |
14.6 |
40.0 |
11.0 |
25.1 |
|||
|
Q33f |
Cannabis try |
3.3 |
17.9 |
13.6 |
40.5 |
11.6 |
30.7 |
|||
|
Q33g |
Cannabis occ. |
4.4 |
19.8 |
14.4 |
40.9 |
14.4 |
35.1 |
|||
|
Q33h |
Cannabis reg. |
4.0 |
18.6 |
13.9 |
39.5 |
14.4 |
31.0 |
|||
|
Q33i |
LSD try |
4.0 |
21.6 |
14.5 |
44.1 |
15.0 |
34.5 |
|||
|
Q33j |
LSD regular |
3.7 |
19.8 |
14.3 |
43.4 |
15.7 |
34.8 |
|||
|
Q33k |
Amphet. Try |
5.1 |
23.0 |
14.3 |
44.2 |
15.0 |
36.1 |
|||
|
Q33l |
Amphet. regular |
3.7 |
21.6 |
14.5 |
43.4 |
16.0 |
36.4 |
|||
|
Q33m |
Cocaine try |
4.0 |
21.6 |
14.2 |
43.1 |
15.0 |
32.9 |
|||
|
Q33n |
Cocaine regular |
4.9 |
21.4 |
14.3 |
42.2 |
14.7 |
32.6 |
|||
|
Q33o |
Ecstasy try |
8.1 |
24.4 |
14.0 |
43.6 |
15.4 |
35.4 |
|||
|
Q33p |
Ecstasy regular |
8.4 |
23.7 |
14.1 |
42.8 |
15.7 |
35.1 |
|||
|
Q33q |
Sniff try |
7.9 |
25.6 |
14.0 |
42.4 |
16.0 |
33.9 |
|||
|
Q33r |
Sniff regular |
8.4 |
27.9 |
14.0 |
42.5 |
14.7 |
33.5 |
|||
|
Q34 |
Perceived availability of substances |
|||||||||
|
Q34a |
Easy cigs |
5.1 |
14.4 |
10.6 |
21.6 |
8.8 |
27.0 |
|||
|
Q34b |
Easy beer |
7.4 |
20.7 |
15.8 |
27.6 |
13.5 |
30.1 |
|||
|
Q34c |
Easy wine |
8.1 |
23.5 |
16.2 |
28.5 |
15.7 |
34.2 |
|||
|
Q34d |
Easy spirits |
8.1 |
20.9 |
16.4 |
28.1 |
16.0 |
32.9 |
|||
|
Q34e |
Easy cannabis |
8.6 |
22.1 |
16.6 |
28.4 |
15.4 |
33.5 |
|||
|
Q34f |
Easy LSD |
9.3 |
24.9 |
16.5 |
29.2 |
16.3 |
37.0 |
|||
|
Q34g |
Easy amphet. |
8.4 |
24.7 |
16.9 |
29.6 |
17.2 |
39.5 |
|||
|
Q34h |
Easy tranquill. |
8.1 |
23.5 |
16.3 |
28.7 |
16.6 |
37.0 |
|||
|
Q34i |
Easy crack |
8.8 |
26.7 |
16.8 |
29.9 |
17.6 |
38.9 |
|||
|
Q34j |
Easy cocaine |
8.6 |
24.9 |
16.5 |
29.0 |
16.6 |
37.3 |
|||
|
Q34k |
Easy ecstasy |
8.8 |
25.8 |
16.5 |
29.6 |
17.9 |
39.5 |
|||
|
Q34l |
Easy heroin |
9.5 |
26.3 |
16.7 |
28.6 |
17.6 |
38.6 |
|||
|
Q34m |
Easy sniff |
8.4 |
22.6 |
16.5 |
28.9 |
16.9 |
35.4 |
|||
|
Q34n |
Easy steroids |
9.3 |
31.2 |
18.2 |
43.6 |
|||||
|
Q34o |
Easy home alc. |
8.4 |
28.1 |
16.4 |
28.2 |
16.6 |
39.2 |
|||
|
Q35 |
Substance use of friends |
|||||||||
|
Q35a |
Friends smoke |
2.8 |
4.9 |
3.1 |
||||||
|
Q35b |
Friends drink |
5.8 |
10.7 |
12.5 |
||||||
|
Q35c |
Friends drunk |
6.5 |
10.8 |
13.2 |
||||||
|
Q35d |
Friends cann. |
6.7 |
11.1 |
12.9 |
||||||
|
Q35e |
Friends LSD |
7.4 |
11.0 |
15.4 |
||||||
|
Q35f |
Friends amph. |
7.9 |
11.0 |
15.4 |
||||||
|
Q35g |
Friends tranq. |
7.0 |
11.0 |
16.0 |
||||||
|
Q35h |
Friends cocaine |
7.2 |
11.2 |
15.0 |
||||||
|
Q35i |
Friends ecstasy |
7.4 |
11.2 |
16.3 |
||||||
|
Q35j |
Friends heroin |
7.4 |
11.3 |
16.6 |
||||||
|
Q35k |
Friends sniff |
7.7 |
11.1 |
15.4 |
||||||
|
Q35l |
Friends alc/pills |
7.7 |
20.7 |
|||||||
|
Q35m |
Friends steroids |
7.4 |
||||||||
|
Q36 |
Problems due to alcohol or drugs (ALGERIA: due to alcohol only) |
|||||||||
|
Q36a |
Quarrel |
11.2 |
15.8 |
22.9 |
||||||
|
Q36b |
Fight |
16.3 |
21.4 |
29.8 |
||||||
|
Q36c |
Accident |
16.3 |
22.1 |
29.5 |
||||||
|
Q36d |
Loss |
16.5 |
21.8 |
30.4 |
||||||
|
Q36e |
Damage |
16.3 |
21.9 |
31.0 |
||||||
|
Q36f |
Probl. Parents |
16.5 |
22.1 |
30.7 |
||||||
|
Q36g |
Probl. Friends |
16.5 |
22.3 |
31.3 |
||||||
|
Q36h |
Probl. Teachers |
16.3 |
22.2 |
30.4 |
||||||
|
Q36i |
Poor perform |
16.3 |
22.7 |
30.7 |
||||||
|
Q36j |
Victim |
16.5 |
22.3 |
31.0 |
||||||
|
Q36k |
Police |
16.5 |
22.5 |
31.0 |
||||||
|
Q36l |
Hospital |
16.5 |
22.5 |
31.0 |
||||||
|
Q36m |
Unwanted sex |
16.3 |
22.5 |
31.0 |
||||||
|
Q36n |
Unsafe sex |
16.3 |
22.5 |
34.5 |
||||||
|
Q36o |
Drunk drive |
16.3 |
||||||||
|
Q37 |
Substance use by siblings |
|||||||||
|
Q37a |
Sibling smokes |
3.7 |
5.6 |
6.2 |
7.5 |
6.0 |
7.5 |
|||
|
Q37b |
Sibling drinks |
8.8 |
10.5 |
13.0 |
14.0 |
12.9 |
16.0 |
|||
|
Q37c |
Sibling drunk |
8.4 |
9.5 |
13.0 |
14.1 |
13.5 |
16.6 |
|||
|
Q37d |
Sibling cannabis |
9.1 |
10.5 |
13.5 |
14.3 |
13.5 |
16.3 |
|||
|
Q37e |
Sibling tranq. |
9.1 |
10.5 |
13.3 |
14.5 |
15.4 |
18.2 |
|||
|
Q37g |
Sibling medic. |
8.8 |
10.2 |
13.3 |
14.4 |
14.1 |
16.6 |
|||
|
Q37h |
Sibling heroin |
8.8 |
10.2 |
13.5 |
14.4 |
14.1 |
16.9 |
|||
|
Q37f |
Sibling ecstasy |
8.8 |
10.0 |
13.5 |
14.4 |
14.1 |
16.6 |
|||
|
Q37i |
Sibling cocaine |
9.1 |
10.2 |
13.4 |
14.4 |
14.1 |
16.9 |
|||
|
Q38 |
Educ. father |
2.6 |
6.7 |
9.9 |
21.0 |
6.9 |
11.6 |
|||
|
Q39 |
Educ. mother |
2.1 |
5.6 |
7.5 |
14.6 |
5.0 |
5.3 |
|||
|
Q40 |
Status family |
2.6 |
5.1 |
5.3 |
||||||
|
Q41 |
Household composition |
|||||||||
|
Q41a |
Type household |
3.0 |
7.4 |
3.4 |
||||||
|
Q41b |
Siblings? |
3.0 |
7.4 |
3.4 |
||||||
|
Q42 |
Satisfaction relationships |
|||||||||
|
Q42a |
Relation father |
1.4 |
6.2 |
3.1 |
||||||
|
Q42b |
Relation mother |
3.3 |
9.9 |
9.7 |
||||||
|
Q42d |
Relation sibling |
2.3 |
9.7 |
8.8 |
||||||
|
Q42c |
Relation friends |
2.6 |
10.5 |
8.5 |
||||||
|
Q43 |
Sat. Evening |
27.4 |
17.2 |
23.2 |
||||||
|
Q44 |
Honest cann. |
10.2 |
17.6 |
15.0 |
||||||
|
Q45 |
Honest heroin |
10.9 |
18.8 |
16.3 |
||||||
|
Q46a |
Money |
18.4 |
22.9 |
17.6 |
||||||
|
Q46b |
Money source |
16.0 |
11.8 |
10.0 |
||||||
ANNEX 2: PATTERNS OF ITEM NON-RESPONSE IN TABLE FORMAT QUESTIONS
Table 10: Non-response patterns in Q3 – doing things
Table 11: Non-response patterns in Q4 – Missing school
Table 12: Non-response patterns in Q8 – Prevalence of alcohol
Table 13: Non-response patterns in Q10 – Last month prevalence of alcoholic drinks
Table 14: Non-response patterns in Q17 - Perceived effects of alcohol drinking
Table 15: Non-response patterns in Q18 – Prevalence of being drunk
Table 16: Non-response patterns in Q21 – Having heard of certain drugs
Table 17: Non-response patterns in Q23 – Prevalence of cannabis
Table 18: Non-response patterns in Q24 – Prevalence of sniffing / inhaling
Table 19: Non-response patterns in Q26 – Lifetime prevalence of certain drugs
Table 20: Non-response patterns in Q26_2 - Last month prevalence of certain drugs (Libya only)
Table 21: Non-response patterns in Q26_3 - Last year prevalence of certain drugs (Libya only)
Table 22: Non-response patterns in Q27 – Age of first use of substances
Table 23: Non-response patterns in Q32 – Disapproval of substance use
Table 24: Non-response patterns in Q33 – Risk perception of substance use
Table 25: Non-response patterns in Q34 – Perceived availability of substances
Table 26: Non-response patterns in Q35 – Substance use by friends
Table 27: Non-response patterns in Q36 – Problems due to alcohol or drug use (Algeria: only due to alcohol use)
Table 28: Non-response patterns in Q37 – Substance use by siblings
Table 29: Non-response patterns in Q42 – Satisfaction with relationships
