02759nam 2200553Ia 450 991078623750332120230803025628.01-59332-705-6(CKB)2670000000341078(EBL)1128633(OCoLC)831120728(SSID)ssj0000856086(PQKBManifestationID)11440451(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000856086(PQKBWorkID)10804896(PQKB)11597078(MiAaPQ)EBC1128633(Au-PeEL)EBL1128633(CaPaEBR)ebr10677869(EXLCZ)99267000000034107820130211d2013 uy 0engur|n|---|||||txtccrEstimating drug use[electronic resource] the effect of sampling methods and policy implications /Janine KremlingEl Paso LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC20131 online resource (202 p.)Criminal justice: recent scholarshipDescription based upon print version of record.1-59332-519-3 Includes bibliographical references and index.List of tables -- List of figures -- Overview of the duf and adam program : understanding the problem -- Why is it important to study illicit drug use? -- DUF and ADAM program : criticism and transition from a the convenience to a probability sample -- Data description and analytical strategy -- Results of the equivalence analysis : assessing the impact of sampling procedures -- Discussion and conclusion -- Appendices -- References -- Index.Kremling uses data from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) and the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) programs to explore whether the drug estimates of DUF, using a non-probability sample, and the drug use estimates of ADAM, using a probability sample, yield different results. She finds that the drug use information in DUF and ADAM is not substantially different for marijuana, cocaine, and opiates for all sites analyzed together. Her main conclusion is that a probability sample does not produce results that are substantially different from a convenience sample. While a researcher can attempt toCriminal Justice: Recent ScholarshipDrug abuseUnited StatesResearchSubstance abuseUnited StatesResearchDrug abuseResearch.Substance abuseResearch.362.29/120973Kremling Janine1977-1495145MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910786237503321Estimating drug use3719149UNINA