2002 Texas School Survey of Substance Use

Texas School Survey
of Substance Use
2002
Methodology Report and Validity Analysis
For the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Prepared by
James A. Dyer, Ph.D.
Melissa Tackett-Gibson, Ph.D.
and
Kavita Jaswal
Public Policy Research Institute

Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-4476
- - 1
Introduction
The Public Policy Research Institute (PPRI), in conjunction with the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse
(TCADA), conducted the seventh statewide survey of drug and alcohol use among Texas elementary and secondary
students in the Spring of 2002. Originally implemented in 1988 as a component of a larger survey assessing substance
use among the state‟s general population, the school survey has since become an ongoing, independent project. District
surveys are offered every year with a statewide survey conducted every two years. The 2002 effort provides follow-up
data reflecting changes over the past fourteen years in grades four through twelve.
The Texas School Survey project has two primary objectives. First, it serves to inform state and local policy-makers
about the extent and nature of the substance use problem in Texas schools. Second, the statewide survey provides a
standard of comparison for districts conducting local assessments of drug and alcohol use.
The purpose of this document is to describe the methodology used to administer the 2002 Texas School Survey of
Substance Use. Following a brief introduction to the survey instrument itself, attention is then focused on sample
selection and survey administration procedures. Next, methods for data processing and quality control are described and
the report concludes with a review of standard error estimates.
Survey Instrument
Two versions of the 2002 Texas School Survey of Substance Use were developed and administered. The first was a six-
page questionnaire designed for students in grades seven through twelve. The second was a simplified three-page
instrument created for students in grades four through six. The elementary survey differs from the secondary survey in
that it has simplified language and some complex questions were omitted. Elementary students were asked about only
four types of substances including tobacco (cigarettes, snuff, and chewing tobacco), alcohol (beer, wine, wine coolers,
and liquor), inhalants, and marijuana. Secondary students were asked about the same substances, as well as a broader
range of illicit drugs including powdered cocaine, crack, hallucinogens, uppers, downers, steroids, ecstasy, Rohypnol, and
heroin. Other sets of questions on both the elementary and secondary instruments were designed to assess behavioral
correlates of substance use and students‟ perceptions of support available to help them cope with substance-related
problems.
The questionnaire was in a format that could be scanned optically, similar to that used for standardized testing. It was
designed for anonymous self-administration by students with the aid of a staff member to pass out the survey, read a
common set of instructions, monitor the class during survey administration, and collect the instruments after they are
completed. The survey instruments are included in Appendix A.
Survey Content
The 2002 Texas School Survey of Substance Use content remained the same as that of 2000. In 1998, items on the
elementary and secondary questionnaires were revised from those of previous years. The latter modifications, particularly
with regard to the secondary questionnaire, were implemented in order to increase accuracy of response and to reduce the
length and repetition of the questionnaires. Those revisions were made to ensure compatibility with previous survey data.
Survey Sample
The sample of students for the 2002 survey was designed to be a random sample of all public school students between the
fourth and twelfth grades in the state. In order to make administration practical, students were selected using a multi-
stage stratified sampling procedure. This involved sampling districts, schools within districts, and classrooms within
districts. All students in a sampled classroom were asked to participate in the survey.
The 2002 sample design replicated the design developed in 2000. In 2000, modifications were made to the sampling
design in order to increase the precision of survey results. This design took advantage of newly available software
- - 2
packages that easily provide estimates of standard errors of the estimators resulting from complex sample designs. These
computations were not possible prior to the arrival of these packages.
Selection of Districts
The primary analytic cluster was the school district since the approval needed to administer the survey had to be obtained
at that level. First, the districts were stratified according to how urban the counties were in which they were located.
Stratification along a variable deemed to be highly correlated with the characteristics of interest is a means of increasing
the precision of estimates in complex sampling designs. The strata were formed as follows. First, 28 border counties
formed a separate border stratum. Of the remaining counties, the most urban stratum involved counties with metropolitan
populations of 1,000,000 or more, the next stratum with those between 250,000 and 1,000,000, and the third stratum with
those metropolitan areas with less than 250,000. The remainder of the state constituted a final major stratum.
The strata were further subdivided by relative size of the districts, so that each stratum had a combination of large and
small districts. Due to their large size relative to other districts, a total of nine districts were sampled with a probability
of one. This means that these districts are always selected as part of the sample. They formed two of the substrata. The
strata are listed in Table 1.
Districts were selected for the state sample from the 11 strata, above, in the following manner. The nine districts that
formed strata 1-A and 2-A were included with probability one. From each of the remaining strata, excluding the border
stratum, a simple random sample of districts was selected. The districts in the border stratum were also selected with
probability one in that all districts constituting that stratum were invited to participate. The districts that were selected in
this manner are listed in Table 2.
If a non-probability one district refused to participate, it was replaced with another district selected at random from
within the stratum.
- - 3
TABLE 1. Distribution of Selected Districts by Urban Class Size
Stratum Group
1-A Large Urban Counties- 55,000 < enrollment (probability one districts)
1-B Large Urban Counties- 20,000 < enrollment < 55,000
1-C Large Urban Counties- 10,000 < enrollment <20,000
1-D Large Urban Counties- enrollment <10,000
2-A Medium Urban Counties- 20,000 < enrollment (probability one districts)
2-B Medium Urban Counties- enrollment <20,000
3-A Small Urban Counties- 10,000 < enrollment
3-B Small Urban Counties- enrollment <10,000
4-A Non-Urban Counties- 5,000 < enrollment
4-B Non-Urban Counties- enrollment <5,000
5-A Border (28 counties)
TABLE 2. State Sample by Strata

Original State Sample (n=180) Actual State Sample (n=78)
Stratum 1-A: District Name (rank) Stratum 1-A: District Name

Arlington (1) Arlington
Northside (2) Fort Worth
Cypress-Fairbanks (3) Houston
San Antonio (4) Northside
Dallas(5)
Houston (6)
Fort Worth (7)
Stratum 1-B: District Name (rank) Stratum 1-B: District Name

Conroe (1) Birdville
Richardson (2) Garland
Spring (3) Humble
Carrollton-Farmers Branch (4) Plano (alternate)
Birdville (5) Spring Branch (alternate)
Garland (6)
Irving (7)
Humble (8)
Katy (9)
Alief (10)
Spring-Branch (14) (alternate)
Plano (15) (alternate)
TABLE 2. State Sample by Strata (cont.)

Stratum 1-C: District Name (rank) Stratum 1-C: District Name
Lamar CISD (1) Duncanville
- - 4
South San Antonio (2) Edgewood
Grand Prairie (3) Grand Prairie
Mansfield (4)
Duncanville (5)
Edgewood (6)
Stratum 1-D: District Name (rank) Stratum 1-D: District Name
Anna (1) Castleberry

Farmersville (2) Ennis
Krum (3) Forney
Kendleton (4) Krum
Wylie (5) Pilot Point
Stafford MSD (6) Rockwall
Ennis (7)
Cleveland (8)
Lovejoy (9)
Rockwall (10)
Castleberry (11) (alternate)
Pilot Point (13) (alternate)
Forney (15) (alternate)
Beaumont (1) Austin

Round Rock (2) Beaumont
Austin (3) Round Rock
Corpus Christi (4)

Nederland (1) Del Valle
Granger (2) Georgetown
Lumberton (3) Granger
Gregory-Portland (4) Jarrell
Georgetown (5) Lumberton
Manor (6) Nederland
Port Aransas (7) Robstown
Flour Bluff (8)
Robstown (9) (alternate)
Del Valle (10) (alternate)
Jarrell (13) (alternate)

Pearland (1) Alvin

Ector County (2) Midland
Killeen (3) Pearland
Abilene (4) Tyler
Wichita Falls (5)
Midland (8) (alternate)
- - 5
Alvin (9) (alternate)
Tyler (12) (alternate)
Copperas Cove (1) Bartlett

Red Lick (2) Salado
Bartlett (3)
Oglesby (4)
Pine Tree (5)
Bushland (6)
Salado (9) (alternate)

Bastrop (1) Bastrop
Greenville (2) Corsicana
San Angelo (3) Granbury
Huntsville (4) Nacogdoches
Sherman (5) Plainview
Plainview (7) (alternate) San Angelo
Nacogdoches (9) (alternate) Sherman
Corsicana (12) (alternate)
Granbury (13) (alternate)

Medina (1) Burnet CISD (8) Burnet CISD
Yantis (2) Hunt (9) Vega
Amherst (3) Brady (10)
Abernathy (4) Loraine (11)
Buckholts (5) Blanco (12)
Boyd (6) Vega (17) (alternate)
Huntington (7)

Stratum 5-A: All ISDs in counties listed Stratum 5-A: District Name (rank)
(n=90)
Brewster Kinney Benavides (78) Mission (43)

Brooks La Salle Brackett (72) Monte Alto (15)
Cameron Maverick Brownsville (67) Pharr-San Juan-Alamo (20)
Culberson Pecos Comstock (25) Ramirez (63)
Dimmit Presidio Dell City (13) Rio Grande City (14)
Duval Reeves Donna (28) Roma (89)
Edwards Starr Edinburg (84) San Benito (36)
El Paso Terrell Ft. Hancock (12) San Diego (11)
Hidalgo Uvalde Hidalgo (30) San Felipe-Del Rio (87)
Hudspeth Val Verde Jim Hogg County (70) Santa Maria (74)
- - 6
Jeff Davis Webb La Joya (42) Sharyland (75)
Jim Hogg Willacy La Villa (68) South Texas (29)
Jim Wells Zapata Laredo (81) Uvalde (26)
Kennedy Zavala Lasara (57) Valley View (24)
Los Fresnos (53) Webb (32)
Lyford (65) Weslaco (10)
McAllen (80) Zapata County (73)
Mercedes (22)
Obtaining cooperation from those districts that were randomly selected for the state sample when the selected district did
not plan to do a local survey was sometimes a problem. Yet, it was critical to get data from as many of the originally
selected districts as possible. Some state sample districts that were initially hesitant were persuaded to cooperate by the
use of incentives. The various incentives used included waiving participation and sampling fees, offering to discount the
fees for participating the following year, paying all shipping costs, and discounting campus level analyses fees.
Sixty-one of the original 163 selected districts participated in the study. One-hundred and two districts were not able to
participate, and most declined due to the lack of time and resources involved in survey administration. In lieu of the
declining districts, an additional seventeen districts were included as alternates for the final sample.
Participation of Border School Districts

In order to allow further analysis of substance use among students living on the Texas-Mexico border, school districts
along the border were strongly encouraged to participate in the 2002 Texas School Survey. The survey was offered free of
charge to border districts, and data was collected from a broadly defined 28-county area. The border sample was designed
to collect data from approximately 500,000 students. Ninety school districts from 28 counties were invited to participate
in the 2002 survey. Each border district surveyed was included in the state survey sample (see Strata 5 in Table 2).
The cooperation rate of the selected districts was 43 percent. Rates ranged by strata from 16 to 75 percent. The
cooperation rate was lowest for small districts in non-urban counties (Strata 4-B). Overall there were no consistent
differences in cooperation rates between urban and non-urban districts. However, there was a general trend for small
districts to have lower cooperation rates than large districts (see Table 3).
The original sample included 2.14 million elementary and secondary students. A total of 54 percent of the students in the
original sample were in the final sampling frame (see Table 4). Seventy of the 78 districts sampled submitted both
elementary and secondary surveys. Seven districts, Bastrop, Burnet, Forney, South Texas, Spring Branch, Vega, and
Webb, did not administer surveys to elementary students. Ramirez CISD, which does not service middle school or
secondary students, only surveyed elementary students.
TABLE 3. Cooperation Rate of Districts by Strata
Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata
1A 1B 1C 1D 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5-A
Total
Cooperation
57% 42% 50% 46% 75% 64% 50% 33% 78% 16% 39%
Rate (43%)
TABLE 4. Percentage of Students Included in Final Sampling Frame by Strata
- - 7
Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata Strata
1A 1B 1C 1D 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5-A
Total
Rate (54%) 59% 44% 53% 61% 76% 68% 37% 11% 81% 30% 49%
Allocation of Surveys among Districts

The state survey sample was designed to collect data from a minimum sample of about 5,555 students per grade,
however, many districts chose to survey more than the minimum number of students specified in the state sampling plan.
Some extremely small districts received somewhat more than a strict proportional allocation because, while the data was
technically only needed from one or two students per grade, the survey was administered to the entire classroom.
Similarly, in a few extremely large (urban) districts, fewer students were need for accuracy than would result from a true
proportional allocation. All surveys submitted from a cooperating district were included in the sample. Accordingly, in
the final analyses, the data were weighted to provide an accurate proportional allocation.
Thus, although we had estimated that the state sample would include approximately 50,000 students, it actually included
88,929 elementary students and 149,220 secondary students (See Table 4). This significantly improves the accuracy of
estimates.
TABLE 4. Number of Surveys Included in State Sample
Total Number of Number Percent

Non-blank Useable Rejected* Rejected
Surveys
Secondary 156,733 149,220 7,513 4.8%
Elementary 89,830 88,929 901 1.0%
Total 246,563 238,149 8,414 3.4%
*Surveys were rejected because the responses indicated exaggeration or the survey could not be matched to a sampled school and grade.
Allocation of Surveys among Classrooms and Campuses

Once the number of surveys to be administered in each district was established, the next step was to determine the
number of classrooms to be surveyed per grade. This was achieved by dividing the number of questionnaires per grade
(ascertained for each district using proportional population calculations) by the average number of students per class---20
for grades four through six, 22 for grades seven through twelve. The result of this computation indicated the total number
of classes to be surveyed. These classes were selected so that as many different campuses as possible were in the final
sample. Ideally, the classrooms surveyed were evenly distributed across all campuses in the district. If there were more
campuses containing a given grade than classrooms needed, then a simple random selection procedure was used to
determine which campuses would be sampled. In general, once a campus was selected, all relevant grades at that campus
were surveyed. Therefore, campus selection was not independent between grades.
TABLE 5. Survey Distribution by Grade
Grade Number of Usable Percentage

Surveys
Elementary 4th 27,433 31%
- - 8
5th 29,335 33%
6th 32,161 36%
88,929 100%
Secondary 7th 28,596 19%

8th 27,891 19%
9th 28,738 19%
10th 24,026 16%
11th 21,088 14%
12th 18,881 13%
149,220 100%
Selection of Classrooms within Campuses

After the total number of classrooms to be surveyed in each grade at each campus was determined, it was necessary to
identify specific classrooms. This selection procedure was performed by campus personnel based on a set of guidelines
provided by PPRI (illustrated in Appendix C). Members of campus staff were asked to make a list by grade (according to
teacher‟s last name or some other convenient method) of all classes held during a selected class period. They were then
instructed to use a random number table to select the exact classes to survey in each grade.
Other Sampling Considerations

Some school districts sampled all students in all or some of the grades. In these districts, the methodology outlined above
did not apply to the grades sampled at 100 percent. In Houston and Austin, the district used a list of all students from
which to conduct a random sample of the students. Therefore, there are no campuses and classrooms sampled in these
districts.
Survey Administration Procedures

Districts selected for inclusion in the state sample were notified about the project via letter and were sent a descriptive
brochure, illustrated in Appendix D. State sample districts that planned to administer a local drug and alcohol survey had
virtually no procedural changes resulting from their involvement in the statewide project. In those districts that surveyed
grades four through twelve, sufficient data was collected from all relevant campuses to meet the data collection needs of
the statewide survey. These districts benefited from their inclusion in the state survey project because they were not
charged for the surveys that became part of the state database. The larger number of surveys from these districts was
weighted down so that their contribution to the final sample was in correct proportion.
In those instances where state sample districts were collecting local data for an incomplete combination of grades, or
where they were not conducting local surveys at all, the campus and classroom selection procedures described above
were applied. Arrangements for giving the survey were established on an individual basis with these districts. Since
those not doing local surveys did not stand to gain directly from having the survey administered in their district, an effort
was made to be as accommodating as possible. PPRI was able to arrange survey administration in the selected schools
and classes by school personnel.
In Houston and Austin, the district uses the computer to draw a random sample of all students. On each campus where
the students are located, the students are requested to go to a specified room where the survey is conducted. Once in the
room, the survey is conducted, as it would be in a classroom in the other districts.
Relevant personnel in the selected districts and campuses were provided with complete instructions and materials
necessary to administer the survey (see Appendix E). Classrooms were selected randomly by PPRI based on information
- - 9
from a computer printout from the district or Campus Information Form. Teachers in selected classrooms were given a
script to read so that all students would receive a standardized set of instructions. Teachers were also asked to complete a
Classroom Identification Form that provided data on the number of students that should have taken the survey but were
absent, and the number that was present but failed to complete the survey. This information was useful for computing
error estimates. After the surveys were administered in each classroom, they were sealed in an envelope along with the
Classroom Identification Form. The envelopes from all participating classrooms were collected and returned to PPRI.
Data Entry and Analyses

As noted earlier, the format of the survey instruments enabled them to be scanned optically. Upon receipt at PPRI, the
instruments were logged in, coded, and scanned by staff or trained personnel.
Exaggerated Responses
Because the Texas School Survey data is based entirely upon respondents‟ description of their own behavior, it is
inevitable that some students will under- or over-report their use of drugs or alcohol, and to the extent possible PPRI
attempted to identify and eliminate data from those respondents. Two checks were incorporated into the data analysis
program to identify exaggerators. First, both elementary and secondary students were asked about their use of a false
drug call “cosma.” Data from students claiming to have used this substance were considered suspect and dropped from
the analyses.
Second, checks were run to identify any students claiming extremely high levels of drug and alcohol use. Unbelievable
high substance use for elementary students was defined as the use of five or more substances, 11 or more times in the past
school year or over a lifetime. Secondary students were defined as exaggerators based on the following criteria: (1)
students reported that they had five or more drinks of two or more beverages every day; (2) students reported that they
had consumed three or more alcoholic beverages every day; or (3) students reported that they used four or more drugs
(other than cigarettes, alcohol, or steroids) eleven or more times in the past month. As in those cases where students
reported using “cosma,” data from students reporting exaggerated use were also dropped from the analyses. Less than two
percent (1.53%) of the total elementary sample exaggerated. The percentage of secondary school students who
exaggerated (4.69%) was more than three times that of elementary students.
Unreported Grade Levels

When students failed to report their grade level, it was impossible to determine unequivocally in which grade these
students‟ data should be analyzed. When a grade level was missing, an estimate of the grade was made based on the
students‟ age and the data were retained. Table 6 identifies the range of students' ages and the corresponding grade levels
that were assigned. If both grade and age were missing, the data were dropped from the analyses.
- - 10
TABLE 6. Age-Based Grade Assignments.
Age Elementary Age Secondary

Grade Level Grade Level
9 4th Grade 12 7th Grade
15 10th Grade
16 11th Grade
17 or older 12th Grade
Quality Control Measures

To ensure the quality of the statewide survey data, a number of internal checks were put into place to guide survey
processing. First, a quality control analyst oversaw the implementation of all pre- and post-analysis quality control
procedures. As the following paragraphs describe, many aspects of PPRI‟s plan for quality control were embedded in
automated procedures. However, there is no replacement for human oversight. The quality control analyst monitored
and tracked the processing of each district‟s surveys from the initial mailing through the production of the final state
report. Responsibilities included ensuring that surveys were properly coded and scanned and checking for anomalies in
the final table of results.
In addition to the safeguards resulting from careful project oversight, there were also a number of procedural checks
against error. For example, there was a possibility, however remote, that after the bindings of a set of survey instruments
were cut, the instruments could be dropped or otherwise placed out of order. If this occurred, it is conceivable that some
pages of data could have been read into the incorrect computer record. To resolve this problem, each instrument used in
the 2002 survey was printed with a five-digit “litho-code” number. With this coding process, every page of a given
instrument is printed with the same scannable number, but a unique number is assigned to every instrument. By using the
litho-code, when each page of an instrument is scanned it will automatically be read into the correct computer record. In
this way, even if the pages from different instruments were shuffled together and read randomly, all data derived from the
same instrument would automatically be read to the same data record.
Litho-coding also enabled PPRI to confirm that data from every survey instrument read was associated with the correct
district. Survey instruments were mailed to participating districts in consecutive order. By recording the beginning and
ending instrument numbers going to each district, PPRI was able to check the litho-codes scanned for a given district. In
this way, any stacks of data that could potentially have been inadvertently mislabeled could be easily identified.
Programming checks were also incorporated into the data analysis program by cross-analysis. That is, the same data was
run in several different ways using existing programs, and program outputs were then compared for consistency.
Confidence is high that these quality control features will ensure valid and reliable survey findings.
Weights, Standard Errors, and Confidence Intervals

Weights were applied to each case based on the strata (i.e., Urban Class I though IV), district, and campus. The weights
were applied so that the aggregation of students in each campus, district, and strata reflected their proportions in the
actual district, campus, and strata populations. The formulae use to determine these weights are presented in Appendix F.
- - 11
Standard errors and confidence intervals were estimated for each grade and the aggregation. The formulae used are
presented in Appendix G. The table of standard errors and confidence intervals for 30 day and lifetime use of substances
by grades are presented in Appendix H.
Item Response Analysis

As with any survey, there were potential threats to the validity of the conclusions drawn from the data. Therefore it was
important to examine the ways in which students' were responding to the questionnaire. Following the collection and
TCADA approval of the data, all of the items on the survey were analyzed to assess the integrity of the data in 2002. We
were specifically interested in exploring potential misinterpretation of questions, dishonest responses, and inattention to
the survey questions and instructions.
Separate analyses were conducted for the total sample of elementary and secondary school survey responses. Additional
analyses, exploring potential ethnic and grade-level differences were also conducted for the statewide secondary
instrument.
In sum, the vast majority of students in both elementary and secondary schools appeared to have provided valid responses
to the 2002 Texas School Survey of Substance Use. Few students were classified as giving exaggerated responses and
inconsistency in responding was generally most likely due to inattention to the survey task, misinterpretation of the
question, or fatigue. On the whole there was little difference between the results of the 1998 and the 2002 survey item
analyses. The major specific findings of the item analyses for each survey are listed below.
Elementary
 Only 1.53% of elementary respondents were classified as exaggerators.
 A small proportion of students use “never heard of” and “never used” response options interchangeably. While
few do so, in comparison to 1998 data, the percentage of those interchanging responses has risen. This is not a
substantial problem however, given that the inconsistencies are between two responses that indicate non-use.
 Less than one percent of those surveyed provided inconsistent responses in a comparison of use over a lifetime
and use during the school year.
 When reports of lifetime use were compared to reported age of first use, respondents are most likely to provide
inconsistent responses when asked about the use of alcoholic beverages. This may be due to the fact the greater
reported use of alcohol presents greater opportunities for inconsistencies.
 Other comparisons of response inconsistency indicate that inconsistent responses are attributable to those who
report infrequent substance use. This may suggest that “no use” and “never used” responses are read as “not used
regularly”.
 Questions are somewhat more likely to be left unanswered as their position in the survey approached the end.
 Participants are willing to begin and end an item that contained multiple parts, but routinely omitted substances
that came in the middle of a list.
Secondary
 Nearly five percent (4.69%) of the respondents were classified as exaggerators.
 Inconsistencies within the total secondary school sample may be attributable to differential interpretations of the
term “use.” While in some questions students appear to be responding with respect to regularity of use, they are
at other times giving answers that refer to whether or not they have ever tried the substance.
- - 12
 In general, individuals in older grades are more likely to provide inconsistent data than are students in lower
grades. Again this may be related to use levels which increase with older students.
 Overall, Asian Americans and Caucasians responded more consistently than did respondents of other ethnic
backgrounds.
 There was a general trend for student to leave items nearing the end of the survey blank. However missing data
were concentrated around three questions related to extracurricular activities, methods of marijuana use, and
sources of substance abuse information.
 Younger students in grades seven and eight are generally more likely than older students to skip questions.
 African American and Native American students are more likely than other ethnic groups to ignore questions on
the survey.
 The patterns of missing responses differ very little across grades and ethnic groups.
Conclusion
The Texas School Survey has become a valuable policy tool for both state and local educators and policy-makers. The
survey, performed every two years, provides timely and relevant information about current drug and alcohol use patterns
among young people enrolled in the Texas‟ public schools. Furthermore, longitudinal analysis can provide insight into
changes in drug and alcohol prevalence over time. As was noted in the introduction, every state survey culminates in a
TCADA publication providing an overview of findings to date. Data is also available for independent analysis by policy-
makers and academicians.
- - 13
APPENDIX A
Survey Instruments
- - 14
APPENDIX B
Participating Border Districts
- - 15
Participating Border Districts by County
CAMERON VAL VERDE

Brownsville Comstock
Los Fresnos San Felipe-Del Rio
San Benito
Santa Maria
South Texas
DUVAL WEBB
Benavides Laredo
Ramirez Webb
San Diego
HIDALGO WILLACY
Donna Lasara
Edinburg Lyford
Hidalgo
La Joya
La Villa
McAllen ZAPATA
Mercedes Zapata County
Mission
Monte Alto
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo
Sharyland
Valley View
Weslaco
HUDSPETH
Dell City
Ft. Hancock
JIM HOGG
Jim Hogg County
KINNEY
Brackett
STARR
Rio Grande City
Roma
UVALDE
Uvalde
- - 16
APPENDIX C
Classroom Selection Guidelines
- - 17
APPENDIX D
Descriptive Brochure
- - 18
APPENDIX E
Survey Administration Guide
- - 19
APPENDIX F
Computation of Sample Weights
- - 20
Weighting the Texas School Survey of Substance Abuse
District Level Weights
Within the selected districts, students were sampled via a simple random sample of classrooms (i.e., a sample in
which all classrooms in the district had an equal chance of getting in) picked directly from the district. Every
student in the sampled classrooms was asked to participate in the survey.
A weight wilk is assigned to each sampled classroom k , in grade l , in district i :

N
wilk  il (1)
nil
where,
N il = total no. of classrooms in grade l , in district i
n il = no. of classrooms sampled in grade l , in district i
Since every student in the sampled classrooms was included in the sample, each student‟s probability of
selection is equal to his/her classroom‟s probability of selection. Thus, each sampled student in these districts is
assigned his/her classroom weight. Therefore the weight wilr of the r th sampled student in classroom k is,
wilr  wilk (2)
Remark: In (1), if the true N il is not known for a particular district, estimate it with,
M
Nˆ il  il (3)
cîl
where, cîl  mil / nil and

M il = total no. of students in grade l , in district i
m il = no. of students sampled in grade l , in district i
Notice that in this case, the weights in (1) reduce to, wilk  M il / mil .
- - 21
District Level Estimates
The total no. of students in grade l , in district i , giving a positive response to a question is estimated as
mil
Yîl   wilr y ilr (4)
r 1
where
1 if the r th student' s response is positive
yilr   ,
0 otherwise
and wilr is as defined in (2).
The proportion of students in grade l , in district i , giving a positive response to a question is estimated as,
Yˆ
Yîl  il
M il
Stratum Level Weights
The districts were selected from strata that were formed on the basis of two factors, namely, how urban the districts were
and the levels of enrollment. That is, once the districts were grouped by the degree to which they were urban, strata were
formed by collecting together districts of similar size within these urban classes. Next, a simple random sample of
districts was chosen from each stratum. A few large districts were selected to the sample with probability one. These
districts were grouped into two strata based on the relative sizes of the districts.
Stratum level weights are assigned to the sampled students as follows. The weight w shilr of the r th sampled
student, from grade l , in district i in stratum h is,
1
w shilr  wilr (5)
p hi
where
1 if district i was sampled with probability 1

p hi   , (6)
 hi otherwise
and within grade l , for each district i in stratum h , wilr is as defined in (4), and  hi  nh / N h with
n h = no. of districts sampled from stratum h
N h = total number of districts in stratum h
Notice that within stratum h ,  hi does not depend on district i .
State Level estimates
The total no. of students in grade l , giving a positive response to a question is estimated as
- - 22
H
Yˆl   Yˆhl (7)
h 1
with
nh mil
Yˆhl   whilr
s
y ilr (8)
i 1 r 1
where, within grade l , for each district i in stratum h , y ilr , and m il are as defined above.
The proportion of students in grade l , in the state, giving a positive response to a question is estimated as,
1 H ˆ
Yˆl   Yhl (9)
M l h 1
where,
M l =total number of students in grade l in state.
- - 23
APPENDIX G
Standard Error Formulae
- - 24
Standard Error Formulae for the Texas School Survey of Substance Use
The standard errors of the percentages were estimated via the SUDAAN software package. The variance estimation
techniques in SUDAAN are specifically designed to address the complexity of the sample design in finite population
sampling. The variance estimators generally available for these complex designs do not have closed form solutions and,
therefore, require iterative approaches in computations that would yield solutions as close to the true value as possible.
SUDAAN software package is available for this purpose and is gaining wide popularity in survey sampling applications.
In applying SUDAAN to the current survey which consisted of a multi-stage stratified sampling design, the
input SAS data set requires the following re-coding of the stratification variable for strata 21 and 22 (due to
certainty stratum 21 having only one district responding to survey):
if strata=22 then strata=21;
(Here: strata= stratum identifier) Next, the data set needs to be sorted as follows:
proc sort data=___;

by strata distid q2 class;
run;
Here, distid= district identifier, q2= grade identifier, class= classroom identifier.
The SUDAAN code needs to incorporate the following:

proc crosstab data=" " filetype=sas design=WOR;
nest strata distid q2 class;
The specified design WOR uses Taylor series variance estimation methods1 in computing standard errors of
percentages in the multi-stage stratified sampling design of this survey.
1
See SUDAAN User‟s Manual (Volume 1), page 3-4.
- - 25
APPENDIX H
Standard Error and Confidence Interval Tables
- - 26
Elementary Grades – 2002
Standard Error and Confidence Intervals
All Students-Overall and by Grade
Past Year Use
Lifetime Use
Male-Overall and by Grade
Past Year Use
Lifetime Use
Female-Overall and by Grade
Past Year Use
Lifetime Use
Whites-Overall and by Grade
Past Year Use
Lifetime Use
African American-Overall and by Grade
Past Year Use
Lifetime Use
Mexican American-Overall and by Grade
Past Year Use
Lifetime Use
Border-Overall and by Grade
Past Year Use
Lifetime Use
Non-border-Overall and by Grade
Past Year Use
Lifetime Use
- - 27
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Overall Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Overall
CATEGORY Prevalence Boundaries Standard CATEGORY Prevalence Boundaries Standard
Lower Upper Error Lower Upper Error
TOBACCO 9.1% 8.2% 10.0% 0.427% TOBACCO 4.8% 4.3% 5.3% 0.245%
ALCOHOL 25.2% 23.8% 26.6% 0.709% ALCOHOL 15.9% 14.8% 17.0% 0.529%
INHALANTS 9.3% 8.6% 10.0% 0.335% INHALANTS 6.5% 6.1% 7.0% 0.225%
MARIJUANA 2.6% 2.3% 2.9% 0.164% MARIJUANA 1.7% 1.5% 1.9% 0.121%
CIGARETTES 8.2% 7.4% 9.0% 0.395% CIGARETTES 4.3% 3.8% 4.8% 0.231%
SMOKELESS TOBACCO 1.8% 1.5% 2.1% 0.161% SMOKELESS TOBACCO 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 0.073%
BEER 15.0% 13.9% 16.1% 0.574% BEER 8.3% 7.5% 9.1% 0.383%
WINE COOLERS 13.3% 12.2% 14.4% 0.570% WINE COOLERS 8.1% 7.3% 8.9% 0.404%
WINE 13.1% 12.3% 13.9% 0.381% WINE 7.7% 7.2% 8.2% 0.236%
LIQUOR 5.9% 5.4% 6.4% 0.260% LIQUOR 3.5% 3.2% 3.8% 0.170%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4
TOBACCO 5.1% 4.6% 5.6% 0.261% TOBACCO 2.7% 2.4% 3.0% 0.142%
ALCOHOL 18.5% 17.2% 19.8% 0.629% ALCOHOL 11.5% 10.7% 12.3% 0.389%
BEER 11.0% 10.0% 12.0% 0.501% BEER 6.0% 5.4% 6.6% 0.280%
WINE 8.5% 7.8% 9.2% 0.326% WINE 5.3% 4.9% 5.7% 0.188%
LIQUOR 2.6% 2.3% 2.9% 0.168% LIQUOR 1.5% 1.2% 1.8% 0.136%
TOBACCO 7.9% 7.0% 8.8% 0.441% TOBACCO 4.0% 3.5% 4.5% 0.266%
ALCOHOL 23.1% 21.5% 24.7% 0.786% ALCOHOL 14.2% 12.8% 15.6% 0.693%
BEER 13.5% 12.3% 14.7% 0.620% BEER 7.2% 6.2% 8.2% 0.496%
WINE 11.3% 10.6% 12.0% 0.341% WINE 6.6% 6.0% 7.2% 0.295%
LIQUOR 4.5% 4.0% 5.0% 0.256% LIQUOR 2.5% 2.1% 2.9% 0.176%
TOBACCO 14.2% 12.4% 16.0% 0.883% TOBACCO 7.6% 6.4% 8.8% 0.580%
ALCOHOL 34.1% 31.4% 36.8% 1.340% ALCOHOL 22.0% 20.0% 24.0% 0.980%
BEER 20.4% 18.3% 22.5% 1.040% BEER 11.5% 10.1% 12.9% 0.705%
WINE 19.5% 18.0% 21.0% 0.770% WINE 11.3% 10.3% 12.3% 0.495%
LIQUOR 10.4% 9.2% 12% 0.594% LIQUOR 6.4% 5.6% 7% 0.388%
- - 28
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Overall Male Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Overall Male
TOBACCO 10.9% 9.9% 11.9% 0.490% TOBACCO 5.6% 5.0% 6.2% 0.300%
ALCOHOL 28.5% 26.9% 30.1% 0.806% ALCOHOL 17.4% 16.3% 18.5% 0.560%
BEER 18.7% 17.3% 20.1% 0.710% BEER 10.1% 9.1% 11.1% 0.490%
WINE 14.5% 13.5% 15.5% 0.494% WINE 8.1% 7.5% 8.7% 0.292%
LIQUOR 6.9% 6.3% 7.5% 0.321% LIQUOR 4.0% 3.6% 4.4% 0.208%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 Male Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 Male
TOBACCO 6.5% 5.8% 7.2% 0.339% TOBACCO 3.5% 3.1% 3.9% 0.204%
ALCOHOL 21.8% 19.8% 23.8% 1.007% ALCOHOL 13.1% 12.1% 14.1% 0.507%
BEER 14.1% 12.6% 15.6% 0.756% BEER 7.5% 6.6% 8.4% 0.435%
WINE 9.6% 8.5% 10.7% 0.567% WINE 5.7% 5.1% 6.3% 0.281%
LIQUOR 3.2% 2.7% 3.7% 0.230% LIQUOR 1.8% 1.5% 2.1% 0.160%
TOBACCO 9.6% 8.5% 10.7% 0.540% TOBACCO 4.9% 4.1% 5.7% 0.383%
ALCOHOL 26.3% 24.5% 28.1% 0.878% ALCOHOL 15.8% 14.3% 17.3% 0.770%
BEER 17.4% 15.8% 19.0% 0.795% BEER 9.2% 7.9% 10.5% 0.663%
WINE 12.6% 11.4% 13.8% 0.597% WINE 7.1% 6.4% 7.8% 0.373%
LIQUOR 5.5% 4.7% 6.3% 0.378% LIQUOR 3.1% 2.5% 3.7% 0.284%
TOBACCO 16.4% 14.4% 18.4% 1.006% TOBACCO 8.5% 7.1% 9.9% 0.699%
ALCOHOL 37.2% 34.7% 39.7% 1.246% ALCOHOL 23.3% 21.6% 25.0% 0.868%
BEER 24.6% 22.3% 26.9% 1.158% BEER 13.6% 11.9% 15.3% 0.848%
WINE 21.2% 19.7% 22.7% 0.743% WINE 11.6% 10.6% 12.6% 0.507%
LIQUOR 11.9% 10.5% 13.3% 0.698% LIQUOR 7.0% 6.1% 7.9% 0.462%
- - 29
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Overall Female Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Overall Female
TOBACCO 7.3% 6.5% 8.1% 0.416% TOBACCO 3.9% 3.5% 4.4% 0.225%
ALCOHOL 22.1% 20.7% 23.5% 0.707% ALCOHOL 14.5% 13.4% 15.6% 0.550%
BEER 11.4% 10.4% 12.4% 0.523% BEER 6.5% 5.9% 7.1% 0.318%
WINE 11.8% 11.0% 12.6% 0.392% WINE 7.4% 6.8% 8.0% 0.281%
LIQUOR 4.9% 4.4% 5.4% 0.235% LIQUOR 3.0% 2.7% 3.3% 0.167%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 Female Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 Female
TOBACCO 3.7% 3.1% 4.3% 0.286% TOBACCO 1.9% 1.6% 2.2% 0.161%
ALCOHOL 15.4% 14.1% 16.7% 0.667% ALCOHOL 10.0% 8.9% 11.1% 0.550%
BEER 8.1% 7.2% 9.0% 0.427% BEER 4.6% 4.1% 5.1% 0.262%
WINE 7.4% 6.6% 8.2% 0.398% WINE 5.0% 4.2% 5.8% 0.389%
LIQUOR 2.1% 1.7% 2.5% 0.223% LIQUOR 1.2% 0.8% 1.6% 0.200%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Grade 5 Female Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Grade 5 Female
TOBACCO 6.2% 5.3% 7.1% 0.438% TOBACCO 3.0% 2.5% 3.5% 0.233%
ALCOHOL 19.8% 18.2% 21.4% 0.817% ALCOHOL 12.6% 11.2% 14.0% 0.676%
BEER 9.6% 8.5% 10.7% 0.571% BEER 5.2% 4.4% 6.0% 0.383%
WINE 10.0% 9.3% 10.7% 0.345% WINE 6.0% 5.4% 6.6% 0.297%
LIQUOR 3.6% 3.1% 4.1% 0.255% LIQUOR 2.0% 1.6% 2.4% 0.215%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances -Grade 6 Female Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Grade 6 Female
TOBACCO 12.0% 10.3% 13.7% 0.853% TOBACCO 6.8% 5.8% 7.8% 0.520%
ALCOHOL 31.1% 28.1% 34.1% 1.481% ALCOHOL 20.8% 18.5% 23.1% 1.143%
BEER 16.4% 14.4% 18.4% 1.010% BEER 9.6% 8.3% 10.9% 0.655%
WINE 17.9% 16.2% 19.6% 0.872% WINE 11.0% 9.8% 12.2% 0.602%
LIQUOR 9.1% 8.0% 10.2% 0.565% LIQUOR 5.8% 5.0% 6.6% 0.411%
- - 30
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Overall White Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Overall White
TOBACCO 7.7% 6.4% 9.0% 0.633% TOBACCO 3.9% 3.2% 4.6% 0.345%
ALCOHOL 21.2% 19.5% 22.9% 0.846% ALCOHOL 13.4% 12.3% 14.5% 0.552%
BEER 11.8% 10.4% 13.2% 0.682% BEER 6.5% 5.6% 7.4% 0.452%
WINE 13.2% 12.2% 14.2% 0.498% WINE 7.9% 7.4% 8.4% 0.252%
LIQUOR 5.2% 4.5% 5.9% 0.373% LIQUOR 3.1% 2.6% 3.6% 0.228%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 White Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 White
TOBACCO 4.5% 3.5% 5.5% 0.477% TOBACCO 2.4% 1.8% 3.0% 0.301%
ALCOHOL 17.2% 15.2% 19.2% 0.978% ALCOHOL 10.4% 9.2% 11.6% 0.624%
BEER 9.2% 7.8% 10.6% 0.720% BEER 4.8% 4.0% 5.6% 0.412%
WINE 9.8% 8.8% 10.8% 0.515% WINE 6.0% 5.4% 6.6% 0.311%
LIQUOR 2.6% 2.1% 3.1% 0.272% LIQUOR 1.5% 1.1% 1.9% 0.202%
TOBACCO 6.5% 5.4% 7.6% 0.538% TOBACCO 3.0% 2.3% 3.7% 0.328%
ALCOHOL 18.3% 17.0% 19.6% 0.667% ALCOHOL 11.4% 10.3% 12.5% 0.574%
BEER 10.1% 9.2% 11.0% 0.447% BEER 5.3% 4.5% 6.1% 0.400%
WINE 10.8% 10.0% 11.6% 0.424% WINE 6.2% 5.6% 6.8% 0.299%
LIQUOR 3.8% 3.1% 4.5% 0.327% LIQUOR 2.1% 1.6% 2.6% 0.227%
TOBACCO 11.9% 9.1% 14.7% 1.390% TOBACCO 6.1% 4.4% 7.8% 0.859%
ALCOHOL 27.8% 24.4% 31.2% 1.688% ALCOHOL 18.1% 15.8% 20.4% 1.164%
BEER 16.0% 13.3% 18.7% 1.369% BEER 9.1% 7.2% 11.0% 0.952%
WINE 18.5% 16.2% 20.8% 1.154% WINE 11.2% 9.9% 12.5% 0.669%
LIQUOR 8.9% 7.2% 10.6% 0.866% LIQUOR 5.5% 4.4% 6.6% 0.555%
- - 31
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Overall African/American Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Overall African/American
TOBACCO 9.4% 8.6% 10.2% 0.396% TOBACCO 4.3% 3.9% 4.7% 0.223%
ALCOHOL 28.7% 27.0% 30.4% 0.874% ALCOHOL 16.7% 14.9% 18.5% 0.885%
BEER 16.0% 14.9% 17.1% 0.563% BEER 7.6% 6.6% 8.6% 0.492%
WINE 12.5% 11.6% 13.4% 0.431% WINE 6.9% 6.2% 7.6% 0.334%
LIQUOR 5.2% 4.8% 5.6% 0.217% LIQUOR 2.9% 2.6% 3.2% 0.158%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 African/American Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 African/American
TOBACCO 5.8% 5.0% 6.6% 0.415% TOBACCO 3.1% 2.6% 3.6% 0.267%
ALCOHOL 19.9% 18.0% 21.8% 0.964% ALCOHOL 12.7% 11.4% 14.0% 0.664%
BEER 11.8% 10.5% 13.1% 0.639% BEER 6.4% 5.6% 7.2% 0.420%
WINE 7.7% 6.8% 8.6% 0.430% WINE 5.1% 4.5% 5.7% 0.303%
LIQUOR 2.4% 2.1% 2.7% 0.156% LIQUOR 1.4% 1.1% 1.7% 0.154%
TOBACCO 8.5% 7.2% 9.8% 0.641% TOBACCO 4.0% 3.2% 4.8% 0.413%
ALCOHOL 26.9% 24.1% 29.7% 1.410% ALCOHOL 15.6% 12.7% 18.5% 1.473%
BEER 15.4% 13.5% 17.3% 0.954% BEER 7.1% 5.3% 8.9% 0.920%
WINE 11.6% 10.4% 12.8% 0.596% WINE 6.4% 5.7% 7.1% 0.370%
LIQUOR 4.8% 4.2% 5.4% 0.299% LIQUOR 2.6% 1.9% 3.3% 0.326%
TOBACCO 14.0% 12.4% 15.6% 0.797% TOBACCO 5.8% 4.9% 6.7% 0.447%
ALCOHOL 39.0% 36.9% 41.1% 1.033% ALCOHOL 21.6% 19.2% 24.0% 1.212%
BEER 20.7% 19.3% 22.1% 0.686% BEER 9.3% 8.0% 10.6% 0.668%
WINE 18.0% 16.8% 19.2% 0.594% WINE 9.3% 8.0% 10.6% 0.626%
LIQUOR 8.4% 7.4% 9.4% 0.499% LIQUOR 4.6% 4.0% 5.2% 0.309%
- - 32
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Overall Mexican/American Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Overall Mexican/American
TOBACCO 10.7% 10.0% 11.4% 0.331% TOBACCO 6.0% 5.6% 6.4% 0.216%
ALCOHOL 28.8% 27.6% 30.0% 0.605% ALCOHOL 18.8% 17.6% 20.0% 0.601%
BEER 18.3% 17.2% 19.4% 0.527% BEER 10.7% 9.8% 11.6% 0.447%
WINE 13.7% 12.8% 14.6% 0.446% WINE 8.2% 7.5% 8.9% 0.345%
LIQUOR 7.1% 6.6% 7.6% 0.257% LIQUOR 4.3% 3.9% 4.7% 0.186%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 Mexican/American Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 Mexican/American
TOBACCO 5.5% 4.9% 6.1% 0.306% TOBACCO 3.0% 2.7% 3.3% 0.143%
ALCOHOL 19.8% 18.7% 20.9% 0.556% ALCOHOL 12.6% 11.8% 13.4% 0.392%
BEER 13.0% 12.1% 13.9% 0.440% BEER 7.3% 6.7% 7.9% 0.291%
WINE 7.7% 7.1% 8.3% 0.306% WINE 4.9% 4.5% 5.3% 0.211%
LIQUOR 2.8% 2.4% 3.2% 0.205% LIQUOR 1.6% 1.3% 1.9% 0.168%
TOBACCO 9.4% 8.4% 10.4% 0.480% TOBACCO 5.1% 4.4% 5.8% 0.371%
ALCOHOL 27.1% 25.2% 29.0% 0.970% ALCOHOL 17.0% 15.1% 18.9% 0.952%
BEER 16.6% 14.8% 18.4% 0.878% BEER 9.4% 7.8% 11.0% 0.790%
WINE 12.1% 11.2% 13.0% 0.474% WINE 7.2% 6.2% 8.2% 0.489%
LIQUOR 5.4% 4.7% 6.1% 0.351% LIQUOR 3.1% 2.5% 3.7% 0.286%
TOBACCO 17.3% 16.3% 18.4% 0.525% TOBACCO 10.2% 9.5% 10.9% 0.362%
ALCOHOL 39.7% 37.9% 41.5% 0.915% ALCOHOL 27.0% 25.4% 28.6% 0.801%
BEER 25.6% 24.3% 26.9% 0.642% BEER 15.4% 14.3% 16.5% 0.538%
WINE 21.5% 20.2% 22.8% 0.660% WINE 12.4% 11.4% 13.4% 0.500%
LIQUOR 13.2% 12.4% 14.0% 0.424% LIQUOR 8.2% 7.6% 8.8% 0.305%
- - 33
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Overall Border Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Overall Border
TOBACCO 9.8% 9.2% 10.4% 0.324% TOBACCO 5.5% 4.9% 6.1% 0.322%
ALCOHOL 27.7% 26.5% 28.9% 0.604% ALCOHOL 17.5% 15.5% 19.5% 1.018%
BEER 17.7% 16.8% 18.6% 0.429% BEER 10.1% 8.9% 11.3% 0.609%
WINE 12.5% 11.7% 13.3% 0.418% WINE 7.1% 6.1% 8.1% 0.478%
LIQUOR 6.0% 5.6% 6.4% 0.182% LIQUOR 3.6% 3.2% 4.0% 0.176%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 Border Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 Border
TOBACCO 5.4% 4.8% 6.0% 0.289% TOBACCO 2.9% 2.4% 3.4% 0.244%
ALCOHOL 19.0% 17.7% 20.3% 0.673% ALCOHOL 11.7% 10.0% 13.4% 0.834%
BEER 12.4% 11.4% 13.4% 0.502% BEER 7.1% 6.1% 8.1% 0.484%
WINE 7.1% 6.3% 7.9% 0.417% WINE 4.1% 3.4% 4.8% 0.331%
LIQUOR 2.3% 2.1% 2.5% 0.120% LIQUOR 1.3% 1.1% 1.5% 0.115%
TOBACCO 8.2% 7.2% 9.2% 0.488% TOBACCO 4.3% 3.4% 5.2% 0.428%
ALCOHOL 25.3% 23.9% 26.7% 0.722% ALCOHOL 15.7% 13.4% 18.0% 1.159%
BEER 15.3% 14.4% 16.2% 0.441% BEER 8.5% 7.2% 9.8% 0.646%
WINE 10.9% 10.0% 11.8% 0.437% WINE 6.6% 5.5% 7.7% 0.560%
LIQUOR 4.6% 4.4% 4.9% 0.125% LIQUOR 2.5% 2.2% 2.8% 0.162%
TOBACCO 15.7% 14.7% 16.7% 0.496% TOBACCO 9.2% 8.2% 10.2% 0.516%
ALCOHOL 38.2% 37.0% 39.4% 0.592% ALCOHOL 24.8% 22.5% 27.1% 1.169%
BEER 25.0% 24.1% 25.9% 0.450% BEER 14.5% 12.9% 16.1% 0.781%
WINE 19.1% 18.0% 20.2% 0.566% WINE 10.5% 9.1% 11.9% 0.711%
LIQUOR 10.7% 10.0% 11.4% 0.364% LIQUOR 6.6% 6.0% 7.2% 0.317%
- - 34
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Overall Non-Border Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Overall Non-Border
TOBACCO 8.9% 7.9% 9.9% 0.514% TOBACCO 4.6% 4.0% 5.2% 0.289%
ALCOHOL 24.7% 23.0% 26.4% 0.857% ALCOHOL 15.6% 14.4% 16.8% 0.611%
BEER 14.4% 13.0% 15.8% 0.696% BEER 7.9% 7.0% 8.8% 0.452%
WINE 13.2% 12.3% 14.1% 0.451% WINE 7.9% 7.4% 8.4% 0.263%
LIQUOR 5.9% 5.3% 6.5% 0.313% LIQUOR 3.5% 3.1% 3.9% 0.202%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 Non-Border Past Year Use of Selected Substances - Grade 4 Non-Border
TOBACCO 5.0% 4.4% 5.6% 0.310% TOBACCO 2.6% 2.3% 2.9% 0.164%
ALCOHOL 18.3% 16.8% 19.8% 0.749% ALCOHOL 11.4% 10.5% 12.3% 0.437%
BEER 10.7% 9.5% 11.9% 0.599% BEER 5.8% 5.2% 6.4% 0.323%
WINE 8.8% 8.0% 9.6% 0.377% WINE 5.6% 5.2% 6.0% 0.208%
LIQUOR 2.7% 2.3% 3.1% 0.204% LIQUOR 1.6% 1.3% 1.9% 0.165%
TOBACCO 7.9% 6.9% 9.0% 0.525% TOBACCO 3.9% 3.3% 4.5% 0.312%
ALCOHOL 22.6% 20.7% 24.5% 0.950% ALCOHOL 13.9% 12.3% 15.5% 0.813%
BEER 13.1% 11.6% 14.6% 0.757% BEER 7.0% 5.8% 8.2% 0.595%
WINE 11.4% 10.6% 12.2% 0.401% WINE 6.6% 5.9% 7.3% 0.338%
LIQUOR 4.5% 3.9% 5.1% 0.309% LIQUOR 2.5% 2.1% 2.9% 0.210%
TOBACCO 13.8% 11.7% 15.9% 1.058% TOBACCO 7.3% 5.9% 8.7% 0.680%
ALCOHOL 33.2% 30.0% 36.4% 1.599% ALCOHOL 21.4% 19.1% 23.7% 1.150%
BEER 19.4% 17.0% 21.8% 1.221% BEER 10.9% 9.3% 12.5% 0.819%
WINE 19.6% 17.7% 21.5% 0.934% WINE 11.5% 10.3% 12.7% 0.588%
LIQUOR 10.4% 9.0% 11.8% 0.719% LIQUOR 6.3% 5.4% 7.2% 0.465%
- - 35
Secondary Grades – 2002
Standard Error and Confidence Intervals
All Students-Overall and by Grade
Past 30 Day Use
Lifetime Use
Male-Overall and by Grade
Past 30 Day Use
Lifetime Use
Female-Overall and by Grade
Past 30 Day Use
Lifetime Use
Whites-Overall and by Grade
Past 30 Day Use
Lifetime Use
African American-Overall and by Grade
Past 30 Day Use
Lifetime Use
Mexican American-Overall and by Grade
Past 30 Day Use
Lifetime Use
Border-Overall and by Grade
Past 30 Day Use
Lifetime Use
Non-border-Overall and by Grade
Past 30 Day Use
Lifetime Use
- - 36
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Overall Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Overall
TOBACCO 44.9% 42.4% 47.4% 1.227% TOBACCO 18.2% 17.1% 19.3% 0.574%
ALCOHOL 71.0% 68.0% 74.0% 1.501% ALCOHOL 34.5% 33.4% 35.6% 0.547%
ANY ILLICIT DRUG 33.6% 30.7% 36.5% 1.466% ANY ILLICIT DRUG 16.0% 14.5% 17.5% 0.757%
MARIJUANA ONLY 16.5% 15.9% 17.1% 0.314% MARIJUANA ONLY 5.4% 4.7% 6.1% 0.353%
COCAINE OR CRACK 8.7% 7.0% 10.4% 0.829% COCAINE OR CRACK 3.2% 2.6% 3.8% 0.283%
COCAINE 8.1% 6.6% 9.6% 0.745% COCAINE 3.0% 2.5% 3.5% 0.261%
CRACK 2.7% 1.9% 3.5% 0.383% CRACK 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.038%
HALLUCINOGENS 4.5% 3.4% 5.6% 0.568% HALLUCINOGENS 1.2% 0.9% 1.5% 0.132%
UPPERS 7.3% 5.2% 9.4% 1.044% UPPERS 3.3% 2.0% 4.6% 0.626%
DOWNERS 7.1% 5.0% 9.2% 1.032% DOWNERS 3.4% 2.2% 4.6% 0.602%
ROHYPNOL 4.9% 4.0% 5.8% 0.474% ROHYPNOL 1.8% 1.6% 2.0% 0.101%
STEROIDS 2.3% 1.6% 3.0% 0.333% STEROIDS 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.032%
ECSTASY 8.6% 7.0% 10.2% 0.804% ECSTASY 3.1% 2.5% 3.7% 0.290%
HEROIN 1.7% 1.3% 2.1% 0.192% HEROIN 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.021%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Grade 7 Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Grade 7
TOBACCO 28.2% 25.7% 30.7% 1.249% TOBACCO 8.7% 7.1% 10.3% 0.786%
ALCOHOL 52.8% 46.2% 59.4% 3.323% ALCOHOL 17.8% 16.4% 19.2% 0.694%
COCAINE 2.9% 2.4% 3.4% 0.244% COCAINE 1.3% 0.8% 1.8% 0.242%
CRACK 2.1% 1.7% 2.5% 0.221% CRACK 0.8% 0.6% 1.0% 0.114%
UPPERS 1.7% 1.5% 1.9% 0.116% UPPERS 0.6% 0.3% 0.9% 0.137%
DOWNERS 1.4% 1.1% 1.7% 0.164% DOWNERS 0.6% 0.3% 0.9% 0.130%
ECSTASY 3.6% 2.9% 4.3% 0.355% ECSTASY 1.4% 1.1% 1.7% 0.151%
HEROIN 1.7% 1.4% 2.0% 0.170% HEROIN 0.6% 0.4% 0.8% 0.123%
TOBACCO 36.0% 34.4% 37.6% 0.800% TOBACCO 11.7% 10.4% 13.0% 0.659%
ALCOHOL 64.0% 62.0% 66.0% 1.023% ALCOHOL 26.0% 23.6% 28.4% 1.205%
- - 37
COCAINE 4.8% 3.9% 5.7% 0.446% COCAINE 1.8% 1.5% 2.1% 0.140%
CRACK 2.7% 1.6% 3.8% 0.558% CRACK 0.6% 0.4% 0.8% 0.093%
UPPERS 3.2% 2.5% 3.9% 0.369% UPPERS 1.3% 1.1% 1.5% 0.114%
DOWNERS 3.0% 2.1% 3.9% 0.447% DOWNERS 1.3% 1.0% 1.6% 0.145%
ECSTASY 5.6% 4.5% 6.7% 0.548% ECSTASY 2.1% 1.7% 2.5% 0.208%
HEROIN 1.9% 1.4% 2.4% 0.260% HEROIN 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% 0.105%
TOBACCO 48.2% 42.9% 53.5% 2.674% TOBACCO 19.2% 16.7% 21.7% 1.264%
ALCOHOL 73.7% 70.0% 77.4% 1.874% ALCOHOL 36.4% 32.7% 40.1% 1.851%
COCAINE 8.6% 6.7% 10.5% 0.928% COCAINE 3.3% 2.6% 4.0% 0.338%
CRACK 3.3% 1.7% 4.9% 0.810% CRACK 0.8% 0.7% 0.9% 0.056%
UPPERS 8.3% 4.6% 12.0% 1.873% UPPERS 4.0% 2.0% 6.0% 0.976%
DOWNERS 7.8% 5.0% 10.6% 1.407% DOWNERS 3.7% 2.6% 4.8% 0.550%
ECSTASY 9.3% 7.1% 11.5% 1.099% ECSTASY 3.8% 2.7% 4.9% 0.566%
HEROIN 1.8% 1.5% 2.1% 0.159% HEROIN 0.5% 0.2% 0.8% 0.126%
TOBACCO 49.5% 45.9% 53.1% 1.811% TOBACCO 20.5% 18.6% 22.4% 0.955%
ALCOHOL 77.3% 74.1% 80.5% 1.603% ALCOHOL 39.9% 38.4% 41.4% 0.765%
COCAINE 9.7% 7.5% 11.9% 1.083% COCAINE 3.9% 3.1% 4.7% 0.413%
CRACK 2.5% 2.0% 3.0% 0.261% CRACK 1.0% 0.6% 1.4% 0.198%
UPPERS 8.5% 6.3% 10.7% 1.081% UPPERS 4.4% 2.6% 6.2% 0.913%
DOWNERS 8.6% 5.9% 11.3% 1.357% DOWNERS 4.9% 2.2% 7.6% 1.350%
- - 38
ECSTASY 9.2% 7.3% 11.1% 0.933% ECSTASY 3.3% 2.8% 3.8% 0.256%
HEROIN 1.2% 1.1% 1.3% 0.064% HEROIN 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.058%
TOBACCO 53.3% 51.4% 55.2% 0.932% TOBACCO 23.5% 22.4% 24.6% 0.563%
ALCOHOL 79.2% 78.0% 80.4% 0.576% ALCOHOL 41.8% 39.2% 44.4% 1.301%
COCAINE 11.7% 8.8% 14.6% 1.452% COCAINE 4.2% 3.0% 5.4% 0.610%
CRACK 2.9% 1.7% 4.1% 0.581% CRACK 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% 0.123%
UPPERS 12.8% 7.5% 18.1% 2.665% UPPERS 5.7% 2.3% 9.1% 1.691%
DOWNERS 12.2% 6.1% 18.3% 3.042% DOWNERS 5.6% 2.5% 8.7% 1.563%
ECSTASY 12.6% 9.1% 16.1% 1.746% ECSTASY 4.6% 0.9% 8.3% 1.829%
HEROIN 1.9% 0.9% 2.9% 0.492% HEROIN 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% 0.101%
TOBACCO 58.7% 56.8% 60.6% 0.955% TOBACCO 29.8% 27.5% 32.1% 1.127%
ALCOHOL 83.4% 81.7% 85.1% 0.857% ALCOHOL 51.0% 47.9% 54.1% 1.550%
COCAINE 12.3% 11.0% 13.6% 0.660% COCAINE 3.7% 3.2% 4.2% 0.236%
CRACK 2.4% 1.7% 3.1% 0.333% CRACK 0.4% 0.2% 0.6% 0.087%
UPPERS 11.3% 9.2% 13.4% 1.049% UPPERS 4.3% 3.5% 5.1% 0.413%
DOWNERS 11.4% 8.9% 13.9% 1.235% DOWNERS 4.8% 3.6% 6.0% 0.580%
ECSTASY 12.7% 9.7% 15.7% 1.510% ECSTASY 3.6% 3.2% 4.0% 0.215%
HEROIN 1.7% 1.2% 2.2% 0.272% HEROIN 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.059%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Male Overall Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Male Overall
TOBACCO 47.36% 45.6% 49.1% 0.860% TOBACCO 20.68% 19.5% 21.9% 0.590%
- - 39
ALCOHOL 70.55% 67.3% 73.8% 1.630% ALCOHOL 34.89% 34.1% 35.7% 0.420%
COCAINE 8.78% 7.4% 10.2% 0.710% COCAINE 3.34% 2.9% 3.8% 0.210%
CRACK 2.76% 2.1% 3.4% 0.340% CRACK 0.82% 0.7% 0.9% 0.050%
UPPERS 7.19% 5.2% 9.2% 1.010% UPPERS 3.12% 2.2% 4.1% 0.470%
DOWNERS 7.51% 5.5% 9.6% 1.020% DOWNERS 3.68% 2.5% 4.8% 0.580%
ECSTASY 8.42% 7.1% 9.7% 0.650% ECSTASY 3.04% 2.8% 3.3% 0.120%
HEROIN 1.63% 1.4% 1.8% 0.100% HEROIN 0.41% 0.3% 0.6% 0.080%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Male Grade 7 Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Male Grade 7
TOBACCO 30.80% 27.9% 33.7% 1.470% TOBACCO 10.04% 7.9% 12.2% 1.090%
ALCOHOL 53.89% 48.0% 59.8% 2.930% ALCOHOL 18.71% 17.1% 20.3% 0.810%
COCAINE 2.93% 2.1% 3.8% 0.430% COCAINE 1.36% 0.9% 1.8% 0.240%
CRACK 1.92% 1.6% 2.2% 0.150% CRACK 0.91% 0.6% 1.2% 0.140%
UPPERS 1.85% 1.5% 2.2% 0.190% UPPERS 0.66% 0.2% 1.1% 0.210%
DOWNERS 1.58% 1.3% 1.9% 0.160% DOWNERS 0.69% 0.3% 1.1% 0.180%
ECSTASY 3.20% 2.5% 3.9% 0.370% ECSTASY 1.15% 0.9% 1.4% 0.120%
HEROIN 1.43% 1.0% 1.9% 0.210% HEROIN 0.27% 0.1% 0.4% 0.070%
TOBACCO 35.40% 32.1% 38.7% 1.660% TOBACCO 11.77% 10.4% 13.2% 0.700%
ALCOHOL 62.66% 61.2% 64.2% 0.750% ALCOHOL 24.37% 21.5% 27.3% 1.450%
COCAINE 4.11% 3.5% 4.8% 0.320% COCAINE 1.47% 0.9% 2.1% 0.300%
CRACK 1.81% 1.5% 2.1% 0.140% CRACK 0.60% 0.3% 0.9% 0.130%
UPPERS 2.70% 1.4% 4.0% 0.640% UPPERS 0.95% 0.5% 1.4% 0.210%
DOWNERS 2.67% 1.3% 4.1% 0.700% DOWNERS 0.93% 0.5% 1.3% 0.200%
- - 40
ECSTASY 4.56% 2.9% 6.3% 0.850% ECSTASY 1.85% 1.1% 2.6% 0.360%
HEROIN 1.46% 1.2% 1.7% 0.140% HEROIN 0.50% 0.3% 0.7% 0.120%
TOBACCO 51.17% 44.4% 58.0% 3.410% TOBACCO 21.29% 17.1% 25.5% 2.110%
ALCOHOL 72.47% 67.8% 77.1% 2.330% ALCOHOL 35.05% 32.4% 37.7% 1.330%
COCAINE 8.64% 7.2% 10.1% 0.720% COCAINE 3.42% 2.7% 4.2% 0.380%
CRACK 3.14% 1.6% 4.7% 0.770% CRACK 1.01% 0.6% 1.5% 0.230%
UPPERS 7.02% 4.2% 9.8% 1.410% UPPERS 2.67% 1.9% 3.4% 0.380%
DOWNERS 6.64% 5.2% 8.1% 0.720% DOWNERS 2.71% 2.1% 3.4% 0.330%
ECSTASY 8.17% 7.0% 9.3% 0.570% ECSTASY 3.15% 2.6% 3.8% 0.300%
HEROIN 1.54% 1.1% 2.0% 0.210% HEROIN 0.53% 0.3% 0.8% 0.110%
TOBACCO 53.54% 50.6% 56.5% 1.480% TOBACCO 23.24% 21.4% 25.1% 0.930%
ALCOHOL 76.00% 71.3% 80.7% 2.350% ALCOHOL 39.36% 37.0% 41.7% 1.160%
COCAINE 10.50% 8.5% 12.5% 1.000% COCAINE 4.30% 3.7% 4.9% 0.290%
CRACK 2.35% 1.9% 2.8% 0.230% CRACK 1.05% 0.8% 1.4% 0.150%
UPPERS 7.85% 6.2% 9.5% 0.810% UPPERS 4.32% 2.7% 5.9% 0.790%
DOWNERS 9.21% 6.4% 12.1% 1.430% DOWNERS 5.78% 2.6% 9.0% 1.610%
ECSTASY 9.02% 8.0% 10.1% 0.520% ECSTASY 3.18% 2.6% 3.8% 0.290%
HEROIN 1.10% 0.8% 1.4% 0.140% HEROIN 0.34% 0.2% 0.5% 0.070%
TOBACCO 55.61% 54.1% 57.1% 0.750% TOBACCO 27.46% 25.2% 29.7% 1.130%
- - 41
ALCOHOL 80.24% 78.5% 82.0% 0.890% ALCOHOL 44.51% 42.9% 46.1% 0.800%
COCAINE 14.75% 10.0% 19.5% 2.390% COCAINE 5.54% 3.9% 7.2% 0.820%
CRACK 4.39% 1.9% 6.9% 1.250% CRACK 0.69% 0.4% 1.0% 0.170%
UPPERS 13.99% 6.2% 21.8% 3.920% UPPERS 6.59% 2.0% 11.2% 2.280%
DOWNERS 14.59% 6.9% 22.3% 3.870% DOWNERS 7.18% 2.8% 11.6% 2.200%
ECSTASY 13.82% 8.9% 18.8% 2.480% ECSTASY 5.60% 3.5% 7.7% 1.030%
HEROIN 1.79% 1.4% 2.2% 0.180% HEROIN 0.42% 0.2% 0.6% 0.110%
TOBACCO 63.25% 61.2% 65.3% 1.030% TOBACCO 35.65% 34.2% 37.1% 0.740%
ALCOHOL 83.77% 81.8% 85.8% 1.010% ALCOHOL 54.97% 53.5% 56.4% 0.730%
COCAINE 14.56% 13.5% 15.7% 0.550% COCAINE 4.80% 4.0% 5.6% 0.410%
CRACK 3.30% 2.9% 3.7% 0.190% CRACK 0.56% 0.3% 0.8% 0.140%
UPPERS 12.43% 10.8% 14.1% 0.820% UPPERS 4.74% 4.3% 5.2% 0.230%
DOWNERS 13.29% 10.4% 16.2% 1.430% DOWNERS 6.33% 5.1% 7.6% 0.640%
ECSTASY 14.37% 11.8% 17.0% 1.290% ECSTASY 4.06% 3.3% 4.8% 0.390%
HEROIN 2.75% 1.5% 4.0% 0.610% HEROIN 0.37% 0.2% 0.6% 0.090%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Female Overall Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Female Overall
TOBACCO 42.47% 39.2% 45.7% 1.620% TOBACCO 15.98% 14.8% 17.1% 0.570%
ALCOHOL 71.30% 68.6% 74.0% 1.340% ALCOHOL 34.07% 32.6% 35.6% 0.760%
COCAINE 7.40% 5.8% 9.0% 0.790% COCAINE 2.61% 2.0% 3.3% 0.320%
CRACK 2.63% 1.8% 3.5% 0.420% CRACK 0.61% 0.5% 0.7% 0.040%
- - 42
UPPERS 7.47% 5.3% 9.7% 1.090% UPPERS 3.41% 1.9% 5.0% 0.770%
DOWNERS 6.71% 4.6% 8.8% 1.060% DOWNERS 3.07% 1.8% 4.3% 0.630%
ECSTASY 8.69% 6.8% 10.6% 0.970% ECSTASY 3.16% 2.2% 4.1% 0.490%
HEROIN 1.79% 1.2% 2.4% 0.290% HEROIN 0.55% 0.4% 0.7% 0.080%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Female Grade 7 Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Female Grade 7
TOBACCO 25.57% 23.2% 28.0% 1.210% TOBACCO 7.33% 6.4% 8.3% 0.480%
ALCOHOL 51.94% 44.8% 59.1% 3.590% ALCOHOL 16.87% 15.5% 18.3% 0.690%
COCAINE 2.80% 2.4% 3.2% 0.180% COCAINE 1.31% 0.8% 1.8% 0.260%
CRACK 2.34% 1.7% 3.0% 0.340% CRACK 0.76% 0.5% 1.0% 0.130%
UPPERS 1.55% 1.3% 1.8% 0.110% UPPERS 0.53% 0.3% 0.8% 0.110%
DOWNERS 1.13% 0.7% 1.6% 0.220% DOWNERS 0.50% 0.3% 0.7% 0.110%
ECSTASY 3.90% 3.2% 4.6% 0.370% ECSTASY 1.72% 1.2% 2.2% 0.260%
HEROIN 1.98% 1.6% 2.3% 0.170% HEROIN 0.99% 0.4% 1.6% 0.300%
TOBACCO 36.61% 33.6% 39.6% 1.490% TOBACCO 11.69% 10.4% 13.0% 0.630%
ALCOHOL 64.99% 62.4% 67.6% 1.320% ALCOHOL 27.23% 24.8% 29.6% 1.200%
COCAINE 5.39% 3.8% 7.0% 0.800% COCAINE 2.03% 1.7% 2.4% 0.180%
CRACK 3.40% 1.4% 5.4% 1.000% CRACK 0.55% 0.3% 0.8% 0.130%
UPPERS 3.60% 3.1% 4.1% 0.240% UPPERS 1.65% 1.3% 2.0% 0.160%
DOWNERS 3.31% 2.7% 4.0% 0.320% DOWNERS 1.63% 1.3% 2.0% 0.190%
ECSTASY 6.51% 5.8% 7.3% 0.370% ECSTASY 2.32% 2.0% 2.6% 0.150%
HEROIN 2.33% 1.4% 3.3% 0.480% HEROIN 0.48% 0.3% 0.7% 0.110%
- - 43
TOBACCO 45.34% 41.3% 49.4% 2.040% TOBACCO 17.40% 16.0% 18.8% 0.710%
ALCOHOL 74.81% 72.0% 77.6% 1.400% ALCOHOL 37.46% 33.2% 41.8% 2.150%
COCAINE 8.66% 6.2% 11.1% 1.230% COCAINE 3.15% 2.5% 3.9% 0.350%
CRACK 3.51% 1.8% 5.2% 0.850% CRACK 0.67% 0.4% 1.0% 0.160%
UPPERS 9.52% 5.0% 14.0% 2.260% UPPERS 5.11% 2.1% 8.1% 1.490%
DOWNERS 8.97% 5.0% 13.0% 2.010% DOWNERS 4.70% 2.3% 7.1% 1.210%
ECSTASY 10.39% 7.2% 13.6% 1.620% ECSTASY 4.34% 2.7% 6.0% 0.820%
HEROIN 2.06% 1.5% 2.6% 0.260% HEROIN 0.51% 0.2% 0.8% 0.160%
TOBACCO 45.62% 41.3% 49.9% 2.140% TOBACCO 17.87% 15.9% 19.8% 0.980%
ALCOHOL 78.63% 76.6% 80.7% 1.030% ALCOHOL 40.36% 36.3% 44.5% 2.050%
COCAINE 8.94% 6.6% 11.3% 1.180% COCAINE 3.45% 2.2% 4.7% 0.620%
CRACK 2.70% 1.7% 3.7% 0.490% CRACK 0.92% 0.4% 1.5% 0.270%
UPPERS 9.04% 6.3% 11.8% 1.390% UPPERS 4.49% 2.4% 6.6% 1.040%
DOWNERS 8.01% 5.4% 10.6% 1.300% DOWNERS 4.08% 1.9% 6.3% 1.100%
ECSTASY 9.32% 6.5% 12.1% 1.390% ECSTASY 3.48% 2.1% 4.9% 0.690%
HEROIN 1.26% 1.0% 1.5% 0.110% HEROIN 0.55% 0.2% 0.9% 0.170%
TOBACCO 51.15% 47.7% 54.6% 1.730% TOBACCO 19.79% 18.6% 21.0% 0.600%
ALCOHOL 78.20% 76.9% 79.5% 0.640% ALCOHOL 39.23% 34.7% 43.7% 2.250%
- - 44
COCAINE 9.11% 7.6% 10.7% 0.770% COCAINE 3.14% 2.2% 4.1% 0.470%
CRACK 1.68% 1.4% 1.9% 0.130% CRACK 0.38% 0.2% 0.6% 0.090%
UPPERS 11.90% 8.6% 15.2% 1.660% UPPERS 4.86% 2.4% 7.3% 1.230%
DOWNERS 10.12% 5.3% 14.9% 2.390% DOWNERS 4.17% 2.1% 6.3% 1.040%
ECSTASY 11.57% 9.2% 14.0% 1.190% ECSTASY 3.79% 2.4% 5.2% 0.700%
HEROIN 2.03% 0.3% 3.8% 0.860% HEROIN 0.55% 0.0% 1.1% 0.260%
TOBACCO 54.55% 51.0% 58.1% 1.760% TOBACCO 24.44% 20.7% 28.2% 1.860%
ALCOHOL 83.19% 81.6% 84.8% 0.790% ALCOHOL 47.34% 42.2% 52.5% 2.560%
COCAINE 10.29% 8.5% 12.1% 0.910% COCAINE 2.60% 2.1% 3.1% 0.250%
CRACK 1.57% 0.3% 2.9% 0.650% CRACK 0.27% 0.1% 0.4% 0.070%
UPPERS 10.25% 7.6% 12.9% 1.320% UPPERS 3.94% 2.3% 5.6% 0.820%
DOWNERS 9.57% 7.5% 11.7% 1.050% DOWNERS 3.31% 2.3% 4.3% 0.510%
ECSTASY 11.14% 7.7% 14.5% 1.700% ECSTASY 3.18% 2.1% 4.2% 0.520%
HEROIN 0.77% 0.4% 1.1% 0.180% HEROIN 0.16% 0.0% 0.3% 0.060%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - White Overall Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - White Overall
TOBACCO 46.12% 43.6% 48.6% 1.240% TOBACCO 20.49% 19.7% 21.3% 0.380%
ALCOHOL 71.34% 65.9% 76.8% 2.710% ALCOHOL 34.37% 32.8% 36.0% 0.810%
COCAINE 6.99% 4.5% 9.5% 1.260% COCAINE 2.20% 1.3% 3.1% 0.470%
CRACK 2.92% 1.4% 4.4% 0.760% CRACK 0.50% 0.4% 0.6% 0.070%
UPPERS 10.23% 8.3% 12.2% 0.990% UPPERS 4.74% 3.4% 6.1% 0.670%
DOWNERS 9.12% 7.0% 11.3% 1.080% DOWNERS 4.47% 3.2% 5.7% 0.630%
ECSTASY 9.22% 7.6% 10.8% 0.790% ECSTASY 3.30% 2.3% 4.3% 0.500%
HEROIN 1.75% 1.0% 2.5% 0.390% HEROIN 0.42% 0.3% 0.6% 0.080%
- - 45
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - White Grade 7 Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - White Grade 7
TOBACCO 26.97% 23.0% 31.0% 2.010% TOBACCO 7.97% 5.1% 10.8% 1.420%
ALCOHOL 50.05% 37.3% 62.9% 6.400% ALCOHOL 13.91% 9.9% 17.9% 2.010%
COCAINE 2.26% 1.0% 3.5% 0.640% COCAINE 1.37% 0.1% 2.7% 0.660%
CRACK 2.22% 0.9% 3.5% 0.660% CRACK 0.82% 0.2% 1.4% 0.290%
UPPERS 1.77% 1.3% 2.3% 0.260% UPPERS 0.45% 0.1% 0.8% 0.180%
DOWNERS 1.10% 0.8% 1.4% 0.150% DOWNERS 0.39% 0.1% 0.7% 0.150%
ECSTASY 3.48% 1.5% 5.5% 1.010% ECSTASY 1.36% 0.6% 2.1% 0.360%
HEROIN 1.69% 0.7% 2.7% 0.520% HEROIN 0.70% 0.1% 1.3% 0.310%
TOBACCO 33.43% 31.3% 35.5% 1.050% TOBACCO 10.27% 8.8% 11.8% 0.760%
ALCOHOL 61.26% 56.4% 66.1% 2.420% ALCOHOL 20.50% 18.9% 22.1% 0.800%
COCAINE 2.71% 1.9% 3.6% 0.420% COCAINE 0.70% 0.5% 0.9% 0.100%
CRACK 2.44% 0.9% 4.0% 0.770% CRACK 0.25% 0.1% 0.5% 0.100%
UPPERS 3.63% 2.1% 5.2% 0.780% UPPERS 1.56% 1.2% 1.9% 0.190%
DOWNERS 2.97% 1.4% 4.6% 0.790% DOWNERS 1.13% 0.8% 1.5% 0.190%
ECSTASY 3.95% 2.7% 5.2% 0.620% ECSTASY 1.40% 1.2% 1.6% 0.110%
HEROIN 2.00% 0.8% 3.2% 0.620% HEROIN 0.16% 0.0% 0.3% 0.070%
TOBACCO 49.88% 39.2% 60.6% 5.340% TOBACCO 22.44% 18.5% 26.3% 1.950%
ALCOHOL 75.69% 65.9% 85.5% 4.920% ALCOHOL 37.28% 27.9% 46.6% 4.680%
- - 46
COCAINE 6.86% 3.6% 10.2% 1.650% COCAINE 1.99% 0.8% 3.2% 0.600%
CRACK 4.35% 0.5% 8.3% 1.950% CRACK 0.67% 0.3% 1.1% 0.210%
UPPERS 12.64% 8.0% 17.2% 2.300% UPPERS 6.52% 3.5% 9.5% 1.510%
DOWNERS 10.06% 7.6% 12.5% 1.230% DOWNERS 5.65% 4.4% 6.9% 0.610%
ECSTASY 10.06% 7.6% 12.5% 1.230% ECSTASY 4.76% 2.6% 7.0% 1.100%
HEROIN 1.66% 1.1% 2.3% 0.300% HEROIN 0.28% 0.1% 0.5% 0.100%
TOBACCO 50.16% 46.2% 54.1% 1.970% TOBACCO 22.62% 19.8% 25.5% 1.420%
ALCOHOL 78.06% 71.3% 84.8% 3.390% ALCOHOL 40.33% 35.9% 44.8% 2.230%
COCAINE 6.52% 5.1% 8.0% 0.730% COCAINE 2.76% 1.5% 4.0% 0.630%
CRACK 2.03% 1.5% 2.6% 0.270% CRACK 0.60% 0.4% 0.8% 0.120%
UPPERS 10.87% 9.3% 12.5% 0.790% UPPERS 5.49% 4.5% 6.5% 0.510%
DOWNERS 10.40% 7.5% 13.3% 1.430% DOWNERS 5.98% 3.1% 8.9% 1.450%
ECSTASY 9.64% 7.8% 11.5% 0.940% ECSTASY 2.82% 2.2% 3.4% 0.290%
HEROIN 1.09% 1.0% 1.2% 0.070% HEROIN 0.53% 0.3% 0.8% 0.140%
TOBACCO 56.36% 54.9% 57.9% 0.750% TOBACCO 27.35% 23.5% 31.2% 1.910%
ALCOHOL 80.04% 78.7% 81.4% 0.660% ALCOHOL 43.94% 39.2% 48.7% 2.380%
COCAINE 12.07% 5.1% 19.0% 3.470% COCAINE 4.03% 1.7% 6.3% 1.150%
CRACK 3.70% 1.2% 6.2% 1.250% CRACK 0.32% 0.1% 0.6% 0.120%
UPPERS 18.61% 11.8% 25.5% 3.420% UPPERS 8.73% 3.8% 13.7% 2.460%
DOWNERS 16.84% 7.9% 25.8% 4.480% DOWNERS 7.94% 3.1% 12.7% 2.400%
- - 47
ECSTASY 15.33% 11.1% 19.5% 2.100% ECSTASY 5.92% 2.4% 9.5% 1.770%
HEROIN 2.16% 1.1% 3.2% 0.530% HEROIN 0.64% 0.2% 1.0% 0.200%
TOBACCO 62.42% 58.0% 66.8% 2.190% TOBACCO 34.47% 33.0% 35.9% 0.720%
ALCOHOL 85.02% 83.6% 86.5% 0.720% ALCOHOL 53.35% 51.0% 55.7% 1.190%
COCAINE 12.63% 9.9% 15.3% 1.350% COCAINE 2.48% 1.9% 3.1% 0.310%
CRACK 2.61% 1.3% 3.9% 0.650% CRACK 0.29% 0.1% 0.5% 0.090%
UPPERS 14.78% 13.5% 16.1% 0.650% UPPERS 5.88% 5.3% 6.4% 0.280%
DOWNERS 14.28% 11.9% 16.6% 1.180% DOWNERS 5.91% 5.2% 6.6% 0.360%
ECSTASY 13.68% 12.2% 15.2% 0.740% ECSTASY 3.52% 3.1% 4.0% 0.220%
HEROIN 1.93% 1.1% 2.8% 0.420% HEROIN 0.18% 0.1% 0.3% 0.060%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - African American Overall Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - African American Overall
TOBACCO 31.91% 30.8% 33.0% 0.550% TOBACCO 8.22% 7.5% 8.9% 0.350%
ALCOHOL 66.52% 65.1% 67.9% 0.700% ALCOHOL 25.44% 23.9% 27.0% 0.790%
COCAINE 1.57% 1.1% 2.1% 0.260% COCAINE 0.50% 0.4% 0.6% 0.070%
CRACK 0.68% 0.5% 0.8% 0.080% CRACK 0.27% 0.2% 0.4% 0.050%
UPPERS 1.37% 1.1% 1.7% 0.140% UPPERS 0.54% 0.4% 0.7% 0.090%
DOWNERS 1.49% 1.2% 1.8% 0.170% DOWNERS 0.74% 0.5% 0.9% 0.100%
ECSTASY 4.87% 3.7% 6.1% 0.590% ECSTASY 1.61% 1.3% 1.9% 0.140%
HEROIN 0.58% 0.4% 0.7% 0.080% HEROIN 0.16% 0.1% 0.2% 0.030%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - African American Grade 7 Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - African American Grade 7
TOBACCO 24.33% 22.5% 26.1% 0.900% TOBACCO 6.02% 3.8% 8.2% 1.100%
- - 48
ALCOHOL 52.18% 48.6% 55.8% 1.800% ALCOHOL 17.88% 15.8% 19.9% 1.030%
COCAINE 1.06% 0.7% 1.4% 0.170% COCAINE 0.46% 0.2% 0.7% 0.140%
CRACK 1.05% 0.8% 1.4% 0.150% CRACK 0.37% 0.2% 0.6% 0.110%
UPPERS 0.65% 0.3% 1.0% 0.160% UPPERS 0.29% 0.0% 0.6% 0.130%
DOWNERS 0.55% 0.4% 0.7% 0.090% DOWNERS 0.19% 0.1% 0.3% 0.060%
ECSTASY 2.52% 1.9% 3.2% 0.320% ECSTASY 0.98% 0.6% 1.3% 0.170%
HEROIN 0.76% 0.5% 1.0% 0.120% HEROIN 0.21% 0.0% 0.4% 0.110%
TOBACCO 28.43% 25.5% 31.4% 1.490% TOBACCO 6.45% 5.4% 7.5% 0.530%
ALCOHOL 62.11% 60.1% 64.2% 1.020% ALCOHOL 23.17% 20.7% 25.7% 1.250%
COCAINE 1.12% 0.7% 1.6% 0.220% COCAINE 0.46% 0.1% 0.8% 0.170%
CRACK 0.70% 0.4% 1.0% 0.160% CRACK 0.10% 0.0% 0.2% 0.050%
UPPERS 1.35% 0.8% 1.9% 0.270% UPPERS 0.49% 0.2% 0.8% 0.170%
DOWNERS 1.01% 0.6% 1.4% 0.210% DOWNERS 0.48% 0.3% 0.7% 0.110%
ECSTASY 4.85% 3.8% 5.9% 0.540% ECSTASY 1.79% 1.3% 2.3% 0.250%
HEROIN 0.70% 0.5% 0.9% 0.120% HEROIN 0.26% 0.1% 0.4% 0.080%
TOBACCO 34.18% 31.9% 36.5% 1.160% TOBACCO 10.08% 7.6% 12.6% 1.250%
ALCOHOL 70.08% 67.7% 72.5% 1.190% ALCOHOL 28.41% 24.9% 32.0% 1.780%
COCAINE 1.42% 1.1% 1.8% 0.180% COCAINE 0.46% 0.2% 0.7% 0.140%
CRACK 0.66% 0.4% 0.9% 0.120% CRACK 0.37% 0.2% 0.5% 0.070%
UPPERS 1.22% 0.9% 1.5% 0.160% UPPERS 0.25% 0.1% 0.4% 0.080%
- - 49
DOWNERS 1.26% 0.9% 1.6% 0.180% DOWNERS 0.59% 0.4% 0.8% 0.100%
ECSTASY 4.51% 3.7% 5.4% 0.430% ECSTASY 1.27% 0.9% 1.7% 0.200%
HEROIN 0.53% 0.3% 0.8% 0.110% HEROIN 0.08% 0.0% 0.2% 0.040%
TOBACCO 35.27% 30.4% 40.1% 2.430% TOBACCO 7.57% 6.7% 8.5% 0.460%
ALCOHOL 70.82% 68.3% 73.4% 1.280% ALCOHOL 23.29% 21.2% 25.4% 1.030%
COCAINE 2.59% 0.0% 5.8% 1.610% COCAINE 0.40% 0.1% 0.7% 0.150%
CRACK 0.40% 0.2% 0.6% 0.100% CRACK 0.07% 0.0% 0.2% 0.040%
UPPERS 1.52% 0.8% 2.3% 0.370% UPPERS 0.88% 0.3% 1.5% 0.310%
DOWNERS 1.91% 1.2% 2.7% 0.380% DOWNERS 1.21% 0.6% 1.9% 0.320%
ECSTASY 4.07% 3.4% 4.8% 0.360% ECSTASY 1.44% 1.0% 1.9% 0.210%
HEROIN 0.52% 0.2% 0.8% 0.160% HEROIN 0.19% 0.1% 0.3% 0.060%
TOBACCO 34.48% 32.0% 37.0% 1.240% TOBACCO 8.16% 6.6% 9.8% 0.800%
ALCOHOL 71.41% 68.1% 74.8% 1.680% ALCOHOL 25.88% 22.7% 29.1% 1.590%
COCAINE 2.13% 1.5% 2.8% 0.320% COCAINE 0.69% 0.2% 1.2% 0.250%
CRACK 0.64% 0.1% 1.1% 0.250% CRACK 0.40% 0.0% 0.9% 0.230%
UPPERS 1.81% 1.2% 2.4% 0.310% UPPERS 0.60% 0.1% 1.1% 0.250%
DOWNERS 1.88% 1.4% 2.3% 0.230% DOWNERS 0.87% 0.4% 1.4% 0.250%
ECSTASY 4.79% 3.7% 5.9% 0.550% ECSTASY 2.30% 1.9% 2.7% 0.220%
HEROIN 0.47% 0.0% 1.0% 0.260% HEROIN 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% 0.000%
- - 50
TOBACCO 37.12% 34.0% 40.3% 1.570% TOBACCO 11.76% 10.1% 13.4% 0.820%
ALCOHOL 77.21% 74.9% 79.6% 1.180% ALCOHOL 37.45% 33.6% 41.3% 1.910%
COCAINE 1.22% 0.7% 1.7% 0.250% COCAINE 0.63% 0.2% 1.1% 0.210%
CRACK 0.53% 0.2% 0.9% 0.180% CRACK 0.33% 0.1% 0.6% 0.140%
UPPERS 2.02% 1.3% 2.7% 0.360% UPPERS 0.99% 0.6% 1.4% 0.200%
DOWNERS 3.00% 1.8% 4.2% 0.590% DOWNERS 1.46% 0.9% 2.0% 0.280%
ECSTASY 10.32% 0.0% 21.1% 5.370% ECSTASY 2.33% 1.2% 3.4% 0.550%
HEROIN 0.41% 0.2% 0.7% 0.130% HEROIN 0.27% 0.1% 0.5% 0.110%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Mexican American Overall Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Mexican American Overall
TOBACCO 49.54% 47.8% 51.3% 0.890% TOBACCO 20.11% 19.4% 20.8% 0.340%
ALCOHOL 73.63% 72.5% 74.7% 0.550% ALCOHOL 39.45% 38.7% 40.3% 0.400%
COCAINE 11.94% 11.3% 12.6% 0.320% COCAINE 4.92% 4.5% 5.4% 0.220%
CRACK 3.18% 2.9% 3.5% 0.150% CRACK 1.13% 1.0% 1.3% 0.090%
UPPERS 6.28% 5.2% 7.4% 0.560% UPPERS 2.66% 2.0% 3.4% 0.350%
DOWNERS 6.95% 5.6% 8.3% 0.660% DOWNERS 3.12% 2.3% 4.0% 0.430%
ECSTASY 9.01% 7.8% 10.3% 0.630% ECSTASY 3.44% 3.2% 3.7% 0.140%
HEROIN 2.06% 1.8% 2.3% 0.110% HEROIN 0.71% 0.6% 0.9% 0.080%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Mexican American Grade 7 Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Mexican American Grade 7
TOBACCO 32.31% 30.1% 34.5% 1.110% TOBACCO 10.84% 9.9% 11.8% 0.470%
ALCOHOL 57.48% 52.9% 62.1% 2.310% ALCOHOL 22.45% 21.0% 23.9% 0.720%
COCAINE 4.36% 3.9% 4.9% 0.250% COCAINE 1.69% 1.3% 2.1% 0.220%
- - 51
CRACK 2.47% 2.0% 3.0% 0.260% CRACK 1.04% 0.7% 1.4% 0.160%
UPPERS 1.94% 1.5% 2.4% 0.230% UPPERS 0.80% 0.5% 1.1% 0.140%
DOWNERS 1.90% 1.5% 2.3% 0.190% DOWNERS 0.90% 0.7% 1.1% 0.110%
ECSTASY 3.99% 3.0% 5.0% 0.490% ECSTASY 1.63% 1.2% 2.1% 0.220%
HEROIN 2.15% 1.7% 2.7% 0.250% HEROIN 0.76% 0.5% 1.0% 0.110%
TOBACCO 42.89% 41.4% 44.4% 0.730% TOBACCO 15.68% 14.3% 17.0% 0.670%
ALCOHOL 69.10% 67.6% 70.6% 0.730% ALCOHOL 34.23% 32.3% 36.2% 0.980%
COCAINE 8.65% 6.6% 10.7% 1.030% COCAINE 3.59% 3.0% 4.2% 0.300%
CRACK 3.82% 2.7% 4.9% 0.550% CRACK 1.15% 0.9% 1.5% 0.150%
UPPERS 3.45% 2.8% 4.1% 0.330% UPPERS 1.46% 1.2% 1.8% 0.150%
DOWNERS 3.97% 3.1% 4.9% 0.460% DOWNERS 1.83% 1.3% 2.3% 0.250%
ECSTASY 7.71% 6.7% 8.7% 0.490% ECSTASY 3.04% 2.4% 3.7% 0.320%
HEROIN 2.27% 1.8% 2.7% 0.230% HEROIN 0.96% 0.7% 1.2% 0.120%
TOBACCO 52.40% 51.2% 53.6% 0.610% TOBACCO 20.02% 19.2% 20.9% 0.420%
ALCOHOL 74.26% 71.7% 76.9% 1.300% ALCOHOL 39.72% 38.0% 41.4% 0.840%
COCAINE 12.74% 11.6% 13.9% 0.590% COCAINE 5.73% 5.1% 6.4% 0.340%
CRACK 3.30% 2.4% 4.2% 0.460% CRACK 1.20% 0.8% 1.6% 0.180%
UPPERS 7.05% 4.9% 9.2% 1.080% UPPERS 2.89% 2.5% 3.3% 0.200%
DOWNERS 8.33% 5.5% 11.2% 1.410% DOWNERS 3.10% 2.6% 3.6% 0.230%
ECSTASY 9.94% 8.4% 11.5% 0.780% ECSTASY 3.80% 3.4% 4.2% 0.220%
HEROIN 2.34% 1.5% 3.1% 0.400% HEROIN 0.92% 0.5% 1.4% 0.220%
- - 52
TOBACCO 55.55% 52.9% 58.2% 1.330% TOBACCO 23.43% 22.3% 24.6% 0.580%
ALCOHOL 80.66% 79.6% 81.8% 0.550% ALCOHOL 47.26% 44.1% 50.4% 1.570%
COCAINE 16.49% 12.7% 20.3% 1.900% COCAINE 6.62% 5.4% 7.8% 0.590%
CRACK 3.77% 2.9% 4.7% 0.450% CRACK 1.69% 0.8% 2.6% 0.430%
UPPERS 8.04% 5.7% 10.4% 1.170% UPPERS 4.42% 1.6% 7.3% 1.430%
DOWNERS 8.93% 6.4% 11.5% 1.260% DOWNERS 5.04% 2.1% 7.9% 1.450%
ECSTASY 10.25% 8.0% 12.5% 1.130% ECSTASY 4.54% 2.5% 6.6% 1.020%
HEROIN 1.46% 1.1% 1.8% 0.170% HEROIN 0.49% 0.4% 0.6% 0.070%
TOBACCO 58.54% 56.7% 60.4% 0.940% TOBACCO 25.51% 24.1% 27.0% 0.730%
ALCOHOL 82.74% 81.2% 84.2% 0.750% ALCOHOL 47.27% 45.3% 49.3% 0.990%
COCAINE 15.94% 13.7% 18.2% 1.140% COCAINE 6.34% 5.8% 6.9% 0.260%
CRACK 2.83% 2.0% 3.6% 0.400% CRACK 0.89% 0.6% 1.2% 0.140%
UPPERS 9.50% 8.0% 11.0% 0.730% UPPERS 3.77% 2.8% 4.7% 0.470%
DOWNERS 10.06% 8.5% 11.6% 0.780% DOWNERS 4.52% 3.6% 5.5% 0.480%
ECSTASY 12.08% 9.7% 14.5% 1.210% ECSTASY 3.91% 2.8% 5.0% 0.550%
HEROIN 2.18% 0.9% 3.4% 0.620% HEROIN 0.47% 0.3% 0.7% 0.090%
TOBACCO 63.65% 58.3% 69.0% 2.690% TOBACCO 31.57% 28.2% 35.0% 1.700%
ALCOHOL 85.67% 82.1% 89.2% 1.780% ALCOHOL 55.13% 48.1% 62.2% 3.530%
- - 53
COCAINE 16.73% 12.7% 20.8% 2.020% COCAINE 6.62% 6.0% 7.2% 0.310%
CRACK 2.64% 1.9% 3.4% 0.380% CRACK 0.64% 0.4% 0.9% 0.120%
UPPERS 9.97% 8.4% 11.5% 0.770% UPPERS 3.35% 2.4% 4.3% 0.470%
DOWNERS 10.61% 9.1% 12.1% 0.740% DOWNERS 4.45% 2.2% 6.7% 1.140%
ECSTASY 11.93% 9.7% 14.2% 1.140% ECSTASY 4.18% 3.4% 5.0% 0.400%
HEROIN 1.71% 1.1% 2.3% 0.300% HEROIN 0.41% 0.2% 0.6% 0.090%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Border Overall Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Border Overall
TOBACCO 45.71% 44.7% 46.8% 0.530% TOBACCO 20.12% 19.2% 21.0% 0.460%
ALCOHOL 70.18% 69.5% 70.9% 0.340% ALCOHOL 38.27% 37.3% 39.3% 0.490%
COCAINE 13.35% 12.7% 14.0% 0.330% COCAINE 5.95% 5.5% 6.4% 0.230%
CRACK 4.02% 3.7% 4.4% 0.170% CRACK 1.54% 1.3% 1.8% 0.130%
UPPERS 5.17% 4.6% 5.7% 0.270% UPPERS 2.29% 2.0% 2.6% 0.160%
DOWNERS 5.85% 5.3% 6.5% 0.300% DOWNERS 2.64% 2.3% 3.0% 0.190%
ECSTASY 6.33% 5.8% 6.9% 0.290% ECSTASY 2.56% 2.2% 2.9% 0.170%
HEROIN 1.91% 1.8% 2.1% 0.070% HEROIN 0.64% 0.6% 0.7% 0.040%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Border Grade 7 Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Border Grade 7
TOBACCO 29.55% 28.2% 30.9% 0.680% TOBACCO 9.78% 9.2% 10.3% 0.280%
ALCOHOL 52.97% 51.5% 54.5% 0.740% ALCOHOL 20.91% 19.1% 22.7% 0.910%
COCAINE 5.05% 4.5% 5.6% 0.280% COCAINE 2.22% 1.8% 2.6% 0.200%
CRACK 2.54% 2.2% 2.9% 0.190% CRACK 0.91% 0.7% 1.1% 0.100%
UPPERS 1.99% 1.5% 2.5% 0.260% UPPERS 0.88% 0.7% 1.1% 0.090%
DOWNERS 1.95% 1.5% 2.4% 0.210% DOWNERS 0.86% 0.7% 1.0% 0.080%
ECSTASY 2.83% 2.3% 3.4% 0.270% ECSTASY 1.05% 0.9% 1.2% 0.090%
- - 54
HEROIN 2.23% 1.8% 2.7% 0.210% HEROIN 0.69% 0.6% 0.8% 0.070%
TOBACCO 38.05% 37.2% 38.9% 0.440% TOBACCO 14.83% 13.9% 15.7% 0.450%
ALCOHOL 63.93% 62.8% 65.0% 0.550% ALCOHOL 30.05% 28.7% 31.4% 0.680%
COCAINE 8.55% 7.6% 9.5% 0.470% COCAINE 3.70% 3.1% 4.3% 0.290%
CRACK 3.72% 3.3% 4.2% 0.220% CRACK 1.60% 1.3% 1.9% 0.140%
UPPERS 3.70% 3.1% 4.3% 0.280% UPPERS 1.78% 1.5% 2.1% 0.150%
DOWNERS 3.98% 3.4% 4.6% 0.290% DOWNERS 2.02% 1.6% 2.4% 0.190%
ECSTASY 5.11% 4.5% 5.7% 0.290% ECSTASY 2.34% 2.0% 2.7% 0.190%
HEROIN 2.03% 1.8% 2.3% 0.140% HEROIN 0.83% 0.7% 1.0% 0.060%
TOBACCO 46.28% 44.7% 47.9% 0.790% TOBACCO 19.38% 18.3% 20.4% 0.530%
ALCOHOL 71.92% 70.7% 73.1% 0.610% ALCOHOL 38.97% 37.4% 40.5% 0.770%
COCAINE 13.82% 12.4% 15.2% 0.700% COCAINE 6.52% 5.6% 7.4% 0.440%
CRACK 4.48% 3.8% 5.1% 0.330% CRACK 1.75% 1.4% 2.1% 0.160%
UPPERS 5.23% 4.3% 6.2% 0.480% UPPERS 2.26% 1.7% 2.8% 0.290%
DOWNERS 6.00% 5.0% 7.0% 0.480% DOWNERS 2.73% 2.2% 3.3% 0.290%
ECSTASY 6.63% 6.0% 7.3% 0.340% ECSTASY 2.74% 2.3% 3.2% 0.220%
HEROIN 2.42% 2.2% 2.7% 0.130% HEROIN 0.73% 0.6% 0.9% 0.080%
TOBACCO 52.58% 50.6% 54.6% 0.990% TOBACCO 24.43% 22.4% 26.5% 1.030%
ALCOHOL 77.58% 76.4% 78.8% 0.590% ALCOHOL 45.50% 43.1% 47.9% 1.210%
- - 55
COCAINE 17.28% 15.5% 19.0% 0.870% COCAINE 8.18% 6.5% 9.8% 0.820%
CRACK 5.22% 3.2% 7.2% 0.990% CRACK 2.45% 1.0% 3.9% 0.720%
UPPERS 7.25% 6.0% 8.6% 0.650% UPPERS 3.75% 2.4% 5.1% 0.670%
DOWNERS 8.38% 7.1% 9.7% 0.650% DOWNERS 4.31% 3.0% 5.6% 0.640%
ECSTASY 6.91% 6.1% 7.7% 0.400% ECSTASY 2.74% 2.2% 3.3% 0.290%
HEROIN 1.33% 1.1% 1.6% 0.140% HEROIN 0.49% 0.4% 0.6% 0.060%
TOBACCO 55.70% 53.5% 57.9% 1.100% TOBACCO 26.36% 24.1% 28.7% 1.150%
ALCOHOL 79.98% 78.8% 81.1% 0.570% ALCOHOL 48.71% 46.7% 50.7% 1.010%
COCAINE 18.54% 17.5% 19.6% 0.520% COCAINE 7.68% 7.0% 8.3% 0.320%
CRACK 4.04% 3.4% 4.7% 0.320% CRACK 1.19% 0.9% 1.5% 0.140%
UPPERS 7.05% 6.0% 8.1% 0.520% UPPERS 2.82% 2.3% 3.3% 0.250%
DOWNERS 7.81% 6.6% 9.0% 0.590% DOWNERS 3.25% 2.7% 3.9% 0.300%
ECSTASY 8.39% 7.3% 9.5% 0.540% ECSTASY 3.50% 2.9% 4.1% 0.310%
HEROIN 1.45% 1.2% 1.7% 0.120% HEROIN 0.55% 0.4% 0.7% 0.090%
TOBACCO 58.89% 56.0% 61.8% 1.450% TOBACCO 31.59% 29.2% 34.0% 1.210%
ALCOHOL 80.17% 78.6% 81.8% 0.790% ALCOHOL 53.12% 50.9% 55.3% 1.110%
COCAINE 20.54% 19.3% 21.8% 0.630% COCAINE 8.85% 8.2% 9.5% 0.340%
CRACK 4.21% 3.5% 5.0% 0.380% CRACK 1.21% 0.8% 1.6% 0.210%
UPPERS 6.96% 6.0% 7.9% 0.490% UPPERS 2.62% 2.0% 3.2% 0.290%
DOWNERS 8.46% 7.1% 9.8% 0.670% DOWNERS 3.09% 2.4% 3.8% 0.330%
- - 56
ECSTASY 9.43% 7.5% 11.4% 0.960% ECSTASY 3.35% 2.7% 4.0% 0.330%
HEROIN 1.72% 1.3% 2.2% 0.220% HEROIN 0.44% 0.3% 0.6% 0.060%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Non-Border Overall Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Non-Border Overall
TOBACCO 44.72% 41.8% 47.6% 1.450% TOBACCO 17.94% 16.5% 19.4% 0.710%
ALCOHOL 71.08% 67.6% 74.5% 1.720% ALCOHOL 33.90% 32.5% 35.3% 0.700%
COCAINE 7.18% 5.1% 9.2% 1.030% COCAINE 2.47% 1.7% 3.3% 0.390%
CRACK 2.48% 1.5% 3.5% 0.490% CRACK 0.58% 0.5% 0.7% 0.050%
UPPERS 7.69% 5.4% 10.0% 1.150% UPPERS 3.44% 2.0% 4.8% 0.700%
DOWNERS 7.29% 5.0% 9.6% 1.160% DOWNERS 3.48% 2.1% 4.8% 0.680%
ECSTASY 8.92% 7.2% 10.6% 0.860% ECSTASY 3.19% 2.6% 3.8% 0.320%
HEROIN 1.68% 1.2% 2.1% 0.230% HEROIN 0.46% 0.4% 0.5% 0.020%
Lifetime Use of Selected Substances - Non-Border Grade 7 Past 30 Day Use of Selected Substances - Non-Border Grade 7
TOBACCO 28.03% 25.1% 31.0% 1.480% TOBACCO 8.48% 6.6% 10.4% 0.940%
ALCOHOL 52.83% 45.1% 60.6% 3.860% ALCOHOL 17.28% 15.6% 19.0% 0.850%
COCAINE 2.52% 1.8% 3.2% 0.340% COCAINE 1.19% 0.6% 1.8% 0.310%
CRACK 2.07% 1.5% 2.6% 0.270% CRACK 0.82% 0.6% 1.1% 0.130%
UPPERS 1.65% 1.4% 1.9% 0.130% UPPERS 0.55% 0.3% 0.9% 0.150%
DOWNERS 1.26% 0.9% 1.6% 0.170% DOWNERS 0.55% 0.3% 0.8% 0.140%
ECSTASY 3.69% 2.9% 4.5% 0.390% ECSTASY 1.51% 1.2% 1.8% 0.160%
HEROIN 1.63% 1.2% 2.1% 0.210% HEROIN 0.63% 0.4% 0.9% 0.140%
TOBACCO 35.67% 33.8% 37.5% 0.930% TOBACCO 11.15% 9.8% 12.5% 0.670%
- - 57
ALCOHOL 63.98% 61.6% 66.4% 1.200% ALCOHOL 25.28% 22.7% 27.8% 1.280%
COCAINE 4.17% 2.9% 5.5% 0.640% COCAINE 1.48% 1.2% 1.8% 0.150%
CRACK 2.53% 1.1% 3.9% 0.700% CRACK 0.45% 0.3% 0.6% 0.070%
UPPERS 3.09% 2.3% 3.9% 0.410% UPPERS 1.24% 1.0% 1.5% 0.130%
DOWNERS 2.86% 1.9% 3.8% 0.490% DOWNERS 1.20% 0.9% 1.5% 0.150%
ECSTASY 5.69% 4.4% 7.0% 0.660% ECSTASY 2.06% 1.6% 2.5% 0.240%
HEROIN 1.90% 1.3% 2.5% 0.310% HEROIN 0.43% 0.2% 0.7% 0.110%
TOBACCO 48.53% 42.4% 54.7% 3.070% TOBACCO 19.18% 16.2% 22.2% 1.490%
ALCOHOL 74.07% 69.8% 78.4% 2.140% ALCOHOL 35.98% 31.4% 40.5% 2.270%
COCAINE 7.72% 5.2% 10.2% 1.240% COCAINE 2.70% 1.7% 3.7% 0.480%
CRACK 3.12% 1.1% 5.1% 0.990% CRACK 0.66% 0.5% 0.8% 0.070%
UPPERS 8.88% 4.7% 13.1% 2.100% UPPERS 4.25% 2.1% 6.4% 1.090%
DOWNERS 8.17% 5.0% 11.4% 1.590% DOWNERS 3.93% 2.7% 5.2% 0.610%
ECSTASY 9.80% 7.4% 12.2% 1.190% ECSTASY 3.95% 2.7% 5.2% 0.630%
HEROIN 1.70% 1.3% 2.1% 0.190% HEROIN 0.48% 0.2% 0.8% 0.140%
TOBACCO 49.03% 44.7% 53.4% 2.160% TOBACCO 19.91% 17.6% 22.3% 1.180%
ALCOHOL 77.30% 73.6% 81.0% 1.860% ALCOHOL 39.02% 37.1% 40.9% 0.950%
COCAINE 8.51% 5.7% 11.4% 1.430% COCAINE 3.20% 2.1% 4.3% 0.560%
CRACK 2.11% 1.5% 2.8% 0.320% CRACK 0.76% 0.3% 1.2% 0.240%
- - 58
UPPERS 8.65% 6.2% 11.1% 1.210% UPPERS 4.51% 2.5% 6.6% 1.030%
DOWNERS 8.63% 5.5% 11.8% 1.560% DOWNERS 5.00% 1.9% 8.1% 1.540%
ECSTASY 9.52% 7.5% 11.5% 1.010% ECSTASY 3.43% 2.9% 4.0% 0.280%
HEROIN 1.16% 1.0% 1.3% 0.070% HEROIN 0.44% 0.3% 0.6% 0.070%
TOBACCO 52.94% 50.7% 55.2% 1.140% TOBACCO 23.04% 22.0% 24.1% 0.540%
ALCOHOL 79.04% 77.7% 80.4% 0.680% ALCOHOL 40.63% 38.2% 43.1% 1.220%
COCAINE 10.54% 6.6% 14.5% 1.960% COCAINE 3.66% 2.0% 5.3% 0.840%
CRACK 2.75% 1.3% 4.2% 0.720% CRACK 0.41% 0.2% 0.7% 0.120%
UPPERS 13.83% 8.1% 19.6% 2.880% UPPERS 6.13% 2.4% 9.9% 1.860%
DOWNERS 12.92% 6.2% 19.7% 3.380% DOWNERS 5.96% 2.5% 9.4% 1.740%
ECSTASY 13.30% 9.6% 17.0% 1.870% ECSTASY 4.81% 3.0% 6.7% 0.920%
HEROIN 2.00% 0.9% 3.1% 0.560% HEROIN 0.47% 0.2% 0.7% 0.120%
TOBACCO 58.71% 56.6% 60.9% 1.070% TOBACCO 29.58% 27.0% 32.2% 1.310%
ALCOHOL 83.92% 82.1% 85.7% 0.900% ALCOHOL 50.69% 47.1% 54.3% 1.820%
COCAINE 11.14% 9.4% 12.9% 0.860% COCAINE 2.90% 2.5% 3.3% 0.210%
CRACK 2.14% 1.5% 2.8% 0.320% CRACK 0.29% 0.2% 0.4% 0.070%
UPPERS 11.91% 9.7% 14.1% 1.090% UPPERS 4.56% 3.7% 5.4% 0.430%
DOWNERS 11.78% 9.1% 14.4% 1.330% DOWNERS 5.00% 3.8% 6.2% 0.620%
ECSTASY 13.16% 9.9% 16.4% 1.630% ECSTASY 3.63% 3.2% 4.1% 0.240%
HEROIN 1.72% 1.1% 2.3% 0.310% HEROIN 0.24% 0.1% 0.4% 0.060%
- - 59
APPENDIX I
2002 Item Response Analyses
- - 60
Item Response Analysis:
2002 Texas School Survey of Substance Use
Overview
The 2002 Texas School Survey of Substance Use was conducted by the Public Policy Research Institute (PPRI) in
conjunction with the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (TCADA). Following collection and TCADA
approval of the data, responses were analyzed to assess the integrity of the data. Specifically, the possibility of students‟
lack of truthfulness in responding, misinterpretation of items and/or response options, and inattention to the survey task
were acknowledged as potential threats to the validity of conclusions drawn from the data.
Separate analyses were conducted for the total sample of elementary and secondary school survey responses. In addition,
potential grade-level and ethnic differences in responding were examined for the statewide secondary instrument. The
analyses, and the results they yielded, are described below for each survey. In the course of reporting, results are
compared to those of the last full scale item analysis completed in 1998.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SURVEY INSTRUMENT

The elementary version of the 2002 Texas School Survey of Substance Use was administered to approximately 89,000
students within Texas school districts. Respondents were approximately equally distributed across grade 4 (30.1%),
grade 5 (33.0%), and grade 6 (36.2%). They were also equally male (49.4%) and female (50.6%). The majority of
respondents were ages 11 or 12 (58.8%), however students ranged in age of 8 years to 13 years old.
The discussion that follows focuses upon questions specifically assessing levels of alcohol, tobacco, and drug use. Many
of these questions allowed students to indicate that they had “never heard of” or “never used” a specific substance. The
following data examines exaggerated responses, the patterns of “never heard of” and “never used” responses, response
inconsistency, and missing data patterns.
“Exaggerators” were defined as individuals who responded in any of the following ways: (1) use of the nonexistent drug
COSMA; (2) excessive use of multiple alcoholic beverages; or (3) use of five or more drugs (excluding steroids) 11+
times. The proportion of elementary school students who exaggerated was slightly more than one percent (1.53%).
“Never Heard Of” Responses

It was assumed that students who were providing valid responses to the survey items would admit to having heard of
social substances—e.g., those that are legal, used within public domains, advertised in the media, etc. Among the
substances about which respondents were questioned in this survey, social substances would likely include tobacco
products, beer, wine coolers, wine, and liquor. Table I-1 depicts the total sample percentages of “never heard of”
responses to Items Q12, Q13, Q15, Q16, Q18 regarding these substances, as well as inhalants and marijuana.
Across the items presented in the table, respondents were most likely to have heard of beer, wine, and cigarettes
and least likely to have heard of wine coolers, liquor, and marijuana. This consistency in the ordering of “never
heard of” substances suggests that the respondents were answering truthfully. It is somewhat surprising that
cigarettes were more likely to elicit a “never heard of” response than beer and wine, and also that wine coolers
- - 61
were the least known substance. However, these responses may reflect societal trends rather than untruthful
answers.
TABLE I-1. Total Sample Percentages of “Never Heard of” Responses to Substance
Questions
% of „Never Heard of Responses‟

Q12: Q13: Q15: Q16: Q15:
Times Used Times Used About Anyone Tried How
During During School How Many to Give You Dangerous
Lifetime Year Friends Use Is Use
Cigarettes 4.53 4.13 3.58 3.53 2.57
Snuff or Chewing Tobacco 9.62 8.17 5.87 6.23 4.18
Beer 2.00 1.85 2.23 2.22 1.29
Wine Coolers 14.5 13.57 10.29 10.71 9.09
Wine 4.47 4.34 3.87 4.00 2.54
Liquor (whiskey, vodka,

12.72 11.57 8.77 8.57 6.18
tequila, etc.)
Inhalants (whiteout, glue,
9.34 8.59 7.37 7.14 5.22
gas, etc.)
Marijuana (pot) 12.55 11.59 9.45 9.06 6.81
Smoking bans have made cigarettes less prominent in public and wine coolers are not as widely advertised or
consumed as they were several years ago. Newly marketed alcoholic substances such as hard lemonade, cider
and bottled mixed beverages are currently gaining popularity. The fairly large percentage of “never heard of‟
responses regarding liquor in the lifetime and past year questions may be due to a lack of understanding of what
is meant by the term. Finally, the data also suggest that as the respondents became more familiar with the items
listed on the survey, they were less inclined to report that they had “never heard of” the substance.
“Never Heard Of” and “Never Used” Responses
Item analyses from previous surveys showed that some elementary students interchanged “never heard of” and
“never used” response options across questions. This was particularly true of Q14, “how old were you at first
use.” In response to these findings, the 2002 survey combined the responses “never heard of” and “never used”
for Q14 during data compilation. Data for other items (i.e., Q13, Q15, Q16, and Q17) was left unchanged.
Therefore, analyses were conducted to assess the degree to which students continued to interchange responses
on these items. The percentages of interchanged responses for items Q13, Q15, Q16, and Q17 was calculated
and compared to previous item analysis findings. The consequent data indicate that a small percentage of the
sample continued to use the two response options interchangeably; and that the percentage of students using
both responses interchangeably across the survey has increased since 1998 (see Table I-2).
TABLE I-2. Total Sample Percentages of Respondents that Interchanged “Never Heard of” and
“Never Used” Responses
- - 62
Responded “Never Heard of” in Q12
then later reported “Never Used”
% (% change from 1998)
Q13: Q15: Q16: Q15:

Times Used About Anyone Tried to How Dangerous
During School How Many Give You Is Use
Year Friends Use
Cigarettes 1.41 (62.07) N/A N/A N/A
Snuff or Chewing Tobacco 2.55 (60.38) N/A N/A N/A
Beer 0.82 (51.85) N/A N/A N/A
Wine Coolers 2.20 (78.86) N/A N/A N/A
Wine 1.22 (69.44) N/A N/A N/A
Liquor (whiskey, vodka, tequila, etc.) 2.89 (45.23) N/A N/A N/A
Inhalants (whiteout, glue, gas, etc.) 2.40 (49.07) N/A N/A N/A
Marijuana (pot) 2.49 (56.60) N/A N/A N/A
- - 63
TABLE I-2 cont. Total Sample Percentages of Respondents that Interchanged “Never Heard of” and
“Never Used” Responses
Responded “Never Used” in Q12

then later reported “Never Heard Of”
% (%change from 1998)
Q13: Q15: Q16: Q15:

Times Used About Anyone Tried to How Dangerous
During School How Many Give You Is Use
Year Friends Use
Cigarettes 0.90 (57.89) 1.45 (26.09) 1.53 (48.54) 1.53 (135.38)
Snuff or Chewing Tobacco 1.18 (57.33) 1.83 (39.69) 2.13 (36.54) 1.00 (33.33)
Beer 0.56 (40.00) 1.31 (37.89) 1.43 (53.76) 0.71 (39.22)
Wine Coolers 1.27 (81.43) 1.67 (51.82) 2.00 (68.07) 1.41 (93.15)
Wine 0.97 (67.24) 1.64 (41.38) 1.86 (55.00) 0.95 (82.69)

1.75 (47.06) 2.24 (28.00) 2.31 (37.50) 1.34 (31.37)
tequila, etc.)
Inhalants (whiteout, glue, gas,
1.73 (49.14) 2.63 (42.16) 2.70 (42.86) 1.67 (54.63)
etc.)
Marijuana (pot) 1.57 (44.04) 2.41 (34.64) 2.32 (37.28) 1.35 (45.16)
Response Inconsistency
Inconsistent response patterns were identified by cross tabulating responses related to substance use. These items
included Q12 (lifetime use of each substance), Q13 (number of times the substance was used since school began in the
fall), and Q14 (age of first use). In the analysis Q12 was cross tabulated with Q13 and Q14.
Response inconsistency was defined for each comparison as initial responses of “never used/never heard of” followed by
indications of use; and initial responses of use and subsequent answers of “never used” or “never heard of” the substance.
The exception to this was Q13. Item Q13 does not include a “never used it” option, but rather respondents are asked if
they have “not used” the substance during the past school year. Respondents could honestly report use during their
lifetime and not have used a substance during the school year. Therefore, a response of “not used it” on Q13 was not
considered an inconsistent response. In this instance, such responses were defined as those who reported use in Q12 but
indicated that they had “never heard of” the substance in Q13 (see Table I-3).
As mentioned above, Questions Q12, Q13, and Q14 asked about the use of all substances. The percentages of responses
within this set of questions that were inconsistent with the answer given to Q12 appear in Table I-3. In general, there was
minimal inconsistency in response patterns. Regardless of substance, the percentage of inconsistent responses between
Q12 and Q13 was consistently less than one percent of the total sample. A greater percentage of students provided
answers to Item Q14 that were inconsistent with those given to Q12. However, the percentages were still small, ranging
from .21% (snuff, chewing tobacco) to 2.05% (beer).
It could be expected that respondents who were answering untruthfully would most likely be those who initially admitted
usage, then denied it when questioned about a substance in more detail. However, on Item Q13, the percentages of
inconsistencies following this direction did not exceed .15% and were typically well below this number. In fact, those
who responded inconsistently were more likely to have initially reported no usage. Responses to Q14, however, were
- - 64
inconsistent in both directions. This was particularly true of beer, wine coolers, and wine. In each instance the percentage
of inconsistent responses—both those initially reporting use then denying it, and those initially reporting no use and later
indicating use—was over 1%.
TABLE I-3. Total Sample Percentages of Inconsistent Responses— Comparison of Responses to Item
Q12 and Items Q13 and Q14
% of „Never Heard of”/”Never used”

% of Use Responses in Q12 that Later
Responses in Q12 that Later Reported
Reported „Never Heard of”/”Never
Use
Used”
Q13: Q14: Q13: Q14:
Times Used During Age at First Use Times Used During Age at First Use
School Year School Year*
Cigarettes 0.26 1.16 0.09 0.39
Snuff or Chewing Tobacco 0.16 0.37 0.03 0.21
Beer 0.73 2.05 0.15 1.12
Wine Coolers 0.55 1.08 0.11 1.03
Wine 0.64 1.27 0.12 1.31

0.32 0.50 0.08 0.96
tequila, etc.)
Inhalants (whiteout, glue,
0.35 0.58 0.05 0.64
gas, etc.)
Marijuana (pot) 0.16 0.28 0.05 0.27
* Inconsistent responses to Q13 were defined as reported use in Q12 with a subsequent response of “never heard of” the
substance in Q13.
Response Inconsistency on Additional Alcohol Use Items
Additional analyses were conducted to identify inconsistent responses to other substance use related items. Responses
about lifetime usage (Q12c-f) of beer, wine coolers, wine, and liquor were compared to the respective answers about the
number of times they had consumed two or more drinks at one time during the past year (Q20a-d). Due to the wording of
Q20, inconsistency was measured in only one direction— as an initial response of “never used” or “never heard of” on
Q12 followed by an indication of use in Q20.
Compared to the questions asked of all substances, the items asking about the number of times an individual had
consumed two or more alcoholic beverages in one sitting showed greater inconsistency, but the percentages still ranged
only from only 1.7-3.1% (see Table I-4). Most of this inconsistency is accounted for by individuals who had responded
that they had “never used” the beverage in the lifetime question and subsequently responded that they had consumed two
or more beverages during one sitting only once during the past year. This could reflect inattention due to fatigue, given
that Item Q20 occurs very near the end of the survey. Another possible explanation for this inconsistency is that rather
than interpreting the “never used” response option in Item Q12 as meaning “never tried,” respondents are more loosely
perceiving the term as meaning “never regularly used.” Thus, they would have initially reported that they were not a
regular “user,” but had consumed two or more alcoholic beverages during one sitting.
- - 65
TABLE I-4. Total Sample Percentages of Inconsistent Responses— Comparison of Responses
to Item Q12 and Item Q20
% of „Never Heard of”/”Never used” Responses

in Q12 that Later Reported Use
Q20:
Used 2 or More Times in a
Row in the Past Year
Beer 3.10
Wine Coolers 2.34
Wine 2.63
Liquor (whiskey, vodka, tequila, etc.) 1.68
Response Inconsistency and Additional Inhalant Items
Inconsistency in response patterns occurred most frequently for inhalants. Responses to answers regarding the different
forms of inhalants in Q11 were compared to lifetime use of inhalants (Q12h). In both questions respondents were asked
to indicate if they had ever used the substance during their lifetime. Inconsistency was measured as both an initial
response of inhalant use followed by a response of “never used” or “never heard of” on Q12h; and an initial response of
no use in Q11 followed by an indication of use in Q12h.
Table I-5 illustrates the percentage of inconsistent responses resulting from comparing each form of inhalant in Q11 to
responses about lifetime use of inhalants in Q12h. The percentage of inconsistent respondents was between 1.0% and
4.0% for all substances. In contrast to other comparisons (Q12 to Q13), those who responded inconsistently were more
likely to have proclaimed no substance use in Item Q11 and subsequently respond that they had used inhalants in Q12h.
However, like the findings related to specific levels of alcohol use (Q12 and Q20), most of those that first indicated no
use of inhalants in Q11 and then reported use in Q12h, reported infrequent use. This suggests that even though the
responses are inconsistent, most of the irregularity may be attributable to those who have little experience and familiarity
with substances. Other inconsistencies may be the result of untruthful responses to one of these items, a misunderstanding
the meaning of the term „inhalants‟, and lastly inattention to the questions.
TABLE I-5. Total Sample Percentages of Inconsistent Responses— Comparison of Responses to Item
Q11 and Item Q12h
% Reporting Use in Q11 Then “Never % Reporting No Use in Q11

Heard of”/ “Never Used” in Q12 Then Use in Q12
Gasoline 1.28 3.66
Paint Thinner 1.04 4.15
Glue 1.57 3.38
Whiteout or Correction Fluid 1.21 2.85
Spray Paint 1.54 3.62
Other Inhalants 2.13 2.92
- - 66
Missing Data
The average percentage of respondents who failed to give any response across all items was 6.42%, with a standard
deviation equal to 2.48. The extent of missing data ranged from 0.0% (Item Q2) to 10.13% (Item Q19c). Compared to
the 1998 item analysis, the average percentage of missing data has slightly declined by approximately 1%.
The percentages of responses missing across items were further examined in order to determine the extent to which the
pattern of missing data was systematic rather than random. As might be expected due to fatigue and/or boredom, the
percentage of missing responses tended to increase as the item position approached the end of the questionnaire. The
relationship between the percent of missing data on an item and the item‟s ranked position within the survey is
graphically illustrated in the Figure I-1 scatterplot. The Spearman rho correlation coefficient between these two variables
equaled .468 and was statistically significant ( = .01; two-tailed test).
However, the relationship between the percent of missing data on an item was not entirely due to its position within the
questionnaire. There is also a persistent increase of missing data within multi-part items. Several questions within the
survey were comprised of sub-items — e.g., those that ask students to respond about each substance listed. Excluding
“cosma”, each of these questions contained eight sub-items. As Figure I-2 illustrates, respondents appear to be willing to
begin and end each of substance use questions. However, there is a marked increase of missing data among the middle
sub-items, predominantly those related to alcohol. This may be due to the fact that respondents become bored or fatigued
as they move through the multi-part items. They may only regain interest as the list of sub-items ends.
FIGURE I-1. Percent of Missing Data by Item’s Ranked Position— Elementary
12
FIGURE I-2.
Percent of
10 Missing Data by
Ranked Position
of Question’s
Percent of Missing Values
8
Sub-Items
Elementary (Q12,
6 Q13, Q14, Q15,
Q16, Q18)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Item‟s Ranked Position within Survey
- - 67
10
8
Percent of Missing Values
Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q18

Sub-items 1-8 Sub-items 1-8 Sub-items 1-8 Sub-items 1-8 Sub-items 1-8 Sub-items 1-8
This pattern could be particularly problematic for the substance-use items, given that these substances are listed in the
same order for each of these types of questions. Respondents may be under-reporting their use of alcoholic substances
such as wine coolers, wine and liquor due to fatigue. Alternatively, they may have responded earlier in the questionnaire
that they do not use a particular substance and then omitted all subsequent questions about it. Unfortunately, there is no
way to determine which—if either—of these explanations validly accounts for the observed pattern of missing data.
SECONDARY SCHOOL SURVEY INSTRUMENT

The secondary school version of the 2002 Texas School Survey of Substance Use was administered to over 150,000
students in grades 7-12. Almost twenty percent of the total sample were in each of grades 7 (19.2%), 8 (18.7%), and 9
(19.2%). The percentages in grades 10 and 11 were approximately equal (16.1% and 14.1%, respectively). Grade 12 was
represented by 12.7% of the total sample.
As with the elementary school sample, blank surveys, surveys that could not be matched by district or grade, and those
from individuals identified as “exaggerators” were omitted from this data base. The total number of useable surveys was
therefore 149,220. The definition of a secondary school “exaggerated” response is first described below. Response
inconsistency and missing data patterns are then discussed.
“Exaggerators” were defined as individuals who responded in any of the following ways: (1) use of the nonexistent drug
COSMA; (2) excessive use of multiple alcoholic beverages; or (3) use of five or more drugs (excluding steroids) 11+
times. The percentage of secondary school students who exaggerated (4.69%) was more than three times that of
elementary students.
Response Inconsistency
Inconsistent response patterns were again identified by cross-tabulating responses regarding most recent use of each
substance with several other items. Within initial total sample analyses, responses to Questions Q17 and Q18 were cross-
tabulated with answers about the respective substances listed in Q23. These questions were selected due to the fact that
the sub-items in Q17 and Q18 directly corresponded to those in Q23 and that they all directly targeted substance use
levels.
- - 68
As with the elementary version of the survey, responses counted as inconsistent included both initial responses of having
“never heard of/never used” the substance followed by indications of use; and admission of having used a substance even
one time with subsequent answers of “never heard of/never used” that particular alcoholic beverage or drug. Data were
first examined for the total secondary school sample, followed by grade and ethnic subsamples.
Total Secondary School Sample

Table I-5 presents the percentage of inconsistent responses between items Q17, Q18 and Q23. It depicts both those who
reported “never heard of/never used” and then subsequent use; and those who cited use on items Q17 or Q18 and then
indicated “no use” on Q23. Overall few students provided inconsistent responses in either direction. Those who did,
however, were more likely to report inconsistencies on items related to alcohol and tobacco products than on other items
dealing with illicit drugs. The percentages of tobacco and alcohol related inconsistent responses (Q17 and sub-items a-f
on Q23) ranged from 1.2% to 5%. Fewer were found in a comparison of Q18, which focused on illicit substances and the
sub-items of Q23. These percentages fell between 0.2% and 2.7%.
In general there was a trend for students to report use on items Q17 and Q18 and then recant it on item Q23. This may be
due to the fact that the questions about the most recent use allow a “used at least once in your lifetime” response. In
contrast, item Q23 provides use responses ranging from use “never” to “less than once” a year. As Table I-6 indicates,
students that reported infrequent, “lifetime” use on items Q17 and Q18 were more likely to recant use on item Q23.
TABLE I-5. Total Sample Percentages of Inconsistent Responses— Comparison of Responses

to Items Q17, Q18 and Item Q23
% of “Never Heard of”/”Never % of Use Responses that Later

Used” Responses that Reported “Never Used It”
Later Reported Use
Q23: Q23:
Frequency of Normal Use Frequency of Normal Use
Q17 –Recently Used Tobacco/Alcohol
Cigarettes 1.57 5.59
Smokeless tobacco 1.61 2.35
Beer 3.69 5.05
Wine coolers 3.39 5.00
Wine 4.60 5.67
Liquor 2.59 4.41
Q18 –Recently Used Drugs
Marijuana 0.55 3.37
Cocaine 0.33 1.35
Crack 0.33 0.61
Hallucinogens 0.33 0.76
Uppers 0.43 0.75
Downers 0.58 0.80
Rohypnol 0.57 1.18
Steroids 0.29 0.55
Ecstasy 0.38 0.78
Heroin 0.23 0.41
- - 69
For these students a choice of “never used” might actually mean that while they have tried it, they do not consider this
regular use a substance.
It was also apparent during data analysis that there was some tendency among those who initially reported no use of a
substance to later report usage at the lowest level listed as a response option—e.g., “Less than Once a Year” in Item Q23.
This could similarly be due to an interpretation of the term “used” within the context of regularity of use. Individuals
who do not regularly “use” respond in Q17 and Q18 that they never use, even though they have, on rare occasions,
experimented with a substance.
TABLE I-6. Total Sample Percentages of Inconsistent Responses— Recanted Use on Item
Q23 by Level of Reported Use on Items Q17, Q18
Initially Initially Initially

Reported Use Reported Use Reported Use
In Past Month Since School Began In Lifetime
% That Recanted Use on Q23
Q17 –Recently Used Tobacco/Alcohol
Cigarettes 3.74 4.96 26.43
Smokeless tobacco 16.45 20.70 34.31
Beer 3.42 4.64 21.68
Wine coolers 4.64 5.28 18.06
Wine 6.79 6.98 20.08
Liquor 4.62 6.93 20.67
Q18 –Recently Used Drugs
Marijuana 3.42 7.03 25.51
Cocaine 8.01 10.96 28.63
Crack 16.98 18.29 32.45
Hallucinogens 15.35 13.68 23.66
Uppers 7.12 10.18 19.25
Downers 7.97 9.84 21.40
Rohypnol 15.39 16.25 29.31
Steroids 23.53 23.16 33.63
Ecstasy 6.23 7.38 16.84
Heroin 25.38 22.83 27.88
Grade Comparisons
Analyses were conducted to determine the percentage of students in each grade that reported inconsistent responses.
Responses to items Q17 and Q18 were again compared across grades to those of item Q23. Table I-7 displays the total
percentage of response inconsistencies. It includes inconsistencies that occurred in the two ways addressed above. All
groups were more likely to provide inconsistent responses to items related to the use of tobacco and alcohol products
(i.e., Q17) than to those addressing the use of illicit substances (i.e., Q18). However, across grades, there was a general
trend for respondents in the higher grades (i.e. grades 10, 11, and 12) to provide proportionately more inconsistent
responses. This is particularly true for specific substances such as tobacco products, wine and wine coolers, marijuana,
cocaine, and hallucinogens. In fact, the percentage of seniors providing inconsistent responses is more than three times
higher than that of seventh graders in the categories of marijuana, hallucinogens, uppers, and downers.
- - 70
There may various reasons for the inconsistencies. Primarily, the increase in inconsistent responses across grades may
simply be due to the increase in the proportion of those reporting use per grade. As the proportion of students reporting
use increases so do opportunities to report inconsistently. Inconsistent responses may also result from the way in which
older students read the questions. As discussed in the previous section, it is likely that the question wording of Q17, Q18
and Q23 contributes to inconsistent responses. Students may not consider use “in their lifetime” on Q17 and Q18 as
regular use and select “never used it” on Q23. Older students may be more likely to make a distinction between “used on
occasion” and “regular use”. In fact, across grades the proportion of inconsistent responses is generally attributable to
those students that report the least use.
TABLE I-7. Percentage in Each Grade Reporting Inconsistent Data Comparison of Items Q17,
Q18 and Item Q23 by Grade
Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade p-value

7 8 9 10 11 12
Inconsistent Responses Between
Q17a-f and Q23a-f
Cigarettes 5.92 6.64 7.76 7.74 7.77 7.54 <0.0001
Smokeless tobacco 2.96 3.74 4.32 4.31 4.12 4.68 <0.0001
Beer 9.04 9.46 9.46 8.34 7.83 7.57 <0.0001
Wine coolers 7.33 7.96 8.79 8.53 8.74 9.41 <0.0001
Wine 8.69 9.39 11.0 10.74 11.10 11.32 <0.0001
Liquor 5.79 7.21 7.68 7.39 7.03 6.89 <0.0001
Q18a-k and Q23h-r
Marijuana 2.07 2.77 3.69 4.36 5.37 6.58 <0.0001
Cocaine 0.94 1.33 1.77 1.84 2.05 2.55 <0.0001
Crack 0.88 1.02 1.01 0.89 0.92 0.86 0.2908
Hallucinogens 0.47 0.76 1.09 1.31 1.14 1.85 <0.0001
Uppers 0.63 0.79 1.46 1.58 1.85 2.07 <0.0001
Downers 0.67 1.00 1.43 1.66 1.87 2.08 <0.0001
Rohypnol 1.18 1.58 1.89 1.88 1.97 2.06 <0.0001
Steroids 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.69 0.77 0.1202
Ecstasy 0.73 1.18 1.26 1.31 1.10 1.50 <0.0001
Heroin 0.72 0.75 0.69 0.48 0.42 0.61 <0.0001
* Chi-square test (DF=5)
Ethnic Comparisons
The analyses described above for the six grade levels were also conducted across ethnic groups. The percentage of
response inconsistencies were calculated from: (1) those who initially indicated “never heard of/never used” on items
Q17 and Q18 and then claimed use on item Q23; and (2) those who reported use on items Q17 and Q18 and then denied
it on item Q23. As shown in Table I-8, the percentage of inconsistent data varied by substances and by ethnicity. In
general, Asian Americans and Caucasians tended to respond more consistently than did respondents of the other
ethnicities. Inconsistencies were highest among African Americans as they responded to questions about beer and
alcohol. Notably, Mexican American students were more likely than the other groups to provide inconsistent responses to
questions related to cocaine and Rohypnol. Across ethnic groups, inconsistencies were more common among the social
substances, such as tobacco and alcohol products. Similar to the grade comparisons, such responses are likely attributable
to differences in use patterns and/or exposure to a specific substances across ethnic groups.
TABLE I-8. Percentage in Each Ethnic Category Reporting Inconsistent Data Comparison of
Items Q17, Q18 and Item Q23 by Ethnicity
- - 71
White African Mexican Asian Native Other p-value*
Amer. Amer. Amer. Amer.
Q17a-f and Q23a-f
Cigarettes 4.91 9.58 8.40 5.27 8.49 8.05 <0.0001
Smokeless tobacco 3.50 3.37 4.50 2.53 4.08 3.94 <0.0001
Beer 6.29 12.48 9.80 8.07 9.94 9.38 <0.0001
Wine coolers 7.12 10.66 9.00 6.69 9.14 8.14 <0.0001
Wine 9.11 10.80 11.13 8.30 10.87 10.34 <0.0001
Liquor 5.36 8.36 8.00 5.37 6.73 7.44 <0.0001
Q18a-k and Q23h-r
Marijuana 3.02 4.60 4.54 1.89 4.57 4.13 <0.0001
Cocaine 0.95 0.50 2.49 0.52 1.54 1.65 <0.0001
Crack 0.60 0.34 1.29 0.52 1.65 1.06 <0.0001
Hallucinogens 1.30 0.40 1.03 0.95 1.56 1.16 <0.0001
Uppers 1.55 0.46 1.35 0.78 1.66 1.32 <0.0001
Downers 1.50 0.47 1.53 0.60 1.11 1.25 <0.0001
Rohypnol 1.12 0.43 2.48 0.58 3.21 1.32 <0.0001
Steroids 0.88 0.62 0.81 0.63 1.67 1.01 <0.0001
Ecstasy 0.92 0.88 1.36 1.00 2.10 1.23 0.0005
Heroin 0.43 0.41 0.81 0.35 1.08 0.70 <0.0001
* Chi-square test (DF=5)
Missing Data
The average percentage of respondents who failed to give any response across all items was 8.96%, with a standard
deviation equal to 6.91. The extent of missing data ranged from 0.0% (Item Q2) to 33.42% (Item Q29c).
As with the elementary version of the survey, the percent of students who did not provide a response tended to increase as
the position of the item approached the end of the questionnaire. The Spearman rank-order correlation was .53, a value
statistically significant at the .01 level (two-tailed test). However, as illustrated in Figure I-3, the relationship between
missing data and item position was not a strictly linear one. Most notably there are three areas of relatively high
proportions of missing responses. In addition there are also patterns of drop-off on questions with sub-items.
Similar to the 1998 survey, there are three groups of questions that a large proportion (approximately 20%-30%) of
students are simply ignoring. Of the three highest peaks in the Figure I-3 scatterplot, the first (reading left to right)
reflects the set of questions regarding extracurricular activities (Q12a-Q12k). The second group of questions (for which
the percentages of missing data were greatest overall) pertained to methods of ingesting marijuana (Q29a-Q29e). The
final noticeably high point in the graph reflects the percentages of missing data on the questions about sources of
information about drugs (Q37q-Q37h). With the possible exception of the items about marijuana ingestion, the questions
displaying the greatest amount of missing data are fairly innocuous. Perhaps they are being ignored because they are
irrelevant to the student.
- - 72
FIGURE I-3. Percent of Missing Data by Item’s Ranked Position— Secondary
In addition, smaller proportions of students were inclined to skip questions at other various points in the survey. These
35
30
Percent of Missing Data
25
20
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Item‟s Ranked Position within Survey

points, again read from Figure I-3 from left to right, coincided with Q16, Q21, Q28, Q32, and Q35. Question sets Q16
and Q21 dealt with the use of inhalants and the ease of obtaining substances. Both had an average percentage of missing
responses of approximately 8%. The sub-items of Q28, which asked about the dangers of substance use, averaged 10%
missing data. Items Q32 (which asked a series of questions related to the consequences of use) and Q35 (which asked
about the pursuit of help as a result of a substance abuse problem) also had relatively high rates of missing data.
Specifically, the sub-items of Q32 averaged 12% missing; and notably, nearly 15% of those surveyed left Q35 blank.
This may be the results of fatigue since both question appear late in the survey. However, it may also be related to the
sensitivity of questions related to harm and the consequences of use.
Missing Data by Grade

Missing data were analyzed to determine differences among students by grade. The average percentage of respondents
who failed to give any response across all items was calculated for grades seven through twelve. As Table I-9 suggests
that the level of missing data decreased as the grade increased. The average percent of missing data for grade seven was
11.1%, with a standard deviation equal to 8.26. In contrast, the average percent of missing data for those in the twelfth
grade was approximately 7% with a standard deviation of 5.82. A one-way analysis of variance was performed. The F-
value was 6.97 (df = 5; p = 0.00). A Duncan multiple-range test at the 0.01 level indicated that grade seven was
significantly different from all other grades. Similarly grades seven, eight, nine were significantly different than grades
11 and 12.
TABLE I-9. Average Percentages of Missing Data Across All Survey Items by
Grade
Grade Average % of Missing SD
7 11.13 8.26
- - 73
8 9.07 7.31
9 9.19 7.05
10 8.31 6.62
11 7.68 6.28
12 7.37 5.82
The percentages of missing data for all questions were plotted to determine differences in patterns of missing responses
by grade. As Figure I-4 indicates, there were similar patterns of non-response among each grade. Each grade had high
rates of missing data at three common points, question sets Q12, Q29, and Q37. As stated above these questions dealt
with extracurricular activities, marijuana use methods, and sources of information about drugs and alcohol. The higher
rates of missing data among younger students on Q12 may be attributable to the availability of extracurricular activities
listed at the middle school level. The other items (Q29 and Q37) appear late in the survey. Therefore, drop-off among
those in the lower grades may be a result of fatigue or the result of the items being less relevant to younger students.
Since proportionately fewer students report substance use in the lower grades, questions related to specific methods of
use (Q29) and use information (Q37) may not solicit student interest.
Missing Data by Ethnicity

Missing data were also analyzed to determine differences among students by ethnicity. The average percentage of
respondents who failed to give any response across all items was calculated for six racial/ethnic categories: White,
African American, Mexican American, Asian American, Native American, and Other. As Table I-10 indicates, the level
of missing data was the highest among Native American and African American students. The average percent of missing
data was the lowest among white students at 7.62%, with a standard deviation equal to 6.5. The highest average
percentage of missing data was found among African American students at 11%, with a standard deviation of 6.5. A one-
way analysis of variance was performed. The F-value was 7.35 (df = 5; p = 0.00). A Duncan multiple-range test was
calculated at the 0.01 level. It indicated that the level of non-response among African American and Native American
students was significantly higher than that of white, Asian American and Mexican American students.
TABLE I-10. Average Percentages of Missing Data Across All Survey Items by Ethnicity
Ethnicity Average % of Missing SD
White 7.62 6.50
Asian American 8.02 5.61
Mexican American 9.01 7.10
Other 10.01 6.99
Native American 10.59 7.08
African American 11.07 6.50
The percentages of missing data were plotted to determine if patterns varied across survey items by ethnicity. Similar to
the grade comparisons, Figure I-5 indicates that there were common patterns of non-responses among all ethnic groups.
The highest rates of missing data were consistent to other analyses and were found at question sets Q12, Q29, and Q37.
- - 74
page left blank
- - 75
[page left intentionally blank]
- - 76
SUMMARY
In sum, the vast majority of students in both elementary and secondary schools appeared to have provided valid responses
to the 2002 Texas School Survey of Substance Use. Few students were classified as giving exaggerated responses and
inconsistency in responding was generally most likely due to inattention to the survey task, misinterpretation of the
question, or fatigue. On the whole there was little difference between the results of the 1998 and the 2002 survey item
analyses. The major specific findings of the item analyses for each survey are listed below.
Elementary
 Only 1.53% were classified as exaggerators.

 A small proportion of students use “never heard of” and “never used” response options
interchangeably. While few do so, in comparison to 1998 data, the percentage of those interchanging
responses has risen. This is not a substantial problem however, given that the inconsistencies are
between two responses that indicate non-use.
 Less than one percent of those surveyed provided inconsistent responses in a comparison of use over
a lifetime and use during the school year.
 When reports of lifetime use were compared to reported age of first use, respondents are most likely
to provide inconsistent responses when asked about the use of alcoholic beverages. This may be due
to the fact the greater reported use of alcohol presents greater opportunities for inconsistencies.
 Other comparisons of response inconsistency indicate that inconsistent responses are attributable to
those who report infrequent substance use. This may suggest that “no use” and “never used”
responses are read as “not used regularly”.
 Questions are somewhat more likely to be left unanswered as their position in the survey approached
the end.
 Participants are willing to begin and end an item that contained multiple parts, but routinely omitted
substances that came in the middle of a list.
Secondary
 Nearly five percent 4.69% of the respondents were classified as exaggerators.

 Inconsistencies within the total secondary school sample may be attributable to differential
interpretations of the term “use.” While in some questions students appear to be responding with
respect to regularity of use, they are at other times giving answers that refer to whether or not they
have ever tried the substance.
 In general, individuals in older grades are more likely to provide inconsistent data than are students
in lower grades. Again this may be related to use levels which increase with older students.
 Overall, Asian Americans and Caucasians responded more consistently than did respondents of other
ethnic backgrounds.
 There was a general trend for student to leave items nearing the end of the survey blank. However
missing data were concentrated around three questions related to extracurricular activities, methods
of marijuana use, and sources of substance abuse information.
 Younger students in grades seven and eight are generally more likely than older students to skip
questions.
 African American and Native American students are more likely than other ethnic groups to ignore
questions on the survey.
 The patterns of missing responses differ very little across grades and ethnic groups.
- - 77
- - 78

2002 Texas School Survey of Substance Use - Methodology Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2002 Texas School Survey of Substance Use - Methodology Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Texas School Survey

For the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Public Policy Research Institute

TABLE 2. State Sample by Strata

Stratum 1-A: District Name (rank) Stratum 1-A: District Name

Stratum 1-B: District Name (rank) Stratum 1-B: District Name

TABLE 2. State Sample by Strata (cont.)

Stratum 1-D: District Name (rank) Stratum 1-D: District Name

Anna (1) Castleberry

Stratum 2-A: District Name (rank) Stratum 2-A: District Name

Beaumont (1) Austin

Stratum 2-B: District Name (rank) Stratum 2-B: District Name

TABLE 2. State Sample by Strata (cont.)

Pearland (1) Alvin

Stratum 3-B: District Name (rank) Stratum 3-B: District Name

Copperas Cove (1) Bartlett

Stratum 4-A: District Name (rank) Stratum 4-A: District Name

Stratum 4-B: District Name (rank) Stratum 4-B: District Name

TABLE 2. State Sample by Strata (cont.)

Brewster Kinney Benavides (78) Mission (43)

Participation of Border School Districts

TABLE 3. Cooperation Rate of Districts by Strata

TABLE 4. Percentage of Students Included in Final Sampling Frame by Strata

Allocation of Surveys among Districts

TABLE 4. Number of Surveys Included in State Sample

Total Number of Number Percent

Allocation of Surveys among Classrooms and Campuses

TABLE 5. Survey Distribution by Grade

Grade Number of Usable Percentage

Secondary 7th 28,596 19%

Selection of Classrooms within Campuses

Other Sampling Considerations

Survey Administration Procedures

Data Entry and Analyses

Unreported Grade Levels

Age Elementary Age Secondary

Quality Control Measures

Weights, Standard Errors, and Confidence Intervals

Item Response Analysis

Participating Border Districts

CAMERON VAL VERDE

Classroom Selection Guidelines

Survey Administration Guide

Computation of Sample Weights

District Level Weights

A weight wilk is assigned to each sampled classroom k , in grade l , in district i :

where, cˆil  mil / nil and

m il = no. of students sampled in grade l , in district i

Stratum Level Weights

1 if district i was sampled with probability 1

State Level estimates

Standard Error Formulae

if strata=22 then strata=21;

proc sort data=___;

The SUDAAN code needs to incorporate the following:

Standard Error and Confidence Interval Tables

2002 Item Response Analyses

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SURVEY INSTRUMENT

“Never Heard Of” Responses

% of „Never Heard of Responses‟

Snuff or Chewing Tobacco 9.62 8.17 5.87 6.23 4.18

Beer 2.00 1.85 2.23 2.22 1.29

Wine Coolers 14.5 13.57 10.29 10.71 9.09