Article thumbnail

Incongruence in Doping Related Attitudes, Beliefs and Opinions in the Context of Discordant Behavioural Data: In Which Measure Do We Trust?

By Andrea Petróczi, Martina Uvacsek, Tamás Nepusz, Nawed Deshmukh, Iltaf Shah, Eugene V. Aidman, James Barker, Miklós Tóth and Declan P. Naughton
Topics: Research Article
Publisher: Public Library of Science
OAI identifier: oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:3082532
Provided by: PubMed Central

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2007). A comparison of direct vs. self-report measures for assessing height, weight and body mass index: a systematic review.
  2. (2010). A history of implicit social cognition: where is it coming from? Where is it going?
  3. (2009). A mediation analysis of the ATHENA intervention for female athletes: prevention of athletic-enhancing substance use and unhealthy weight loss behaviors.
  4. (2010). Analysis of anabolic steroids in human hair using LC-MS/MS.
  5. (2007). Atkin A
  6. (2008). Comparison between self-report and hair analysis of illicit drug use in a community sample of middle-aged men.
  7. (2010). Contextual influences and athlete attitudes to drugs in sport.
  8. (2006). Definition and outcome of a curriculum to prevent disordered eating and body-shaping drug use.
  9. (2007). Differences in the validity of selfreported drug use across five factors: gender, race, age, type of drug, and offense seriousness.
  10. (2007). Discrepancies between self-report and objective measures for stimulant drug use in HIV: Cognitive, medication adherence and psychological correlate.
  11. (2006). Do features of stimuli influence IAT effects?
  12. (2010). Does social desirability influence the relationship between doping attitudes and doping susceptibility in athletes?
  13. (2007). Fouts A
  14. (1997). Gender differences in social desirability and social approval bias in dietary self-report.
  15. (1998). Hair testing and doping control in sport.
  16. (2010). How good is finegrained Timeline Follow-back data? Comparing 30-day TLFB and repeated 7-day TLFB alcohol consumption reports on the person and daily level.
  17. Inside athletes’ minds: Preliminary results from a pilot study on mental representation of doping and implications for antidoping (in press, Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy).
  18. (2010). Just say ‘‘I don’t’’: lack of concordance between teen report and biological measures of drug use.
  19. (1998). Levels and patterns of alcohol consumption using Timeline Follow-Back, Daily Diaries and Real-Time ‘‘Electronic Interviews.
  20. (2008). Long-term outcomes of the ATHENA (Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise & Nutrition Alternatives) Program for female high school athletes.
  21. (1996). Lying in everyday life.
  22. (2010). Measurement of selfreported HIV risk behaviors in injection drug users: Comparison of standard versus timeline follow-back administration procedures.
  23. (2009). Measuring explicit attitude as an indicator of athletes’ engagement in doping: Review of the psychometric properties of the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale.
  24. (2008). Measuring the use and career histories of drug users in treatment: reliability of the Lifetime Drug Use History (LDUH) and its data yield relative to clinical case notes.
  25. (2011). Methodological considerations regarding response bias effect in substance use research: is correlation sufficient? Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy
  26. (2011). Petroczi A
  27. (2009). Predicting future anabolic-androgenic steroid use intentions with current substance use: Findings from an Internetbased survey.
  28. (2005). Preventing substance use among high school athletes.
  29. (2010). Reducing socially desirable responses in epidemiologic surveys: an extension of the randomizedresponse technique.
  30. (2006). Results of hair analyses for drugs of abuse and comparison with selfreports and urine tests Forensic Sci Int
  31. (2010). Rethinking social desirability scales: from impression management to interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspect Psychol Sci 5: 243–262. Explicit vs.
  32. (1992). Sex differences in emotional reactions to discovered deception.
  33. (2008). Social desirability trait influences on self-reported dietary measures among diverse participants in a multicenter multiple risk factor trial.
  34. (2009). The Brief Implicit Association Test.
  35. (2007). The CAGE Questionnaire for alcohol misuse: a review of reliability and validity studies.
  36. (2010). The Cannabis Use Problems Identification Test (CUPIT): development, reliability, concurrent and predictive validity among adolescents and adults.
  37. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: three studies of self-reported lies.
  38. (2010). The reliability and validity of drug users’ self reports of amphetamine use among primarily heroin and cocaine users.
  39. (1996). The reliability of the Alcohol Timeline Followback when administered by telephone and by computer.
  40. (1992). Timeline Follow-back: a technique for assessing self-reported ethanol consumption. In
  41. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.
  42. (2010). Virtue or pretense? Looking behind self-declared innocence in doping.