Dataset Information

A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:This study assessed the prevalence of physical and cognitive doping in recreational triathletes with two different randomized response models, that is, the Cheater Detection Model (CDM) and the Unrelated Question Model (UQM). Since both models have been employed in assessing doping, the major objective of this study was to investigate whether the estimates of these two models converge. MATERIAL AND METHODS:An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 2,967 athletes at two triathlon events (Frankfurt and Wiesbaden, Germany). Doping behavior was assessed either with the CDM (Frankfurt sample, one Wiesbaden subsample) or the UQM (one Wiesbaden subsample). A generalized likelihood-ratio test was employed to check whether the prevalence estimates differed significantly between models. In addition, we compared the prevalence rates of the present survey with those of a previous study on a comparable sample. RESULTS:After exclusion of incomplete questionnaires and outliers, the data of 2,017 athletes entered the final data analysis. Twelve-month prevalence for physical doping ranged from 4% (Wiesbaden, CDM and UQM) to 12% (Frankfurt CDM), and for cognitive doping from 1% (Wiesbaden, CDM) to 9% (Frankfurt CDM). The generalized likelihood-ratio test indicated no differences in prevalence rates between the two methods. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in prevalences between the present (undertaken in 2014) and the previous survey (undertaken in 2011), although the estimates tended to be smaller in the present survey. DISCUSSION:The results suggest that the two models can provide converging prevalence estimates. The high rate of cheaters estimated by the CDM, however, suggests that the present results must be seen as a lower bound and that the true prevalence of doping might be considerably higher.

SUBMITTER: Schroter H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4878800 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes.

Schröter Hannes H Studzinski Beatrix B Dietz Pavel P Ulrich Rolf R Striegel Heiko H Simon Perikles P

PloS one 20160524 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>This study assessed the prevalence of physical and cognitive doping in recreational triathletes with two different randomized response models, that is, the Cheater Detection Model (CDM) and the Unrelated Question Model (UQM). Since both models have been employed in assessing doping, the major objective of this study was to investigate whether the estimates of these two models converge.<h4>Material and methods</h4>An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 2,967 athletes at two ...[more]

PMID: 27218830

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectivesIn order to increase the value of randomized response techniques (RRTs) as tools for studying sensitive issues, the present study investigated whether the prevalence estimate for a sensitive item [Formula: see text] assessed with the unrelated questionnaire method (UQM) is influenced by changing the probability of receiving the sensitive question p.Material and methodsA short paper-and-pencil questionnaire was distributed to 1.243 university students assessing the 12-month prevalence of physical and cognitive doping using two versions of the UQM with different probabilities for receiving the sensitive question (p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3). Likelihood ratio tests were used to assess whether the prevalence estimates for physical and cognitive doping differed significantly between p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3. The order of questions (physical doping and cognitive doping) as well as the probability of receiving the sensitive question (p ≈ 1/3 or p ≈ 2/3) were counterbalanced across participants. Statistical power analyses were performed to determine sample size.ResultsThe prevalence estimate for physical doping with p ≈ 1/3 was 22.5% (95% CI: 10.8-34.1), and 12.8% (95% CI: 7.6-18.0) with p ≈ 2/3. For cognitive doping with p ≈ 1/3, the estimated prevalence was 22.5% (95% CI: 11.0-34.1), whereas it was 18.0% (95% CI: 12.5-23.5) with p ≈ 2/3. Likelihood-ratio tests revealed that prevalence estimates for both physical and cognitive doping, respectively, did not differ significantly under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3 (physical doping: χ2 = 2.25, df = 1, p = 0.13; cognitive doping: χ2 = 0.49, df = 1, p = 0.48). Bayes factors computed with the Savage-Dickey method favored the null ("the prevalence estimates are identical under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3") over the alternative ("the prevalence estimates differ under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3") hypothesis for both physical doping (BF = 2.3) and cognitive doping (BF = 5.3).ConclusionThe present results suggest that prevalence estimates for physical and cognitive doping assessed by the UQM are largely unaffected by the probability for receiving the sensitive question p.

Dataset Information

A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes.

Publications

A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets