Journal of Primary Prevention,2(2}~Winter, 1981

Student Attitudinal Inventory for Outcome Evaluation of Adolescent Drug Abuse Prevention Programs SEHWAN KIM ABSTRACT: This study introduces an evaluation instrument entitled the "High-Risk Student Attitudinal Inventory." It can be used for outcome evaluation in assessing the effectiveness of various primary prevention programs aimed at deterring adolescent drug abuse. This instrument has seven attitudinal syndromes that are theoretically based and are empirically related to student drug involvement. Each attitudinal syndrome is composed of ten Likert-type scale items. The mean Cronbach Alpha coefficient of reliability pertaining to the scales is .83. Criterion-related validity of the scales is established through a known-group method. The groups identified are the current drug users and non-drug users.

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of various primary prevention programs designed to deter adolescent drug abuse, especially for students in junior high school and, increasingly, for those in elementary school. However, an economical and sensitive instrument which detects program outcome-especially among students in the lower grade levels--has been lacking due to various administrative difficulties and differential reading skills on the part of the students. Increasingly, an evaluation instrument which meets all of these needs has been in particular demand by many health professionals, educators, researchers, and evaluators in the area of drug abuse prevention. In this paper, such an outcome-oriented evaluation instrument is introduced. It has several properties that are essential to a practical and economical measurement device: (1) it is an instrument which is Sehwan Kim is a program evaluator/senior researcher at the Charlotte Drug Education Center. Reprint requests should be sent to the author at 1416 E a s t Morehead St., Charlotte, NC 28204. A version of this paper was presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Alcohol and Drug Problem Association of North America, Washington, D.C., August 26-30, 1979. The preparation of this document was supported by a grant #1E07DA 01562 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Special gratitude must go to Dr. Stephen Newman, Ms. Rita Arundell, and Dr. Jonnie McLeod whose active participation and helpful ideas in developing the Student Attitudinal Inventory made this study possible. 0278-095X(81}1600-0091500.95

91

01981 HumanSciencesPress

92

Journal of Primary Prevention

anonymous but which can be used for both pre and post tests and, at the same time, allows the user to match individuals between tests so that the evaluation design itself provides a greater sensitivity in detecting student attitudinal changes between the tests than a design which does not permit such a matching mechanism; (2) it is an instrument which has attitudinal syndromes that are theoretically based and are empirically related to adolescent drug involvement; (3) it is an instrument which can be understood easily by students in the lower grade levels, including those with poor reading skills; (4) it is an instrument which is relatively short so that it may be completed within, say, 25 minutes; (5) it is an instrument which has been field.tested extensively both in terms of its reliability and its validity; and, finally, (6) it is an instrument which can be scored very easily by a layperson. A device which meets all of these requirements is the "High-Risk Student Attitudinal Inventory {SAD" currently used by the Charlotte Drug Education Center (CDEC) to evaluate its primary prevention program entitled Ombudsman. Ombudsman was developed by the CDEC in 1975 and was approved as a model drug abuse prevention "education program that works" by the U.S. Department of Education in June, 1979. In this paper, the SAI is introduced by examining briefly (1) the theoretical framework behind the development of the SAI; (2} the operationalization of some of the concepts employed in the theory; and (3) the reliability and validity of the scales employed in the SAI.

Theoretical Framework

The theory employed in developing the SAI is discussed elsewhere (Kim, 1979; Kim, 1981}. A brief introduction of the synthetic-dynamic theory of adolescent drug involvement follows. The SAI is constructed under the assumption that (1) much of what we do every day stems from one's perception of self vis-a-vis one's environment; (2) one's behavior, however deviant, is purposeful and goal-oriented within the frame of reference of the life circumstances in which one finds oneself; and (3) all children go through the processes of socialization through which they are taught to think and behave in certain ways rather than others. Building upon these assumptions, the theory views adolescent drug involvement as the functions of (1) the breakdown or malfunction in the normal processes of socialization for the young; (2) other environmental factors that exist in one's social setting, such as peer

Sehwan K i m

93

drug use, the influence of mass media, legal and social sanctions concerning drug use or possession thereof, drug availability, etc.; (3) the total discontent experienced by individuals as conceptualized in Maslow's (1970) hierarchy of basic human needs; and (4) the reinforcement (or reward) associated with drug use in reducing one's discontent. Without going into details, the propositions (1) through (4) together imply that there will be close relationships between the magnitude of student drug involvement (SDI) on the one hand and each of the following "high-risk" factors: (1) rebellious student attitude (REB); (2) negative social attitude (SOC}; (3) lack of family cohesiveness (FCO); (4) parental drug abuse (PAD); (5) lack of self-esteem (SES); (6) p o o r student-teacher affinity (AFF); (7) lack of value or importance attached to school (VAL); (8) school absenteeism (ABS); (9) peer drug use (PDU); and (10) attitudes favoring drug use (DAT) among others on the other hand.

Description of the Student Attitudinal Inventory

The SAI is a self-administered questionnaire. There was an original pool of 178 items. The number was reduced to the final 70 items after two item analyses. In the post test of the SAI, 10 additional items are included which probe into the program participants' reactions to the Ombudsman program itself and to the Ombudsman instructors. These responses are then compared to their reactions toward their regular school work and the regular school teachers utilizing comparable statements, e.g., Teachers are interested in the problems of students cf. Ombudsman teachers are interested in the problems of students. Other than the scale items, respondents of the SAI are also given the option of filling out the following information: date today; name of the school; Ombudsman instructor's name; and a four-digit number corresponding to their birth month and day. In this way, students are matched between the tests using the latter information. In cases where there are birthday and birth-month overlaps, their penmanship is further examined to match the same individual between the tests. Seventy items representing 10 items per attitudinal syndrome are measured by a Likert scale format where the response categories are: (1) strongly agree; (2) agree; (3) not sure; (4) disagree; and (5) strongly disagree. Below, each of the scales and conceptual definitions are presented. Table 1 contains a list of the specific items.

Journal of Primary Prevention

94

Table 1 I t e m s of the S t u d e n t A t t i t u d i n a l I n v e n t o r y Grouped b y Scales a

Scale I t e m s b

Scales

Drug A t t i t u d e (DAT) Taking any kind of dope is p r e t t y dumb (1,2); I would like to get high on drugs (4,5); if ydu use drugs illegally, you o u g h t to go to jail (1,2); People who sell drugs to kids o u g h t to be punished (1,2); It is alright to smoke marijuana (4,5); I t is fun to get high by using drugs (4,5); I t is wrong to take drugs to pep me up (1,21; I t is alright to smoke a lot of m a r i j u a n a (4,5); We need stricter laws to control drugs (1,2). School Value (VAL) Time spent in school is time wasted (4,5); Most of the things I learn in school are important, (1,2); Nothing I learn in school is very i m p o r t a n t (4,5); I plan to quit school when I ' m old enough (4,5); The things we learn in school do not m a t t e r to me (4,5); Doing well in school is i m p o r t a n t to me (1,2); M a n y of the things we memorize in school are meaningless (4,5); and I do m y school work carefully because I t h i n k it is i m p o r t a n t (1,2). Student-Teacher Affinity (AFF) I care w h a t teachers t h i n k of me (1,2); Teachers "pick o n " s t u d e n t s (4,5}; I d o n ' t care if teachers d o n ' t like me (4,5); Teachers are interested in the problems of s t u d e n t s (1,2); Teachers get a kick out of making kids feel stupid (4,5); Teachers care a b o u t the feelings of their s t u d e n t s (1,2); Some teachers like to make kids feel stupid (4,5); and Teachers at this school t r e a t all s t u d e n t s fairly {1,2). Self-Esteem (SESI I d o n ' t have much to be proud of (4,5); A t times I t h i n k I am no good a t all (4,5); Things are all mixed up in m y life (4,5); All in all, I feel t h a t I a m a failure (4,5); I feel I do not have much to be proud of (4,5); I have no confidence in myself (4,5); I wish I could have more respect for myself (4,5); I certainly feel useless a t times (4,5); I wish I were someone else (4,5); and I wish I could go somewhere and s t a r t all over again (4,5). Family Cohesiveness (FCO) We like to talk together in m y family (1,2}; My p a r e n t s look for things to n a g me a b o u t (4,5); I a m satisfied with m y family relationships (1,2); I am a member of a h a p p y family (1,2}; My p a r e n t s don't u n d e r s t a n d me (4,5}; I talk to m y p a r e n t s a b o u t things t h a t are i m p o r t a n t to me (1,2}; My p a r e n t s make me feel stupid (4,5t; I a m p u t down a t home (4,5}; and People in m y family like to talk to each other (1,2). aAll copyrights pertaining to the Student Attitudinal Inventory are reserved. No part of the SAI may be copied or reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission by Sehwan Kim, Ph.D., Program Evaluator, Charlotte Drug Education Center, Inc. 1416 E. Morehead Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28204. Other technical information pertaining to the SAI is available from She author. bNumbers in parentheses refer to positive responses.

95

Sehwan Kim

Table 1, continued I t e m s of the S t u d e n t A t t i t u d i n a l I n v e n t o r y Grouped by Scales a

Scales

Scale I t e m s b

Social A t t i t u d e (SOC) I t h i n k it is d u m b to be honest (4,5); To get ahead, I have to do some things which are not right (4,5); H a v i n g a lot of money is more i m p o r t a n t t h a n being a good person (4,5); If I could break the law and get away with it, I would do it (4,5~; I t is alright to cheat if you d o n ' t get c a u g h t (4,5); If I do something wrong, I lie a b o u t it (4,5); and I feel it is okay to break laws if I feel they are wrong (4,5). Rebellious A t t i t u d e (REB) I do things I've been told not to do (4,5); I a m tired of being told what to do a n d what not to do (4,5); My p a r e n t s a n d teachers have no right to tell me how I r u n my life (4,5); I do w h a t I w a n t no m a t t e r who cares (4,5); I quarrel with m y p a r e n t s and teachers (4,5); I feel like breaking rules (4,5t; I feel a n g r y a t the world (4,5); and I feel like g e t t i n g back a t m y p a r e n t s when I a m m a d at t h e m (4,5).

Drug Attitude (DAT) measures the extent to which a child holds an affective disposition which is favorable toward, or tolerant of, drug use in general. This scale is not concerned with the actual drug use but only with the attitudinal make-up favoring drug use. School Value (VAL) measures the extent to which a child places one's value or importance on one's school in attaining one's life goals. This scale therefore is not concerned with the general likes or dislikes about one's school or teachers. Student-Teacher Affinity (AFF) measures the children's perception of the extent to which their teachers in the school are friendly, show understanding, and take personal interest in students and their problems. Self-E steem (SE S), following Maslow (1970), is defined as the feeling of self-confidence, worth, strength, capability, and adequacy, and of being useful and necessary in the world. Family Cohesiveness (FCO) measures the respondents' perceptions of the degree to which their parents, or the members of the' family, are amiable, show understanding, and take personal interest with most of the conventional ingredients of a loving parent or parents.

96

Journal of PHmary Prevention

Social Attitude (SOC) measures the extent to which the values held by students are similar to the dominant values held by society. Accordingly, it m a y be conceived of as the measurement of social desirability or the social values acquired through the socialization processes. Rebellious Attitude (REB) measures the extent to which students indicate that they don't like to be told what to do or what not to do or that they don't like to obey rules and regulations in general. The objects of rebellion are the immediate authority figures such as parents, grownups, teachers, or the symbols and rules generated by them. Four other scales excluded from the SAI are student drug involvement, parental drug abuse, and drug involvement of peers, as well as their own school absenteeism. These scales are described below. Student Drug Involvement (SDI) is measured by summing the weighted rank order values assigned to the response categories pertaining to the questions, How often do you use ? {1-never used; 2-no longer use; 3-use once or twice a year; 4-use or twice a month; 5-use once or twice a week; 6-use once or twice a day; 7-often each day). The weights are determined by the percentage of students who agree with the s t a t e m e n t - - I think of myself as a "drug u s e r " - - among those who have used a particular drug. The drug categories asked and their relative weights are: SDI - alcohol {17.5} + amphetamines (49.6) + barbiturates (48.3} + cigarettes (21.5} + cocaine {36.4} + hallucinogens 151.8} + inhalants {20.6) + m a r i j u a n a 125.4) + Methaqualone {47.6} + needle t39.7) + opiates {47.5} + PCP {48.3) + tranquilizers 149.3}. Parental Drug Abuse {PAD} is measured by summing the rank order values assigned to the questions, How often do you think your parents use 9. alcohol; cigarettes; and tranquilizers. Peer Drug Use (PDU) is measured by summing in the rank orders values assigned to the response categories pertaining to the following three questions: of m y friends use drugs; of m y friends smoke marijuana; and of m y friends use illegal drugs. {1-none, 2-some, 3-many, 4-all) School absenteeism {ABS) is measured by the rank order values assigned to the response categories pertaining to the question, How often are you absent from school? {1-almost never; 2-less than once a month; 3-about once a month; 4-two or three times a month; 5-once or twice a week; 6-three or more times a week).

Sehwan K i m

97

Reliability and Validity In order to examine the reliability and validity of the SAI, an anonymous survey involving 11,165 students in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, was implemented in November, 1979. The survey was based on a cluster sample of 29 public and private schools located in the area. The students surveyed were in grades 7-12; 64% white, 32% black, 4% others; and 69% Protestant, 9% Catholic; 2% Jewish, and 18% others.

Table R MatrTx:

Person's Seven

FCO SES REB AFF VAL SOC DAT

2 Interrelations

High-Risk

Among

Variables

SES

REB

AFF

VAL

SOC

DAT

Alpha

.59

.59

.37

.37

.44

33

.88

.56

.31

.40

.44

19

.80

.54

.54

.69

46

.80

.53

.48

41

.84

.59

45

.87

56

,83 .81

As Table 2 indicates all of the SAI scales were internally consistent with alpha coefficients {Cronbach, 1951}, ranging from .80 to .88. Table 2 also presents the correlations between the scales of the SAI which were all significant at the .001 as predicted. As Table 3 indicates the seven scales of the SAI, plus PAD, ABS, and PDU accounted for 52% of the variation of the SDI scale. However, it is important to note that nearly 86% {.446 of the total variation) is accounted for by the DAT scale.

Journal of Primary Prevention

98

Table Mu t i p l e

Regression

Analysis

and a C o m p o s i t e M e a s u r e

Variables

Simple

r

R2

of

3 of

Salient

Independent

S t u d e n t Drug

R 2 Change

Variables

Involvement

Beta

(SDI)

F

DAT

-.668

.446

446

-.420

831.225

PDU

.576

.480

034

.203

213.485

ABS

.373

.499

019

.135

165.277

VAL

-.401

.508

009

-.128

92.447

AFF

-.288

.512

004

.078

40.399

SES

-.142

.513

001

.065

24.564

PAD

.240

.517

004

.062

36.928

FCO

-.288

.519

002

-.051

14.888

SOC

-.434

.520

001

-.041

7.339

REB

-.360

.521

001

-.019

3.334

Overall

F = 406.9;

p