Using the randomized response technique, our questionnaire provided data that showed a high 12-month prevalence of cognitive-enhancing drug use in German university students. Our study suggests that other direct survey techniques have underestimated the use of these drugs. Drug prevention programs need to be established at universities to address this issue.

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeThis study assessed, for the first time, prevalence estimates for physical and cognitive doping within a single collective of athletes using the randomized response technique (RRT). Furthermore, associations between the use of legal and freely available substances to improve physical and cognitive performance (enhancement) and illicit or banned substances to improve physical and cognitive performance (doping) were examined.MethodsAn anonymous questionnaire using the unrelated question RRT was used to survey 2,997 recreational triathletes in three sports events (Frankfurt, Regensburg, and Wiesbaden) in Germany. Prior to the survey, statistical power analyses were performed to determine sample size. Logistic regression was used to predict physical and cognitive enhancement and the bootstrap method was used to evaluate differences between the estimated prevalences of physical and cognitive doping.Results2,987 questionnaires were returned (99.7%). 12-month prevalences for physical and cognitive doping were 13.0% and 15.1%, respectively. The prevalence estimate for physical doping was significantly higher in athletes who also used physical enhancers, as well as in athletes who took part in the European Championship in Frankfurt compared to those who did not. The prevalence estimate for cognitive doping was significantly higher in athletes who also used physical and cognitive enhancers. Moreover, the use of physical and cognitive enhancers were significantly associated and also the use of physical and cognitive doping.DiscussionThe use of substances to improve physical and cognitive performance was associated on both levels of legality (enhancement vs. doping) suggesting that athletes do not use substances for a specific goal but may have a general propensity to enhance. This finding is important for understanding why people use such substances. Consequently, more effective prevention programs against substance abuse and doping could be developed.

This article derives the power curves for a Wald test that can be applied to randomized response models when small prevalence rates must be assessed (e.g., detecting doping behavior among elite athletes). These curves enable the assessment of the statistical power that is associated with each model (e.g., Warner's model, crosswise model, unrelated question model, forced-choice models, item count model, cheater detection model). This power analysis can help in choosing the optimal model and sample size and in setting model parameters in survey studies. The general framework can be applied to all existing randomized response model versions. The Appendix of this article contains worked-out numerical examples to demonstrate the power analysis for each specific model.