A Sociometric Approach to Understanding Concordance in Substance Use Perceptions Among Youth Experiencing Homelessness

Abstract

Most studies examining peer influence on drug-use among youth experiencing homelessness (YEH) have relied on perceptions of peer use rather than measuring peers' self-reported use, an approach that can inflate estimates of peer substance use behavior. Sociometric network data provide an optimal mechanism to compare perceptual data to actual self-reports from peers. Method: Using an event-based approach, we recruited a sample of YEH (N 5 241), ages 13-25 years, between October 2011 and February 2012 from 2 drop-in centers-1 in Hollywood, CA, and 1 in Santa Monica, CA. We used multilevel multiple membership modeling to investigate participant-level, network-level, and relationshiplevel factors associated with the accuracy of respondent perceptions. Results: The accuracy of respondent perceptions of peer substance use was high (70%-90% depending on the substance). The individual-and network-level factors associated with accuracy or inaccuracy varied by substance. Conclusions: Interventions designed to reduce the risk of substance use among YEH may benefit from using a social norms approach that emphasizes changing norms at a community/group level rather than at an individual level.

Cognitive Strategies for Peer Judgments

“…The results from this line of research show that friends are fairly accurate in judging one another's characteristics, although there is also evidence suggesting a general positivity bias and ego projection in close relationships (Gagné & Lydon, 2004). Barman-Adhikari et al (2020) find that perceptions of peer drug use among youth experiencing homelessness are relatively accurate (average proportion correct over all youth's peers' proportion correct ranged from .61 to .77, depending on the substance). This result does not necessarily rule out the possibility of ego projection.…”

“…Participants' judgments of their peers' use of different substances were relatively accurate (see also Barman-Adhikari et al, 2020). Nonusers were more accurate than users for four of six drugs (Table 6).…”

“…We use the same data set described in Barman-Adhikari et al (2020), but ask novel research questions about what cognitive strategies participants are using to derive peer judgments. We also expand the data set to include self-reports and judgments of peers' use for heroin and cocaine.…”

“…In particular, homeless youth report remarkably elevated rates of substance use (Thompson et al, 2003) and peer influence is a significant factor in understanding the emergence of their drug use (Barman-Adhikari et al, 2015;Tyler, 2008;Wenzel et al, 2010). We use sociometric data about two populations of homeless youth, including self-reports of own substance use and judgments of peers' use (Barman-Adhikari et al, 2020). As we describe next, we investigate three research questions: 1) What cognitive strategies do people rely on to produce judgments of peers' substance use?, 2) What group-level patterns of judgments do these strategies produce?, 3) Do strategies that people use to make peer judgments produce accurate answers?…”

Systematic review: Rates of psychopathology, substance misuse, and neuropsychological dysfunction among transitional age youth experiencing homelessness

“…This systematic review was designed and executed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-After initial search, duplicates were removed using the methodology outlined in Bramer et al 16 All unique publications underwent initial title and abstract screening by two independent reviewers; studies meeting inclusion criteria on initial title and abstract review underwent full-text eligibility review by one reviewer with application of the same exclusion criteria, with an added exclusion criterion for articles for which full text was inaccessible online. Predetermined exclusion criteria for initial title and abstract screening included: focus on age group outside of TAY range (ages [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] or mean age of study sample outside of TAY range; focus on non-homeless or non-street-involved population; report of nonoriginal research (e.g., narrative chapter, review, commentary); nonreport of rates of psychopathology, SUD, or neuropsychological dysfunction; studies focused exclusively on a defined subpopulation of TAY-EH (e.g., studies examining exclusively LGBTQ youth experiencing homelessness, substance-using youth, or only one sex/gender of youth); studies with sample size fewer than 30 participants; and studies reporting data from outside North America. These exclusion criteria were designed to allow for maximal generalizability to TAY-EH populations in our clinical context in the United States, while avoiding including data which might skew results including findings focused exclusively on higher-risk subpopulations of TAY-EH or youth living globally developing areas with vastly different cultural or resourcerelated contexts.…”