English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Study objectives  In 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 itemπ  ^   sassessed with the unrelated questionnaire method (UQM) is influenced by changing the probability of receiving the sensitive question  p .    Material and methods  A 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.    Results  The 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:  χ   2   = 2.25,  df  = 1,  p  = 0.13; cognitive doping:  χ   2   = 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).    Conclusion  The 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 .

plos one

Physical and cognitive doping in university students using the unrelated question model (UQM): Assessing the influence of the probability of receiving the sensitive question on prevalence estimation