Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates:
Results from a National Survey
Sharon R. Sznitman1, Sally M. Dunlop2, Priya Nalkur3, Atika Khurana4, and
Daniel Romer4
1
School of Public Health, University of Haifa, Israel. sznitmans@gmail.com
2
School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Australia.
Sally.dunlop@cancerinstitute.org.au
3
The Heller School of Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University.
pnalkur@brandeis.edu
4
Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania.
Akhurana@asc.upenn.edu, Dromer@asc.upenn.edu
This is a prepublication copy of the paper that appeared online in the Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, available at:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/40182687327vg7w2/fulltext.pdf
1
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
Abstract
Positive school climates and student drug testing have been separately proposed as
strategies to reduce student substance use in high schools. However, the effects of drug
testing programs may depend on the favorability of school climates. This study examined
the association between school drug testing programs and student substance use in
schools with different climates. Data analysis was based on a nationally representative
sample of 943 high school students (48% female). Respondents’ ages ranged from 14 to
19, and 62% whites, 13% African Americans, and 18% Hispanics. Results showed that
both male and female students in schools with positive climates reported lower levels of
personal substance use. Drug testing was associated with lower levels of personal
substance use in positive school climates but only for female students. There was no
relationship between drug testing and male students’ substance use. The results are
discussed in terms of the importance of considering school climates before implementing
drug-testing programs in high schools.
Key words: Adolescence, Student drug testing, School climate, Substance use
2
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
INTRODUCTION
Adolescent substance use is associated with adverse health, academic, and
behavioral effects (Bachman et al., 2008; Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1991; Johnston,
O'Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2008). According to the latest surveys of past 30day substance use, 27% of middle and high school students report drinking alcohol, 13%
smoke cigarettes, and 15% use marijuana (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, &
Schulenberg, 2011). Substance use is more common among adolescent males than
females, although this gender gap is declining (Johnston, et al., 2011). Alcohol use is
associated with a variety of impairments that lead to motor vehicle accidents (National
Highway Traffic Safety Agency, 2008) and other injuries (Hingson & Kenkel, 2004).
Initiation of tobacco use during adolescence is a common pathway to nicotine addiction
(National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009) and its resultant life-long adverse effects on
health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004). Marijuana is an illegal
substance that can put a user at risk for arrest as well as potential detrimental effects on
cognitive functioning and mental health (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2010).
Excessive use of any of these substances is also associated with poor school success and
risk of academic failure (Bachman, et al., 2008).
Given the adverse effects of substance use, it is understandable that schools have
been identified as important settings for preventing student substance use and providing
drug-free environments. Indeed, substance use prevention and education programs have
been a long-standing component of health education in schools (Hansen & Dusenbury,
2004) and some of these efforts have been met with success (Gottfredson & Wilson,
2003). Nevertheless, school based programs often fail to show strong and long term
3
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
effects (Faggiano et al., 2005; Foxcroft, Ireland, Lister-Sharp, Lowe, & Breen, 2005;
Thomas & Perera, 2006).
A broader approach to substance use prevention that involves more than just
health education classes is the promotion of positive school climates (Center for Social
and Emotional Education & Education Commision of the States, 2009). School climate
can be defined or measured in various ways, but social relationship between students and
school staff (teachers, administrators, and other adults) have consistently been a focus of
investigation. This approach follows from social control theory (Libbey, 2004), which
predicts that students are more likely to follow adult recommendations for behavior if
they are attached to the adults who promote those norms. LaRusso et al. (2008) examined
different aspects of student-staff relationships and found that the extent to which school
staff were seen as respecting students’ needs and interests was strongly related to the
overall climate in the school. Several experimental interventions (Booth, Farrell, &
Varano, 2008; Flay, Graumlich, Segawa, Burns, & Hiolliday, 2004; Roeser, Eccles, &
Sameroff, 2000) as well as cross sectional and longitudinal studies (Catalano, Haggerty,
Oesterle, Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004; Henry & Slater, 2007; LaRusso, et al., 2008;
Simons-Morton, Crump, Haynie, & Saylor, 1999; Weishew & Peng, 1993) have
demonstrated that schools with positive climates have less substance use as well as lower
rates of mental health problems. Thus, this whole-school approach may be a particularly
effective strategy for reducing risk to unhealthy development in adolescents.
Previous studies of school climate and substance use have not explicitly examined
whether school climate effects on substance use differ for males versus females. Research
suggests, however, that social relationships may have a stronger influence on young
4
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
women’s delinquency during adolescence (Giordono & Cernkovich, 1997). Indeed,
because females tend to place higher value on social relationships and may thus be more
affected by the nature of those relationships than males are (Gilligan, 1982; Mears,
Ploeger, & Warr, 1998; Svensson, 2003), school climates may be more critical to female
substance use than to males’.
Another approach to substance use prevention is the use of student “drug
testing.” In this approach, students are apprised of the possibility that they can be tested
for the use of substances using biological markers, such as urine specimens (ONDCP,
2002). Although student drug testing is a controversial policy, the practice was
legitimized as a drug prevention effort through two Supreme Court decisions that upheld
its constitutionality for students participating in sports and extracurricular activities
(United States Supreme Court, 1995, 2002). Despite repeated opposition from various
public health, education and civil liberty groups (American Academy of Pediatrics &
Committee on Substance Abuse and Council on School Health, 2007; Kern et al., 2006),
schools continue to be encouraged to implement drug testing, and by 2006, 20% of U.S.
high schools had done so (SHPPS, 2006).
Drug testing is most commonly implemented on the basis of suspicion, but
random drug testing is also common. According to the 2006 School Health Policies and
Program Study (SHPPS), 56% of high schools that conducted drug testing did so based
on suspicion, whereas 48% conducted random drug testing. Furthermore, schools most
commonly test for marijuana, although testing for alcohol, nicotine and other substances
is also common.
To date, there has been a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating the efficacy of
5
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
drug testing (McKeganey, 2005). A national cross-sectional study failed to find
differences in substance use levels in schools with and without drug testing (Yamaguchi,
Johnston, & O’Malley, 2003). One study of two rural schools suggested that studentathlete drug testing can reduce recent substance use (Goldberg et al., 2003). However, a
follow-up prospective randomized controlled trial with 11 high schools found no effect
on recent substance use and found that drug testing reduced students’ belief that drug
testing is beneficial (Goldberg et al., 2007).
The weak evidence in favor of drug testing is not surprising considering the
importance of positive school climates for encouraging healthy behavior. Drug testing in
schools with unfavorable climates may well be seen by students as a coercive attempt to
alter their behavior. However, when implemented in a school with a positive climate,
drug testing may be seen as a more legitimate attempt to protect students from the
harmful effects of drugs. When students feel respected, they are more likely to approve
of the school’s substance use prevention strategies and be persuaded by the embedded
messages (LaRusso & Selman, 2003). Therefore, one would expect that the effects of
drug testing would depend on a school’s social climate. It is surprising, therefore, that no
previous studies have examined drug testing in the context of different school climates.
THE CURRENT STUDY
In the current study, data from a national survey of high-school students were
used to profile schools with drug testing and schools with positive climates and to
examine the effectiveness of drug testing within schools with positive and negative
climates. Based on previous research, we expected that substance use would be lower in
positive climate schools. Therefore, our first hypothesis was that students in positive
6
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
climate schools would be less likely to report substance use (tobacco, alcohol and
marijuana) than students in negative climate schools (H1).
Our second hypothesis concerned the relationship between school drug testing
and personal use of substances in different school climates. Based on previous research,
we expected to find no or only a weak direct relationship between drug testing and
student substance use. However, to the extent that drug testing could be an effective
deterrent to student substance use, we expected it to be most apparent in schools with
favorable climates. We, therefore, hypothesized that positive school climate would
moderate any effects of drug testing on student substance use (H2).
Our final hypothesis concerned the potential role that gender differences might
play in relationship between personal substance use and either school climate or drug
testing. Given that females tend to place higher values on social relationships than males
(Gilligan, 1982) and develop their identities in the context of relationships (McNeely &
Falci, 2004), school climate might be more critical for females. Hence, our third
hypothesis was that the moderating role of school climate on the relationship between
drug testing and personal substance use would be stronger for female students than for
males (H3).
METHODS
Survey Description
The National Annenberg Survey of Youth (NASY) is an anonymous nationally
representative random-digit dialed telephone survey of 14-22 year olds conducted
annually by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Data
for this study (N =1735) were combined from the 2007 and 2008 surveys. Only
7
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
respondents currently in high school (N=943) were selected for analysis. Respondents’
ages ranged from 14 to 19 (M = 16, SD = 1.5) with 452 (48%) females. Surveys were
conducted at the end of each school year, making it likely that drug testing policies and
school climate would be salient in students’ minds. Respondents received $10 for
participation, and the Institutional Review Board of the University of Pennsylvania
approved the survey. The overall response rate for both years was approximately 50%,
comparable to national telephone surveys of adults conducted by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC, 2003).
Measures
School Climate. Students were asked how well each of the following five items
described their school: (a) the rules in the school are clear, (b) teachers can handle
problems in the school, and the level of respect that (c) students have for students, (d)
teachers have for students, and (e) students have for teachers is high. Respondents used a
scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very well). Responses to these five items were used as
indicators of a latent school-climate variable. These items had reliability (rho) of .83
using Raykov’s (1997) formula, which takes into account differential loadings of items.
For descriptive analyses, a factor score for school climate was used, derived from the first
principle component of scores on the five indicators. In these analyses, this factor score
was dichotomized at the median (Table 1) or divided into three equal-sized groups
(Figure 2).
Drug testing. Respondents were asked “Does your current school ever ask
students to participate in drug screening tests?” (0=no, 1=yes). If respondents answered
yes, they were asked whether or not they are mandatory for the students that are asked
8
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
(0=no, 1=yes), and whether they are only for students who want to participate in extracurricular activities (0=no, 1=yes). In analyses examining the association between school
climate, drug testing and student substance use, we tested models that did and did not
differentiate between different types of drug testing (e.g. mandatory vs. non-mandatory
and whether it was only enforced for participants in extra-curricular activities). Since we
did not find differences in association with substance use by type of drug testing, all
analyses were conducted using a dichotomous variable indicating drug testing or no drug
testing.
Self-reported substance use. Students reported on their use of cigarettes, alcohol
and marijuana. Responses were coded into three categories: 0 = never engaged in the
behavior; 1 = some use in the past, but not in the last 30 days; and 2 = use in the last 30
days. The items had a rho of .85 and were used as indicators of a latent variable
indicating a tendency toward recent substance use.
Covariates. The NASY includes questions on race, age, gender, grade point
average (GPA), region of the country, and urban versus rural or suburban residence.
Students are also asked about their school size and whether it is a private or public
school. The data file was supplemented with data from the U.S. Census to assess the
median income level of the respondent’s neighborhood based on postal zip code. The
variable was coded as 0 = below and 1 = above the national median.
Statistical Analysis
To assess our hypotheses, we used structural equation modeling (SEM). Figure 1
shows the hypothesized model, with rectangles representing observed scores and ellipses
representing latent factors. In this model, we measure substance use as a latent variable
9
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
with three substances as indicators (tobacco, alcohol and marijuana). Since the use of any
specific drug tends to correlate with use of other, we assessed the associations between
both drug testing and school climate and the latent variable of general substance use.
However, since drug testing might sometimes target only one or two of the drugs under
consideration (e.g., marijuana), it was important to also consider the possibility that drug
testing may be more associated with one rather than all of the substances considered. As
shown in Figure 1, SEM allowed us to determine the association between drug testing
and general substance use (shown as a solid path) as well as any association that might be
unique to one or more of the substances (dashed paths).
In order to test hypotheses 1, we ran a multi-group SEM for males and females
that included only the direct paths from school climate and drug testing to students’
substance use. We then used this model as a baseline for comparing the alternative multigroup moderated path model that included the interaction between school climate and
drug testing. A comparison of model fit between these models enabled us to test the
hypothesis that school climate would moderate any association between drug-testing and
student substance use (H2) and whether the moderating effect of school climate was
stronger for female than male substance use (H3). Demographic and school-level
variables were entered as covariates in all models.
Analyses were conducted using the SEM program Mplus v.5, which uses
maximum likelihood procedures that permit imputation of missing values and which
produces estimates that are robust for non-normal data. To determine model fit, we
examined the comparative fit index (CFI), where values of .95 or higher indicate good fit,
and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), where .06 or lower indicates
10
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
good fit.
Finally, we were also interested in profiling schools with drug testing and schools
with positive climates. Using student self-reports, we describe these schools in terms of
socio-demographic and school characteristics. In profiling schools according to climate
and drug testing status (see Table 1), we employed case weights that adjusted the data to
match recent Census Bureau estimates for gender, education level, racial-ethnic identity,
and region of the country. Multivariate analyses were not weighted.
In addition to providing valuable descriptive data, the school profiles were also
used to validate student reports of school drug testing by comparing the current sample’s
profile of drug testing with profiles from the 2006 School Health Policies and Program
Study, a large national study of high school staff that assessed the use of drug testing in
their schools.
RESULTS
Almost 60% of the sample reported lifetime substance use, with 24% reporting
use of at least one substance in the last 30 days. Consistent with national surveys of high
school student substance use (Johnston, et al., 2011), alcohol was the most commonly
recently used substance (17%), followed by cigarettes (10%) and marijuana (6%).
Approximately a quarter of the sample (27%) reported drug testing in their schools. Of
these, 60% reported that drug testing was mandatory for those asked and 54% reported
that drug testing was only for students participating in extra-curricular activities.
Table 1 presents differences between schools employing drug testing or not and
having positive climates or not according to school and demographic characteristics with
significant associations determined using univariate logistic regression. School drug
11
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
testing was more prevalent in the south than in other parts of the country, and urban
schools were the least likely to implement drug testing. Drug testing did not differ by
school size or between public and private schools.
The 2006 School Health Policies and Program Study (SHPPS) enables a
comparison of our student reports of drug testing with a measure based on a nationally
representative sample of school staff. The SHPPS found that 20% of high schools have
implemented drug testing. Our study found a slightly higher prevalence, which is not
unexpected as our data are more recent and schools continue to be encouraged to
implement drug testing. In terms of correlates of drug testing, the SHPPS confirmed our
results that drug testing is more common in the south and slightly more common in nonurban areas. Furthermore, the SHPPS confirmed that drug testing is equally likely in
private and public schools, and that school size is unrelated to drug testing. These
findings indicate that student reports of drug testing are consistent with those reported by
school staff.
As shown in Table 1, school climate did not vary by national region or by
suburban, urban or rural residence. Respondents in small schools and in private schools
reported more positive school climates. Black students and those with poor grades were
less positive about their school climate than other students. We controlled these
background characteristics in all our SEM analyses.
The results of the baseline SEM, presented in Table 2, show that the factor
loadings for the indicators of substance use and school climate were significant and
equivalent across genders. The baseline model, which included direct paths from drug
testing and school climate to the substance use factor, provided a good fit to the data [CFI
12
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
= .96; RMSEA = .03]. In support of H1, there was a direct relationship between school
climate and substance use, indicating that students in schools with better climates
reported less substance use overall. Furthermore, the relationship did not differ by
gender, 2(1) = 1.50, p > .15. There was no evidence of a relation between drug testing
and the substance use factor for either gender. Separate tests of the relationship between
drug testing and each of the substances were also nonsignificant, p > .15. Substance use
was negatively associated with black racial identity, and positively associated with age
and lower GPAs.
An alternative explanation for the observed relationship between negative climate
and self-reported substance use is that student substance use undermines perceived
student-staff relationships. We thus tested a model with paths from student substance use
to school climate. However, using various goodness of fit criteria, this model did not fit
the data as well as the model we have presented here. The most sensitive indicator of
model fit for data with non-normal distributions suggested by Yu and Muthen (2002), the
weighted root mean square residual, should have a score below 1.0. This score was
above 1.0 for the reverse causation model (1.21), while the preferred model was below
1.0 (.86).
To test H2 and H3, we included the interaction between drug testing and climate
for each gender. In partial support of H2, we found an interaction between drug testing
and climate in their relationship with substance use (Figure 1). A comparison of the fit of
the baseline model with the moderated model that included the interaction between drug
testing and climate for each gender indicated that the moderated model provided a better
fit to the data (2(2) = 8.46, p = .01). However, as shown in Figure 1, the interaction was
13
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
only significant for female students. That is, for male students, the relationship between
drug testing and substance use did not depend on school climate. On the other hand, for
females, the association between school climate and substance use was qualified by the
interaction between drug testing and school climate (B = -0.59, p = 0.05).
To test H3, we compared the fit of the moderated model fixing the interaction to
be equivalent for males and females. This test indicated a nearly significant decline in
model fit when the two interactions were restricted to be equal, 2(1) = 3.65, p = .056.
This analysis indicated that in support of H3, the interaction was not only significant for
females but that it also tended to be stronger for them than for males. None of the direct
paths from drug testing, school climate and their interaction on the unique substance use
variables were significant and were thus trimmed from the final model.
To facilitate the interpretation of the significant interaction between drug testing
and school climate for females, we conducted a multiple regression analysis with
substance use as the dependent variable. Substance use was a continuous variable derived
from the first principal component for the use of the three substances. The regression
model included school climate, school drug testing, and gender as predictors, as well as
the higher order-interactions. Figure 2 shows that the predicted substance use scores from
this analysis were lower in schools with positive school climates for both females and
males. Although there was no association between drug testing and male students’
substance use, females in schools with drug testing programs exhibited lower substance
use than females in non-drug testing schools (p < .006). However, this association was
only apparent in schools with positive climates. Indeed, females in negative climate drug
testing schools tended to exhibit higher levels of substance use than females in non-drug
14
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
testing negative climate schools.
DISCUSSION
Despite widespread implementation of different school based drug prevention
strategies, adolescent substance use in the United States continues to be a public health
concern (Johnston, et al., 2011). It is crucial that research continues to examine different
drug prevention strategies because this can play a crucial role in informing a more
effective drug preventive strategy. The current study is an important step in this direction
as it has examined the direct and indirect relationship of two current prevention strategies
for student substance use. Although school climate and drug testing have been separately
examined for their effectiveness in reducing student substance use (Booth, et al., 2008;
Flay, et al., 2004; Goldberg, et al., 2007; Roeser, et al., 2000; Yamaguchi, et al., 2003),
these strategies have not heretofore been studied in combination. This is problematic
because, rather than being implemented in a vacuum, drug testing operates within the
context of a school’s climate, which is likely to have bearing on the effects of drug
testing.
This research used SEM applied to a nationally representative sample of high
school youth to determine whether the relationship between school drug testing and
student substance use depends on the context of school climate. Congruent with previous
research (Booth, et al., 2008; Catalano, et al., 2004; Flay, et al., 2004; Henry & Slater,
2007; LaRusso, et al., 2008; Roeser, et al., 2000; Simons-Morton, et al., 1999; Weishew
& Peng, 1993), we found that students who attend schools that have positive climates are
less likely to use substances than students in schools with unfavorable climates.
Furthermore, consistent with previous research (Goldberg, et al., 2007; Yamaguchi, et al.,
15
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
2003), students in schools that conduct drug testing do not report less substance use.
However, in partial support of our second hypothesis, we found that female students who
attend schools with positive climates that also conduct drug testing are less likely to
report substance use. There was no evidence that drug testing programs influence the
substance use of male students. Indeed, in support of our third hypothesis, the
moderating effect of school climate was stronger for girls than for boys. Nevertheless, as
seen in Figure 2, drug testing may have harmful effects on female youth in negative
climates where substance use was observed to be at its highest. In total, the results
indicate that, to the extent drug testing is effective, it is primarily for female students in
schools with positive climates.
We expected that drug testing only would be related to lower levels of individual
substance use in positive climates because students in those schools would be more likely
to see the program as implemented to serve their interests (i.e., to protect them from
adverse effects of substance use). As a result, they would be more likely to approve of
and comply with the school’s drug prevention strategies. In negative climate schools,
students tend to see adult interventions as coercive and lacking in respect for their needs
(LaRusso & Selman, 2003). Despite these expectations, the beneficial effects of positive
school climate for drug testing appeared to be restricted to female students.
These findings are in line with previous research that suggests that social
relationships may have a stronger influence on young women’s than men’s delinquency
during adolescence. Indeed, feminist relational theory (Gilligan, 1982; McNeely & Falci,
2004) posits that female adolescents develop their sense of selves in the context of
relationships, while boys form identities through individuation. This implies that the way
16
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
that school climate and school drug testing is perceived is especially critical for female
adolescents’ self-development, and it thus follows that the combined deterrent effect of
drug testing and school climate should be stronger for girls. Nevertheless, our prediction
that the effect of climate would be stronger for female students was not supported.
Further research is needed to explore why school climate on its own was not more
important to female than male students’ substance use.
In keeping with school climate intervention studies that have examined effects on
student substance use, there is currently a movement towards holding schools
accountable for creating positive school climates (Center for Social and Emotional
Education & Education Commision of the States, 2009). The current study provides
further evidence that this is a promising strategy for reducing student substance use.
Indeed, the results suggest that drug testing should not be implemented in schools with
negative climates and that an assessment of school climate and potential actions to
improve it should be evaluated before embarking on a drug-testing program.
Alternative Explanations and Limitations
Given that our survey was cross-sectional, it is difficult to establish causal
directions in the relationships we observed. Nevertheless, we tested the alternative causal
direction between school climate and substance use and found that the data were better
explained by the preferred model than by one in which substance use leads to a less
favorable view of a school’s climate. In addition, previous randomized trials and
observational studies with longitudinal designs have indicated that the causal direction is
from school climate to substance use, as opposed to the other direction (Bond et al., 2004;
Flay, et al., 2004; McNeely & Falci, 2004; West, Sweeting, & Leyland, 2004). Thus, both
17
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
previous research and our results are more consistent with school climate as a cause
rather than a consequence of student substance use.
A potential limitation of the study was our use of student reports to assess the
presence of drug testing programs. Nevertheless, the 2006 School Health Policies and
Program Study enables a comparison of our student reports of drug testing with a
measure based on a nationally representative sample of school staff. Results show that
the correlates of drug testing found in this study mirror those found in the SHPPS.
However, it would be desirable for future studies to verify drug-testing status from school
staff and to use panel designs or natural experiments to more firmly establish the
moderating effects of school climates on the effects of drug testing. Another limitation is
that self-reported substance use data can be influenced by memory or motivational biases;
however research has shown that youth reports of substance use are highly related to tests
using biological markers (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007).
Conclusions
The current research expands on previous findings indicating that school drug
testing does not in and of itself deter substance use. Indeed, drug testing appears to be
particularly ineffective for female students in negative climate schools, which tend to
have higher substance use rates and thus are in most need of effective substance
prevention programs. Interventions that improve school climate may have much greater
efficacy. Thus, our findings indicate that drug testing should not be undertaken as a
stand-alone substance prevention effort and that improvements in school climate should
be considered before implementing drug testing. Moreover, additional research is needed
to confirm the efficacy of drug testing as a component of a whole school prevention
18
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
program designed to improve school climate.
Human Subject Approval Statement
The Institutional Review Board of the University of Pennsylvania approved the survey.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics, & Committee on Substance Abuse and Council on
School Health. (2007). Testing for drugs of abuse in children and adolescents:
addendum-testing in schools and at home. Pediatrics 119(3), 627-630.
Bachman, J. G., O'Malley, P. M., Schulenberg, J. E., Johnston, L. D., Freedman-Doan,
P., & Messersmith, E. E. (2008). The education-drug use connection: How
successes and failures in school relate to adolescent smoking, drinking, drug use,
and delinquency. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis.
Bond, L., Patton, G., Glover, S., Carlin, J. B., Butler, H., Lyndal, T., et al. (2004). The
Gatehouse Project: can a multilevel school intervention affect emotional
wellbeing and health risk behavior? J Epidemiol Community Health, 58, 9971003.
Booth, J. A., Farrell, A., & Varano, S. P. (2008). Social control, serious delinquency, and
risky behavior. Crime & Delinquency, 54(3), 423-456.
Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004).
19
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: findings from the
social development research group. J School Health, 74(7), 252-261.
CDC. (2003). Public health surveillance for behavioral risk factors in a changing
environment. MMWR, 52, RR-9.
Center for Social and Emotional Education & Education Commision of the States.
(2009). The school climate challenge, narrowing the gap between school climate
research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and teacher education
policy.
Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F. D., Versino, E., Zambon, A., Borraccino, A., &
Lemma, P. (2005). “School-based prevention for illicit drugs use”.
Flay, B. R., Graumlich, S., Segawa, E., Burns, J. L., & Hiolliday, M. Y. (2004). Effects
of 2 prevention programs on high-risk behaviors among African American youth.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 158, 377-384.
Foxcroft, D. R., Ireland, D., Lister-Sharp, D. J., Lowe, G., & Breen, R. (2005). Longerterm prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: Cochrane systematic review.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 34 (4), 758-759.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's
Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Giordono, P., & Cernkovich, S. (1997). Gender and antisocial behvior. In D. M. Stoff, J.
Breiling & J. Maser (Eds.), The Handbook of Antisocial Behavior (pp. 496-510).
New York: John Wiley.
Goldberg, L., Elliot, D. L., MacKinnon, D., Moe, E. K., Nohre, L., & Lockwood, C. M.
(2003). Drug testing to prevent substance abuse: background and pilot study
20
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
results of SATURN Student Athlete Testing Using Random Notification) study. J
Adolesc Health, 32(1), 16-25.
Goldberg, L., Elliot, D. L., MacKinnon, D. P., Moe, E. L., Kuehl, K. S., Yoon, M., et al.
(2007). Outcomes of a prospective trial of student-athlete drug testing: the Student
Athlete Testing Using Random Notification (SATURN) study. J Adolesc Health,
41(5), 421-429.
Gottfredson, D. C., & Wilson, D. B. (2003). Characteristics of effective school-based
substance abuse prevention. Prevention Science, 4(1), 23-28.
Hansen, W., & Dusenbury, L. (2004). Alcohol use and misuse: Prevention strategies
with minors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Harrison, L. D., Martin, S. S., Enev, T., & Harrington, D. (2007). Comparing drug testing
and self-report of drug use among youths and young adults in the general
population. Rockville, MD: Substance Use and Mental Health Service
Administration, Office of Applied Studies.
Henry, L. H., & Slater, M. D. (2007). The contextual effect of school attachment on
young adolescents' alcohol use. J School Health, 77(2), 67-74.
Hingson, R., & Kenkel, D. (2004). Social, health, and economic consequences of
underage drinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Costa, F. M. (1991). Beyond adolescence: problem
behaviour and young adult development. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2008).
Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2007. Volume I:
21
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
Secondary school students. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2011).
Monitoring the Future: National results on adolescent drug use: Overview of
key findings, 2010. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University
of Michigan.
Kern, J., Gunja, F., Cox, A., Rosenbaum, M., Appel, J., & Verma, A. (2006). Making
Sense of Student Drug Testing, Why Educators are Saying No. New York, NY:
Drug Policy Alliance.
LaRusso, M. D., Romer, D., & Selman, R. L. (2008). Teachers as builders of respectful
school climates: implications for adolescent drug use norms and depressive
symptoms in high school. J Youth Adolesc, 37(4), 386-398
LaRusso, M. D., & Selman, R. L. (2003). The influence of development and school
atmosphere on adolescents' perceptions of risk and prevention: cynicism and
skepticism. In D. Romer (Ed.), Reducing adolescent risk: toward an integrated
strategy (pp. 113-122). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Libbey, H. (2004). Measuring student relationship to school: attachement, bonding,
connectedness, and engagement. J School Health, 74(7), 274-283.
McKeganey, N. ( 2005). Random drug-testing of schoolchildren. A shot in the arm or a
shot in the foot for drug prevention? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School Connectedness and the Transition Into and Out
of Health-Risk Behavior Among Adolescents: A Comparison of Social Belonging
and Teacher Support. J School Health, 74(7), 284-283.
Mears, D. P., Ploeger, M., & Warr, M. (1998). Explaining the Gender Gap in
22
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
Delinquency: Peer Influence and Moral Evaluations of Behavior. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(3), 251-266.
National Highway Traffic Safety Agency. (2008). 2007 Traffic safety annual assessmentalcohol-impaired driving fatalities. Washington, DC.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2009). Tobacco addiction. Bethesda, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2010). Marijuana abuse. Bethesda, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
ONDCP. (2002). What you need to know about drug testing in schools,
http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/drug_testing.pdf. Washington
DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Drug Policy Information Clearing
House.
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Appl
Psychol Measurment, 21(2), 173-184.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early
adolescents' academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research
findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 443-463.
SHPPS. (2006). SHPPS 2006 Data Files and Documentation. from National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Adolescent and
School Health:
Simons-Morton, B., Crump, A., Haynie, D., & Saylor, K. (1999). Student-school bonding
and adolescent problem behavior. Health Edu Res, 14(1), 99.
Svensson, R. (2003). Gender differences in adolescent drug use, the impact of parental
23
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
monitoring and peer deviance. Youth Society, 34(3), 300-329.
Thomas, R., & Perera, R. (2006). School-based programmes for preventing smoking.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). The health consequences of
smoking: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health.
United States Supreme Court. (1995). Vernonia School District Versus Action.
United States Supreme Court. (2002). Board of Education of Independent School District
No. 92 of Pottawatomie County vs. Earls.
Weishew, N. L., & Peng, S. S. (1993). Variables predicting students' problem behavior. J
Edu Res, 87(1), 5-17.
West, P., Sweeting, H., & Leyland, A. (2004). School effects on pupils' health
behaviours: evidence in support of the health promoting school. Res Papers Educ,
19(261-91).
Yamaguchi, R., Johnston, L. D., & O’Malley, P. M. (2003). Relationship between student
illicit drug use and school drug-testing policies. J School Health, 73, 159-164.
Yu, C.-Y., & Muthén, B. (2002). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable
models with categorical and continuous outcomes. Los Angeles: University of
California at Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education & Information
24
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
Table 1 Profiles of schools with drug testing and positive school climate
using student self-reports
Positive
climatec
Drug testing
(n=253, 27%)
n (%)
Total
(n=513, 55%)
b
(n=945)
uOR
n (%)
uOR
n
Background measures
Urban-rural
Urban a
62 (22)
1.00
128 (45)
1.00
286
Suburb
144 (28)
1.42*
227 (45)
0.97
511
48 (32)
1.72*
67 (46)
1.05
149
114 (35)
38 (22)
56 (26)
45 (20)
1.00
0.53**
0.66*
0.48***
139 (42)
81 (47)
101 (47)
101 (45)
1.00
1.22
1.23
1.12
330
174
215
224
219 (27)
25 (24)
1.00
0.89
330 (41)
74 (72)
1.00
3.61***
803
105
124 (28)
127 (26)
1.00
0.84
227 (52)
191 (39)
1.00
0.59**
439
487
87 (28)
159 (26)
1.00
0.89
133(43)
283 (46)
1.00
1.18
313
612
115 (25)
1.00
189 (42)
1.00
452
138 (28)
1.13
233 (48)
1.25
493
1152 (26)
101 (29)
1.00
1.17
272 (47)
151 (43)
1.00
0.85
592
353
159 (27)
38 (31)
39 (23)
16 (25)
1.00
1.17
0.80
0.86
285 (49)
40 (32)
67 (41)
31 (48)
1.00
0.49**
0.71
0.95
584
124
169
65
87 (27)
112 (27)
40 (25)
1.00
1.01
0.91
171 (53)
165 (40)
62 (39)
1.00
0.59***
0.56**
320
408
160
Rural
Region
South a
Northeast
Midwest
West
Private/public school
Public
Private
School size
< 1000 pupils
> 1000 pupils
Income
Below national median
Above national median
Individual level variables
Gender
Female
Male
Age
14-16
17-19
Race/ethnicity
White a
Black
Hispanic
Other
GPA
Aa
B
C-D
Weights were used to estimate a nationally representative sample of students in schools. Ns do not always
add up to 945 due to missing data. P values are based on univariate logistic regression.* p<.05; **p<.01;
***p<.001.
a
Denotes referent category. B uOR denotes unadjusted Odds Ratios. C Positive school climate captures
respondents who reported positive climate above the median.
25
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
Table 2 Unstandardized Estimates for female and male students in baseline SEM
B (SE)
B (SE)
Female
Male
Factor loadings for indicator variables
School Climate
Students respect students
Teachers respect students
Students respect students
Rules are clear
Teachers handle problems
Drug use
Cigarette use
Alcohol use
Marijuana use
Paths from predictors to drug use
School Climate
Drug testing
1.00
0.94 (0.11)***
0.99 (0.08)***
0.85 (0.10)***
1.07 (0.12)***
1.00
0.94 (0.11)***
0.99 (0.08)***
0.85 (0.10)***
1.07 (0.12)***
1.00
0.87 (0.08)***
0.78 (0.06)***
1.00
0.87 (0.08)***
0.78 (0.06)***
-0.37 (0.13)**
-0.03 (0.06)
-0.18 (0.09)*
-0.01 (0.05)
Paths from background variables to drug use
Rural (referent)
Suburban
-0.05 (0.07)
Urban
0.13 (0.08)
Income
0.02 (0.06)
Age
0.14 (0.04)**
White (referent)
Black
-0.25 (0.08)**
Hispanic
-0.12 (0.08)
Other
0.07 (0.13)
GPA
-0.16 (0.05)***
Survey year
0.02 (0.05)
-0.09 (0.07)
0.03 (0.08)
0.01 (0.06)
0.23 (0.04)***
-0.16 (0.07)*
0.07 (0.08)
0.08 (0.09)
-0.14 (0.04)***
0.12 (0.05)*
Note. B is unstandardized estimate, SE is standard error. *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
26
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
27
Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates
28