Cargando…

A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes

PURPOSE: This study assessed the prevalence of physical and cognitive doping in recreational triathletes with two different randomized response models, that is, the Cheater Detection Model (CDM) and the Unrelated Question Model (UQM). Since both models have been employed in assessing doping, the maj...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schröter, Hannes, Studzinski, Beatrix, Dietz, Pavel, Ulrich, Rolf, Striegel, Heiko, Simon, Perikles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4878800/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27218830
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155765
_version_ 1782433614341865472
author Schröter, Hannes
Studzinski, Beatrix
Dietz, Pavel
Ulrich, Rolf
Striegel, Heiko
Simon, Perikles
author_facet Schröter, Hannes
Studzinski, Beatrix
Dietz, Pavel
Ulrich, Rolf
Striegel, Heiko
Simon, Perikles
author_sort Schröter, Hannes
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This study assessed the prevalence of physical and cognitive doping in recreational triathletes with two different randomized response models, that is, the Cheater Detection Model (CDM) and the Unrelated Question Model (UQM). Since both models have been employed in assessing doping, the major objective of this study was to investigate whether the estimates of these two models converge. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 2,967 athletes at two triathlon events (Frankfurt and Wiesbaden, Germany). Doping behavior was assessed either with the CDM (Frankfurt sample, one Wiesbaden subsample) or the UQM (one Wiesbaden subsample). A generalized likelihood-ratio test was employed to check whether the prevalence estimates differed significantly between models. In addition, we compared the prevalence rates of the present survey with those of a previous study on a comparable sample. RESULTS: After exclusion of incomplete questionnaires and outliers, the data of 2,017 athletes entered the final data analysis. Twelve-month prevalence for physical doping ranged from 4% (Wiesbaden, CDM and UQM) to 12% (Frankfurt CDM), and for cognitive doping from 1% (Wiesbaden, CDM) to 9% (Frankfurt CDM). The generalized likelihood-ratio test indicated no differences in prevalence rates between the two methods. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in prevalences between the present (undertaken in 2014) and the previous survey (undertaken in 2011), although the estimates tended to be smaller in the present survey. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that the two models can provide converging prevalence estimates. The high rate of cheaters estimated by the CDM, however, suggests that the present results must be seen as a lower bound and that the true prevalence of doping might be considerably higher.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4878800
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48788002016-06-09 A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes Schröter, Hannes Studzinski, Beatrix Dietz, Pavel Ulrich, Rolf Striegel, Heiko Simon, Perikles PLoS One Research Article PURPOSE: This study assessed the prevalence of physical and cognitive doping in recreational triathletes with two different randomized response models, that is, the Cheater Detection Model (CDM) and the Unrelated Question Model (UQM). Since both models have been employed in assessing doping, the major objective of this study was to investigate whether the estimates of these two models converge. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 2,967 athletes at two triathlon events (Frankfurt and Wiesbaden, Germany). Doping behavior was assessed either with the CDM (Frankfurt sample, one Wiesbaden subsample) or the UQM (one Wiesbaden subsample). A generalized likelihood-ratio test was employed to check whether the prevalence estimates differed significantly between models. In addition, we compared the prevalence rates of the present survey with those of a previous study on a comparable sample. RESULTS: After exclusion of incomplete questionnaires and outliers, the data of 2,017 athletes entered the final data analysis. Twelve-month prevalence for physical doping ranged from 4% (Wiesbaden, CDM and UQM) to 12% (Frankfurt CDM), and for cognitive doping from 1% (Wiesbaden, CDM) to 9% (Frankfurt CDM). The generalized likelihood-ratio test indicated no differences in prevalence rates between the two methods. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in prevalences between the present (undertaken in 2014) and the previous survey (undertaken in 2011), although the estimates tended to be smaller in the present survey. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that the two models can provide converging prevalence estimates. The high rate of cheaters estimated by the CDM, however, suggests that the present results must be seen as a lower bound and that the true prevalence of doping might be considerably higher. Public Library of Science 2016-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4878800/ /pubmed/27218830 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155765 Text en © 2016 Schröter et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Schröter, Hannes
Studzinski, Beatrix
Dietz, Pavel
Ulrich, Rolf
Striegel, Heiko
Simon, Perikles
A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes
title A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes
title_full A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes
title_fullStr A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes
title_short A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes
title_sort comparison of the cheater detection and the unrelated question models: a randomized response survey on physical and cognitive doping in recreational triathletes
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4878800/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27218830
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155765
work_keys_str_mv AT schroterhannes acomparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes
AT studzinskibeatrix acomparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes
AT dietzpavel acomparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes
AT ulrichrolf acomparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes
AT striegelheiko acomparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes
AT simonperikles acomparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes
AT schroterhannes comparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes
AT studzinskibeatrix comparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes
AT dietzpavel comparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes
AT ulrichrolf comparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes
AT striegelheiko comparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes
AT simonperikles comparisonofthecheaterdetectionandtheunrelatedquestionmodelsarandomizedresponsesurveyonphysicalandcognitivedopinginrecreationaltriathletes