You are on page 1of 12

Journal of Attention Disorders http://jad.sagepub.

com/

An Exploratory Study of Substance Use and Misuse Among College Students With and Without ADHD and Other Disabilities
Grace M. Janusis and Lisa L. Weyandt Journal of Attention Disorders 2010 14: 205 originally published online 17 May 2010 DOI: 10.1177/1087054710367600 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jad.sagepub.com/content/14/3/205

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Attention Disorders can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jad.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jad.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jad.sagepub.com/content/14/3/205.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 26, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 17, 2010 What is This?

Downloaded from jad.sagepub.com by guest on August 27, 2012

Keywords ADHD. 2001). Method: Students responded to a Stimulant Survey Questionnaire (SSQ). 2006). Current research indicates that ADHD is one of the most common disabilities among college students (Weyandt & DuPaul. Results: The hypotheses were part supported as MANOVA results revealed that students with disabilities provided significantly lower ratings on the SSS and also reported lower alcohol and marijuana use.S. 3) The most common types of disabilities that are reported among college students include learning disability (29%). Asperger’s syndrome.com/journalsPermissions. and students with disabilities are graduating from college in record numbers (Henderson. Students with ADHD were more likely to use or misuse prescription stimulant medication but were less likely to use alcohol than did students without ADHD. perceived stress. especially college students. full-time college students report having a documented disability (Henderson. Horn & Berktold. The number of students with disabilities has increased steadily over the past few decades. 1999). Weyandt1 Journal of Attention Disorders 14(3) 205–215 © 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: sagepub. Savino. and sensation seeking. vision (16%). executive functioning disorder. U.com by guest on August 27. College Students With ADHD Relative to what is known about ADHD in children. and learning. (p.1177/1087054710367600 http://jad. According to Weyandt and DuPaul (2006). Conclusion: Students with disabilities compared to those without disabilities differed on levels of sensation seeking and alcohol and marijuana use. stimulant medication. 1 University of Rhode Island Corresponding Author: Grace M. and physical/chronic disabilities) regarding self-reported substance use and misuse. placed on academic probation. but the actual percentage of college students with ADHD is unknown. there is substantially less info available about ADHD in adults. as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA. or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.sagepub. college students with ADHD are more likely to have psychological. and social difficulties than their peers without ADHD (Weyandt & DuPaul. In general. 73A Quannacut Rd. approximately 2% to 4% of the college student population experiences symptoms of ADHD. 2005) is as follows: A person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Janusis1 and Lisa L.Current Perspectives An Exploratory Study of Substance Use and Misuse Among College Students With and Without ADHD and Other Disabilities Grace M. RI 02891 Email: gracey81@gmail. substance use Approximately 6% to 8% of all first-time. Research has found college students who have been diagnosed with ADHD are more likely to have lower mean grade point averages (GPAs. educational.com Downloaded from jad.com Abstract Objective: The present study investigated potential differences between college students with and without disabilities (including ADHD. speech (3%). and are less likely to graduate from college ultimately (Murphy. 2006). Guenther. Levy. 2012 . or other (21%.. orthopedic impairment (23%). Heiligenstein. 2001. college. Sensation-Seeking Scale (SSS). vision. 1999).. a person who has a history or record of such an impairment. 1999). A disability. Janusis. hearing. Department of Justice. hearing (16%). have academic problems (Heiligenstein et al.nav DOI: 10. Horn & Berktold. Perceived Stress Scale (PSS).sagepub. Westerly. and items from the National College Health Assessment (NCHA). & Fulwiler. 1999). mental health.

Disability status served as the independent variable (two levels of disability status were no disability or disability present). many questions remain unanswered.. their potential for abuse can be problematic (Teter. Reiff. 2003). Although research suggests that students with disabilities. Hoy. as was conflict with a roommate. 1998. Arndt. including prescription stimulant medication. McCabe. In addition. Sensation-Seeking Behavior in College Students A higher degree of sensation seeking has been shown to correlate with a higher rate of use of illegal drugs such as marijuana (Zuckerman. Bramel. Teter. members of Greek life. Treatments available for ADHD in college students range from academic accommodations to prescription medication. risk-taking. Although students with ADHD compose a large percentage of students with disabilities. including psychological stress. In addition. 1987). are attending college. & Stapleton. & Bush. 2005). and Whelley (2005). College students with or without ADHD who have a comorbid psychiatric disorder are at a greater risk of substance abuse (Wolf. 1993. 2002). Young adults with ADHD are also more likely to have a comorbid learning disorder than their peers (Murphy et al. studies have found students with a learning disability experience psychological stress significantly differently from students without a learning disability and often have more challenges with psychological difficulties such as anxiety than their peers (Barton & Fuhrman. Although prescription stimulant medication can vastly improve the lives of children and adults with ADHD. Dunn.. found college students with ADHD to be more likely to abuse alcohol and cannabis than do college students without the disorder. information concerning substance use. Chang. the purpose of the present study was to explore the use and misuse of substances. This change in enrollment has been accompanied by an increase of students using prescription stimulants such as Ritalin. among college students with and without disabilities at a public university in the northeast region of the United States. Shelley II. whereas drug use was a negative predictor of stress. & Gibbon. & Guthrie. & Wenman. Weyandt et al. and sensation-seeking behaviors are related to stimulant abuse. & Wechsler. the number of college students who have reported using a prescription stimulant for nonmedical use in the past year varied from 0% to 25% (McCabe. Weyandt et al. alcohol.. Preliminary studies suggest that a significant percentage of college students (i. Morrison & Cosden.8%) have tried prescription stimulants at least once without the use of a valid prescription (Office of Applied Studies. Gregg. and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) were dependent variables (three dependent variables in Stress in College Students With Disabilities A variety of factors may be related to college student use of substances.com by guest on August 27. Furthermore. Specifically. College students with disabilities compared to nondisabled students may be particularly prone to stress and experience more stress throughout their lifetime (Margalit.e. Particular groups of students at college such as men. King. 2000). Research indicates that more than 20 million Americans above the age of 12 (about 8. 1997.206 Barkley. Therefore. Indeed. Whites. 2006). Zeleznik. 2005).sagepub.. Stodden.. and adolescent men have the highest rate of sensation seeking (Zuckerman. or staff member. 2005. in college populations. increasingly more students with disabilities of all types. & Jagota. However. For example. 1996). College students with ADHD more frequently report internal restlessness than do their non-ADHD peers and report higher levels of sensation seeking (Hines & Shaw. 2005. 2009). are at greater risk for using illicit substances. this study explored whether there was a relationship between sensation seeking and use of substances. Weyandt et al. Hatzes. Chilcoat. 2009). is limited. 2012 . students with other disabilities have also been found to abuse substances (Gilson. higher scores in sensation seeking have been related to higher levels of drug abuse (Jaffe & Archer... Journal of Attention Disorders 14(3) a positive predictor of stress. Boyd. More importantly. 1996). 1994. Moreland. and Concerta to treat ADHD symptoms on campus. In addition to the academic difficulties presented to college students with ADHD. and alcohol use among college students (Hirsch & Ellis. and students who earn lower grades are more prone to misuse prescription stimulant medication (McCabe et al. 2000). Grace (1997) indicated that chronic excessive stress could contribute to the development of addictive behaviors among the college population. faculty. Knight. tobacco use. 2001). Ratings on the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS). particularly that of nonmedical use of prescription stimulants among college students with disabilities. including ADHD. 2003). Stimulant Use and Misuse in College According to Tagayuna. 1992). 2001). there is a dearth of research regarding psychological variables and whether perceived stress. Murphy et al. Adderall. including prescription stimulant medication. and sensation-seeking behavior. Research suggests that men tend to be higher sensation seekers than women. 2002) than their peers without ADHD. Dusselier. including those with ADHD. Wang. Stimulant Survey Questionnaire (SSQ). Stress is also associated with suicidal thought. as well as increased reports of use and misuse of prescription stimulants (Gunter. these students may be at greater risk for developing psychological difficulties. 2%-8% in the past month) are abusing prescription stimulants (McCabe et al. and Whalen (2005) found alcohol use was Downloaded from jad.

Lastly. Participants recruited through the university’s DSS office were given the choice to participate when they registered for an appointment for accommodations.2% of students did not know who provided the diagnosis.com by guest on August 27. Students who did not report both having a disability and registration with DSS were excluded from the analysis (n = 25). a demographic form and four measures: SSS.sagepub. PSS.9% reported having ADHD. The SSS-V measures the amount of stimulation and arousal that someone needs or wants. For students who reported having any type of disability. The participants in the study completed. Participation took an estimated 25 to 40 minutes. & Mermelstein.1%).2%). and these included Adderall. Ratings on two questions from the National College Health Assessment (NCHA) about substance use were also analyzed by descriptive statistics. in a randomized order. 41. Downloaded from jad. and Asperger’s syndrome (n = 62). Procedures Participants were recruited through the university’s DSS office and psychology classes. hearing disability. and how often someone is likely to seek out novel stimuli (Zuckerman.2%). 8% ADHD HyperactiveImpulsive subtype. and Vyvanse. The study sought to evaluate three hypotheses. SSQ. Participants without a disability were solicited from introductory psychology classes and were used as a comparison group. and selected questions from the NCHA. and Measures/Instrumentation SSS-V. or a psychiatrist (19. executive function (6. The PSS consists of 10 items intended to measure how an individual handles uncontrollable and unpredictable life events and their perception of demands exceeding their ability to cope with a situation (Cohen.75. Disabilities other than ADHD were categorized into seven groups: mental health (35. 1994). learning disability. The majority of students identified with ADHD were diagnosed by a psychologist (23. Students recruited through psychology classes were informed about the study through an announcement in their psychology class. The second hypothesis was that college students with disabilities would endorse higher ratings on the Sensation Seeking Scale than would college students without disabilities.45. The SSS-V has 40 forced-choice items and takes approximately 15 minutes to complete. and Asperger’s syndrome (2. According to Jaffe and Archer (1987). Of the students who responded that they had a disability. Method Participants The study was approved by the university’s institutional review board. vision (2.1%). For example. The status of disability was determined by registration with Disability Services for Students (DSS) and self-identification on a demographic form. Ritalin. in a study by Ridgeway and Russell (1980) using the SSS with college students. Concerta. 76. PSS. mental health disability. The participants were predominantly women (76. 33. 207 19. physical/chronic (20%). 2012 . Dexedrine. More than 65% of the students with ADHD (n = 17) reported taking a prescribed stimulant medication. All participants were informed about what the study entailed and received an anonymous. hearing (2.1%). vision disability.7%). executive functioning disorder. The following types of disabilities were included in the study: ADHD. the total score served as the dependent variable. Focalin. with a mean age of 20 years and a mean GPA of 3. a neurologist (23. Of the students who reported having a disability. and 12% ADHD Combined subtype. even more so than the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and Millon Alcohol Abuse Scale (MCMI).2%).6%). The sample consisted of 165 college students (freshmen to seniors) from a public university in the Northeast region of the United States in 2008. physical and chronic disability. indicating that several students with ADHD have a comorbid disability. The SSS has adequate psychometric properties. with 20% ADHD Predominantly Inattentive subtype. Almost 60% did not know ADHD subtype. the SSS was highly sensitive in predicting drug use in college students. The first hypothesis was that college students with disabilities would endorse higher ratings on the Stimulant Survey Questionnaire than college students without disabilities. Kamarck. The total participants consisted of 62 with a disability 78 without a disability. The total score for the measure is the summation of all 40 items (with higher sensation-seeking items scored as 1 and lower sensation-seeking items scored as 0).6%). the total score of the SSS had moderate reliability with a coefficient alpha of . no sign consent form.7% reported having a disability other than ADHD.Janusis and Weyandt total). The total possible score ranges from 0 (low sensation seeking) to 40 (high sensation seeking).9% (n = 21) of the students responded that they were taking a prescribed stimulant medication. For the present study. The most common type of prescribed stimulant medication was Adderall. This study was the first of its kind to explore the relationship between psychological variables and substance use and misuse among college students with and without ADHD and other disabilities. the third hypothesis was that college students with disabilities would endorse higher ratings on the Perceived Stress Scale than would college students without disabilities.2%).9%) and White (91. learning (31. The participants were compensated for their participation in the study by receiving class credit or having their e-mail address entered in a raffle with a US$100 cash prize when the study was completed.

123) = 8. found the SSQ to have adequate internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of . and very often during the past month for each stressful event (Cohen & Williamson.89 for the total score (Roberti et al. Dexedrine. For the ratings on the SSS. Likewise. 1 to 2 days. The 4 factors were self-reported prescription stimulant use. 1988). The SSQ is a 40-item questionnaire that was designed to measure the use and misuse of prescription stimulant medications in college students (Weyandt et al. The total score ranges from 40 to 170. & Smith.09. the PSS had a mean of 13.com by guest on August 27. Concerta. There was a statistically significant difference between students with a disability and students without a disability on the combined dependent variables: F(3. but for this study. behaviors. rohypnol. Each item has a forced 5-choice response of never. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to determine whether violations occurred with regard to normality. found the PSS to be a reliable and valid instrument for measuring perceived stress in college students. The convergent validity was assessed. SD = 6. Overall. The psychometric properties of the PSS are adequate. 2009). The ratings on the PSS were not significantly different between students with and without disabilities.27. The total score can range from 0 to 40.35). 2006).67.025 was used for determining significance for that variable in the univariate F test. The survey questions list substances (cigarettes. 6 to 9 days. observed power = . 3 = occasionally. SD = 7) was higher than the mean Cohen and Williamson (1988) found in their national study (M = 13. SSQ. and PSS.96. When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately. Results To test the hypotheses that college students with disabilities were more likely than college students without disabilities to endorse higher ratings on the SSQ. Harrington. To account for this violation of equality of variance. cigars. The independent variable was disability status. Items on the survey are statements with a 5-point Likert-type scale response (1 = never. Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith QuestionnaireShort Form (SCSRFQ-SF). For this study. For this study. with a higher score indicating a higher level of perceived stress. and higher ratings on the PSS. MANOVA was performed.81. marijuana. alcohol. the responses from the NCHA were analyzed descriptively. except for equality of variance as demonstrated in the Levene’s test of equality of error variances for the SSQ dependent variable. 2006). partial eta squared = . almost never. & Eysenck.. partial eta squared = .. indicating that students with a disability are less likely to seek out high-sensation behaviors than do students without a disability. and construct validity..02. and the PSS was highly correlated with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) total score and was moderately correlated with the multidimensional health locus of control (MHLC) chance subscale (Roberti et al. fairly often. the score of the PSS is determined by first reverse scoring the 4 positive items (Items 4. No serious violations were committed.208 1983. perception of prevalence of prescription use among peers. The NCHA is a questionnaire developed by the Journal of Attention Disorders 14(3) American College Health Association to collect data about college students’ health habits. Wilks’s Lambda = . and all 30 days (American College Health Association. with a higher score indicating more prescription stimulant medication use and misuse. and Storch (2006) found support for normative results. Weyandt et al. In a nationwide survey in 1988. and no significant correlations were found between the PSS and the SSS-V. with three dependent variables of ratings on the SSQ. Two questions were selected from the NCHA to assess substance use of college students with and without disabilities for descriptive purposes.06) scored significantly lower than the students without a disability (M = 20. 2006). 2009). Cohen. only questions numbered 9 and 10 were used to assess substance use in college students. 1978).96. 3 to 5 days. 7. Cohen & Williamson. as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). and other drugs) in a chart with response choices of never used. 20 to 29 days. 2007). 121) = 4. p < . the Downloaded from jad. 10 to 19 days.02 (SD = 6.01. A principal-axis-factor analysis revealed 4 factors accounting for 51. p < . The PSS has a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of . The overall total ratings on the SSS were very similar to previous studies (Zuckerman. 5. knowledge of atypical stimulant use among peers. SSS. the dependent variable of the SSS was the only one to reach a level of statistical significance after using a Bonferroni adjusted level (Tabachnick & Fidell. Then. cocaine. Tyrrell. and observed power = .01. 1993). National College Health Assessment. and the overt aggression (OA subscale) of the Adult Aggression Scale (Roberti et al. 2012 . The NCHA consists of 58 forced-choice items. Metadate) and amphetamine (Adderall.85.11% of the total variance (Weyandt et al. The divergent validity was assessed. Roberti et al. have used but not in past 30 days. 2001) of . and perceptions (American College Health Association. 1988). Then. internal consistencies. students with a disability (M = 17. the scores of all 10 items are added together. and 5 = always) in the first section and a yes-or-no response in the second section. 4 = frequently. the total score served as the dependent variable. Roberti. 2 = rarely. homogeneity of variance. In addition. a more conservative alpha level of .sagepub.017: F(1. SD = 6. Desoxyn). and equality of variance. 2003). Eysenck. For this study. SD = 5.849. and perception of safety of stimulants.35. the total score served as the dependent variable. Stimulants in this survey refer to prescription medications including methylphenidate (Ritalin. and 8).. smokeless tobacco. higher ratings on the SSS. but the overall mean rating on the PSS (M = 17.59). linearity. amphetamines.06..84. sometimes.

For amphetamines. Individual responses on the SSQ for the disability and no-disability groups were different on several items as illustrated in Table 1. SD = 5.62) reported significantly lower use than did students without a disability (M = 4.9).7) and executive functioning disorder (M = 22. the results indicated that both groups are using at a similar level. the students with the highest level of sensation seeking as rated by the SSS were students with physical and chronic disabilities (M = 21. SD = . There was a statistically significant difference between students with ADHD and students without ADHD on the combined dependent variables: F(3. students with ADHD (M = 79.9) and ADHD (M = 79. SD = 6. and observed power = .14. p < . the student with a vision disability (M = 33) reported the highest level of stress. SD = 1. followed by the students with mental health disabilities (M = 21.61. Additional post hoc ANOVAs revealed that students with different types of disabilities performed at varying levels on the SSQ. Interestingly. SD = 7. SD = 2.32 (SD = 13.80.0). the ratings were exactly the same.05. partial eta squared = . and Asperger’s syndrome (M = 6.01. When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately. SSS.08) and as evidenced by responses on Item 1 of the SSQ with students endorsing the statement “I have used prescription stimulants for non-medical purposes” occasionally (11. SD = 6. p < . 2003). 138) = 6. Students with executive functioning disorders performed slightly higher than students with 209 ADHD on the SSQ. For the ratings on the SSQ. Wilks’s Lambda = .3.34): F(1. Substance use for students with and without disabilities was assessed post hoc using 2 items from the NCHA.68): F(1. and those with physical and chronic disabilities (M = 18.1.9. and observed power = .2).34. self-use of substances was rated lower than the perception of use by others on all substances in the questionnaire for both students with and without disabilities.09. caution should be used when interpreting these results. SD = . 2012 . For alcohol self-use. with three dependent variables of ratings on the PSS. 138) = 10. the students with executive functioning disorder (M = 19. An ANOVA on Item 18 of the SSQ (“I have sold prescription stimulant medication to other students”) was statistically significant with students with ADHD (M = 1. with alcohol and to snort stimulants.94. Substance self-use only differed between the two groups for alcohol use and marijuana use. and frequently (1. 2001) of . p < .05.26): F(1. PSS.27. The independent variable was presence of ADHD diagnosis.com by guest on August 27.01.12.05. “students without a disability rated the item significantly higher than students with a disability: F(1. For instance. the dependent variable of the SSQ was the only dependent variable to reach a level of statistical significance after using a Bonferroni adjusted level (Tabachnick & Fidell. There were significant differences between students with and without ADHD on specific items on the SSQ.13.61) rating the item significantly higher than students without ADHD (M = 1. Whereas the results need to be interpreted with caution because of the small sample of students with ADHD (n = 26).79) provided significantly higher ratings on Item 20 of the SSQ (“I have been pressured into letting someone else have my prescription stimulant medication”) than students without ADHD (M = 1.19.38. students with executive functioning disorders (M = 83. even though there was no significant difference between students with and without disability for the total score on the SSQ. when an ANOVA was performed on Item 1 of the SSQ. an ANOVA revealed that students with ADHD (M = 1.01.2).sagepub. Nine exploratory post hoc ANOVAs were performed to determine any significant differences between substance use for each substance on the questionnaire between students with and without disabilities. except for self-use of amphetamines and rohypnol.8. SD = 1. On the PSS.09. For instance.7). p < .37.55. SD = 6.0).01.25. p < . Due to the small number of students who reported a diagnosis of executive functioning disorders (n = 3). SD = 17. indicating that students with ADHD are more likely to use and/or misuse stimulant medication than are students without ADHD. and for self-use of rohypnol. For marijuana self-use.42). SD = 2.8) had the highest ratings on the SSQ.31.35. PSS. and the SSS. which appears to be slightly higher for the students in this study (American College Health Association. a MANOVA was performed to investigate differences in stimulant use. These results indicate that students with ADHD are more likely to be pressured into Downloaded from jad.5%).Janusis and Weyandt overall ratings on the NCHA were also similar to previous studies. SD = .99. SD = .15): F(1. Students without disabilities were more likely to use stimulants at parties. 137) = 6.64.8. The level of stimulant use was high for both groups with an overall mean of 70. The ratings for self–substance use and perception of others’ use were lower for students with disabilities on all items. students with a disability (M = 2. Although there was no significant difference between the ratings of the SSQ by college students with and without disabilities. students with a disability (M = 3. Post hoc analyses also revealed significant differences between students with ADHD and students without ADHD on several dependent variables.3). and SSS. sensation seeking. p < . 123) = 12. and students rating the lowest were the students with learning disabilities (M = 15.3.09. partial eta squared = .2. SD = 11. “I have used prescription stimulants for non-medical purposes. and SSQ.4%).85) reported significantly lower use than students without a disability (M = 2. SD = 2. As can be seen in Table 2. there was a difference between self-use and perception of use by others for all substances. SD = 1. p < . and perceived stress between college students with and without ADHD.01.2.017: F(1. the ratings for students with disabilities were slightly higher.99.8. One exception is the use of marijuana. mental health disabilities (M = 16. 121) = 9. SD = 14. 138) = 10. Descriptively. 137) = 10. SD = 6.44) scored significantly higher than the students without ADHD (M = 68.

7) 59.2) 10.4) 29. I feel I am knowledgeable about the side effects of prescription stimulants. 12.3) 6.3 (12.9) 34.3) Downloaded from jad. I have been offered prescription stimulants by other students.4 (—) 6.2 (67.0 (3.9) 13. 20.8 (27.7 (83.7) 92.2 (6.8 (6. Prescription stimulants are as easy to get as marijuana.4 (8.0) 16.9) 30. Prescription stimulant use on campus is a problem.9 (75. I have taken prescription stimulants to help me lose weight.8) 19. 2012 .0) 70.7 (9.9 (3.6) 13. 27.8 (—) — (—) 1.7) 45. I have used prescription stimulants with alcohol.1 (18.1 (8.6) — (—) — (1.3 (1.8) 89.9) 68.1) 7. 11. 22.5 (4.1 (48.5) 23.9 (—) 18.9) 74.8 (17.4) 33.3 (11.6) 33.5) — (21.6) — (1.3 (3.sagepub.9 (1. 9. 6. 13. I have used prescription stimulants for nonmedical purposes.1) 20.1) 16.7) 29.3 (88.6 (88.2 (32.4) 24.9 (6. I have taken prescription stimulants to perform better in schoolwork.3 (1.0) 72.6) — (1.0 (96.2) — (1.2 (33.9) 16. Prescription stimulants are as easy to get as alcohol.7 (22. 19.8) Frequently 1.2) 79.2 (3.1) 85.3) 20.2 (3.3 (8. Frequency of Response of Students Without and With a Disability on the SSQ Journal of Attention Disorders 14(3) Response of students without disability (students with disability) Item 1.8 (29.3) 5. 5.1) 14. Using prescription stimulants daily is harmless.8) Occasionally 18.6) 21.4 (41.5 (8.7 (12. 29.7 (91.1) 38.7) 59.8) 3. I have taken prescription stimulants to help me socialize better.4 (32. 7.0 (6.1 (88.3 (29.3 (—) — (1.6) — (—) — (19. I have given prescription stimulants to other students.5) 44. I have been pressured into letting someone else have my prescription stimulant medication.7) 2.9) 9.1) 1.4.3 (16.6) 11. I have taken prescription stimulants to feel energetic.5) 3.8 (12.3 (4. 16.9 (34.0 (9. 26.3) 29.3) 5.7 (53.6) — (—) 1.3) 34.8 (1.5) 29. I have taken prescription stimulants to feel better about myself.6) — (1.9) 23. I have purchased prescription stimulants from other students. 17. (9.5 (21. Prescription stimulants are safer than alcohol.3 (14. I have used prescription stimulants at parties.2 (87.3 (4. 14.5) 17.7 (36.5 (67.5 (12.8) — (—) — (4.0 (4.7) 23.1 (50.1) 1.2 (78.5 (17.1 (12. Prescription stimulants are easy to get on this campus.3 (33.1) — (—) 3.0 (8.3 (3. 2.7 (9.3 (3.1 (21.1 (29.0 (—) 6.3) 79.com by guest on August 27.6 (27.9 (1. 25.6) 43.3 (1.2) — (3.8 (82.1) 5.7 (85.6 (35. I have tried someone else’s prescription stimulants.6) 7. I have taken prescription stimulants to perform better on tests. I have taken prescription stimulants to “get high.6) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) Strongly agree 14.2) 5.6 (11.6) Always — (—) — (1.7) 1.2 (3.0) 1.5 (4.6) 6.9 (1.4) 90.2) — (17.3) 3.5) 3.1) 3.6 (9.1) 3.7) 13. 30.9 (8.2) 15.3) 16. 2.8) 19.0 (30. 3.0) 5.8) 3.5) 96. I feel I am knowledgeable about prescription stimulants. I have snorted prescription stimulants.1 (9.7 (24.9) Rarely 27. I have sold prescription stimulants to other students.6 (8.8) 7. I have injected prescription stimulants.3 (12.6 (21. 10. Using prescription stimulants occasionally is harmless.7) 29.6 (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (1.5 (23. I have smoked prescription stimulants.5) 41.3) 100 (98.4 (12.7) Strongly disagree 21.1) 9.1) 6.2) — (3.2 (11.2) 1.9) 30.5 (36.6 (4.7) 11.2 (90.8) 9.4) — (17. Prescription stimulants are safer than marijuana.7) 75. Never 53.6) 27.5 (4.7 (96.3) 23.9 (4. 24.6) 6.0) 14.8 (45.7) — (1.” 15.8) 70.6) — (17.8) 29.6) 10.9) 14.6) — (—) — (—) — (1. 8.6 (12.5) 18.4) 94.0 (50.5 (21.4 (11.210 Table 1.0) Agree 50.2) 33.9) 5.1 (16.0) 5.7) — (3.9) Neutral 30. 4.2 (79.7) 1.7 (16.9) Disagree 2.1 (12.5 (17.9 (8.8) 92.6) — (14. I have taken prescription stimulants to focus better in class. 18.2) 47. 28.3) — (—) — (1. 23.8) 2.

2) 23.0 69.sagepub.2 (2.3) 66.7 (50.8 (2. I know students who snort prescription stimulants.9) 53. and SSS Measure Disability (N) Mental health (16) Learning (14) Vision (1) Hearing (1) Physical/Chronic (9) Executive functioning (3) Asperger’s syndrome (1) ADHD (21) No disability (78) SSQ M (SD) 69.2) 14. I know students who use prescription stimulants during tests. 2012 . letting someone else have their stimulant medication or to sell their own stimulant medication. ANOVAs were performed on the first 20 items of the SSQ and on the first 20 items of the SSQ minus the 3 items that may indicate legitimate use (e. 8.2 (58. 75. PSS = Perceived Stress Scale.8 (41.3) 20.0 22. (continued) Response of students without disability (students with disability) Yes 31. I know students who use prescription stimulants during finals week.9) 15.5) 94.9. I know students who smoke prescription stimulants. 39. I know students who inject prescription stimulants. and 11 on the SSQ). 105) = 5.6 (61.9 (91. 33.2 (11. 32.6 (1.3) 87. I know students who use prescription stimulants with alcohol.06).3) 211 Table 2.7) 73.4 (38. PSS.8 (71. Total Score Means by Disability Category on the SSQ.0) PSS M (SD) 21.0) 87.6) 15.3 (14.3 (6.. When students with ADHD were removed.8) 24. to focus) of prescription stimulants for students who are prescribed them (Items 7. SD = 11.5) 5. I hide my prescription stimulant medication so that no one will take it.4) 83.6) 33.7) 19. 38. I know students who use prescription stimulants with other drugs.0 (9. 35.6) 16.2) 75.0 17.4 (64.27) scored significantly lower on the SSQ than students without disabilities (M = 70.8 (6.9 (7. There was a statistically significant difference between the first 20 items of the SSQ between the students with and without Downloaded from jad.7) 12.7 (1.0 65. I know students who use prescription stimulants while studying.0) 13.com by guest on August 27.5) SSQ = Stimulant Survey Questionnaire. An ANOVA was performed to determine whether there was a significant difference between students with and without disabilities after the students with ADHD were removed from the group.0 16. 34. p < .1) 20.1 (21.8) 70.7 (5.3 (8.7) 63.2) 80.0 (77.0) 47.8 (5.8) 19.6 (53.0 (22. SD = 11.g.0) 52.7) 22.5 (82.4 (46.0 18.4 (25.7) 33.4) 84. 36.Janusis and Weyandt Table 1.8 (6.3 (6. there was a statistically significant difference between students with and without disabilities.0 79. yet there was a significant difference between students with and without ADHD on the SSQ. There was no overall significant difference on the SSQ between students with and without disabilities.05.3 (50. 37.0 16.3) 14.6 (35.9) 79.3) SSS M (SD) 16.0 20.0) 6.64. 40.5 (17.1 (8. SSS = Sensation Seeking Scale. Students with disabilities (M = 64. F(1.2 (6. I know students who use prescription stimulants at parties.7) No 24. To further determine the reason for the significant difference on the SSQ.1 (6.26.6 (74.2 (29.

skew results.sagepub. This outcome may have been affected by the diversity of disabilities. there was a significant correlation between SSQ and SSS (R = . When Items 7. It is notable that although there was no significant overall difference between students with and without disabilities. students with ADHD did score significantly higher on the SSQ than students without disabilities. Pearson’s r two-tailed correlations were also performed separately for the students with disabilities and students without disabilities. a few items on the SSQ relate to the reason of use for stimulant medication (such as to focus or study better) but do not clarify whether the use is by prescription. In addition. students with ADHD had the highest ratings of stimulant use or misuse.01). As well. followed by students without disabilities. and 11 on the SSQ were removed from the total score. whereas students with other types of disabilities than ADHD had the lowest ratings of stimulant use or misuse. then. This result may indicate that the elevated scores in students with ADHD on the SSQ are due to legitimate use of prescription stimulants as 17 out of the 26 students with ADHD were taking a prescribed stimulant medication. Several items on the SSQ could increase a student’s score even in the absence of stimulant medication misuse. p < . Students with ADHD were more likely to report use of these substances than students without ADHD: F(1. p < . Furthermore. students with disabilities scored significantly lower on the SSQ than students without disabilities. p < . it is possible that students with a disability may be less likely to seek out high-sensation behaviors due to health concerns.01. p < . In summary. There was also a significant correlation with the entire sample between the SSQ and the PSS (r = .com by guest on August 27. For students without disabilities. suggesting that students with a higher level of stress were also more likely to have a higher level of stimulant use or misuse. students with ADHD are more likely to use these substances than students without ADHD. 8. 138) = 4.17. in fact. Pearson’s r two-tailed correlations revealed significant correlations with the entire sample between the SSQ and the SSS (r = .05). some items on the SSQ related not to self-use. and high ratings on the SSQ could indicate either prescribed use or misuse of stimulant medication. This finding suggests that the diversity of disabilities did.271. 138) = 5.05. symptoms of the disabilities themselves.479.429. p < . which would most likely elevate their scores on the SSS. In addition. There was also a statistically significant difference in the intentional use of Rohypnol (also known as roofies.01). This difference suggests that students with ADHD are less likely to consume alcohol than are students without ADHD.415. however. such as higher anxiety or less motivation due to depression. The SSQ does not differentiate between prescribed stimulant use and misuse. also scored lower than students without disabilities did. This result indicates that even though the overall use of Rohypnol is low. Additional post hoc analyses via ANOVAs were performed to assess a difference between substance use in the past 30 days via the items on the NCHA between students with and without ADHD.49. and one would expect that stimulant medication would lower levels of impulsivity and increase self-regulation. p < . p < .05. and students with ADHD rated alcohol use lower than students without ADHD. however. may influence a student’s decision to seek out high-sensation behaviors less often. interestingly. There was a statistically significant difference in alcohol use between students with and without ADHD. These students may also have a higher appreciation for the value of life if they have been through difficult life challenges. This finding suggests that there is a strong correlation between stimulant use and sensation seeking regardless of the presence of a disability. Students with ADHD. but to that of peers. Journal of Attention Disorders 14(3) lower ratings on the SSS than did students without a disability.01). may have scored higher on the SSQ because of reporting valid use of prescription stimulant medication for symptom intervention. For the students with disabilities. students with ADHD may Discussion Results revealed that students with disabilities endorsed different ratings than students without disabilities. Most students with ADHD in this study were taking a prescribed stimulant medication.212 ADHD: F(1. The hypothesis that students with disabilities would have higher ratings on the SSQ than would students without disabilities was not supported. Students with ADHD. This finding suggests that students who are higher risk takers also have a higher level of stimulant use. even though typical symptoms of ADHD include impulsivity and lower levels of self-regulation. and SSQ and PSS (r = . Endorsing these items would raise the total score on the SSQ even if the individual respondent may not have used a stimulant. when students with ADHD were removed from the group of students with disabilities. In terms of peer use. There are several possible reasons why students with ADHD endorsed higher ratings on the SSQ. 2012 . the finding suggests that there is a significant correlation between stimulant use and perceived stress only for students with disabilities.247. GHB. p < . students with disabilities provided significantly Downloaded from jad. Specifically. there was no statistical difference between the students with and without ADHD. but the results were in the opposite direction of the hypothesis. In addition. As it is likely that students with ADHD could be taking a prescribed stimulant for those intended purposes. there was a significant correlation between the SSQ and SSS (r = . 135) = 29. or Liquid X) between students with and without ADHD. Although speculative. F(1.63.01). their ratings may be higher on those items.

One reason for the difference in outcomes may be because students in the previous study by Reiff et al. In the present study. This finding may be due to the time that has elapsed since Cohen and Williamson’s study was performed. however. however. 1996). responded to a different measure.. the current study did not find a significant difference in ratings of stress between students with and without disabilities. The lower ratings of alcohol use of students with ADHD may be because they want to avoid using alcohol while taking a stimulant medication.’s study as well as in the Morrison and Cosden’s study were diagnosed with a learning disability. The study was conducted at only one university. students with ADHD were significantly more likely to be pressured into letting someone else have their stimulant medication or to sell their own stimulant medication than were students without ADHD. some people might hypothesize alcohol use to be higher in this population. There are several limitations in this study. Reiff et al. however.to 34-year-olds. College students may be more mature than their peers who are not enrolled in college and may. A total of 36 participants. but students with ADHD also reported higher ratings of Rohypnol use than students without ADHD. 2001). It is important to note that the findings of the present study suggest a relationship between stimulant use and sensation seeking regardless of the presence of a disability. it is likely that the difference may be due to a higher use of Rohypnol by only a few individuals. The level of severity of disability may affect substance use. was only significant for students with disabilities. and substance use can be considered a sensation-seeking behavior. students with ADHD were more likely to use Rohypnol. Because of the small number of students with ADHD in this study.sagepub. The hypothesis that college students with disabilities would endorse higher ratings on the PSS than would students without disabilities was not supported in this study. Lastly. whereas most students in the current study are most likely able to work and have less severe disabilities. This finding was similar to that of Gilson et al. It is possible that students with a learning disability may experience more stress than students with other types of disabilities do. have a similar level of substance use to a more mature age group such as that of the 25. did not indicate their gender on the demographics form. This finding is consistent with the findings of Jaffe and Archer (1987): Sensation seeking has been associated with substance use.’s (1996) study that found that marijuana use was significantly lower in people with disabilities between the ages of 25 and 34 but not for people between the ages of 18 and 24 (which is around the age of the students in the present study). Exploratory post hoc analyses on substance use as measured by the items from the NCHA showed a significant difference in substance use between students with and without disabilities regarding alcohol and marijuana use. This finding may suggest that stress is a mediating variable in stimulant use in students with disabilities.. a subscale of the BarOn EQ-i. This lower level of impulsivity might be a reason why alcohol use ratings were lower for students with ADHD. 2012 . However. Participants in the Gilson et al. which would lead to a further increase in their ratings on the SSQ. and the participants were predominantly White and female. For alcohol and marijuana self-use. which would further elevate their ratings on the SSQ. 1997. The difference in results may also be due to a difference in the type and level of severity of disability. students with disabilities may be less likely to use alcohol or marijuana because they are using prescription medication for their disability and do not want to mix substances. there was a significantly higher use of crack and heroin among people with disabilities than people without disabilities (Gilson et al. The higher ratings a student provided for stimulant use.. all of the students in the Reiff et al. Conversely. Additional research should evaluate a larger number of students from more ethnically diverse populations and at Downloaded from jad.com by guest on August 27. so it is likely that their level of impulsivity was lower than expected. It is also interesting to note that the overall ratings on the PSS were higher than previous findings by Cohen and Williamson (1988). yet the overall usage rate of this was very low. or perhaps the perceived level of stress of all college students is higher now than it used to be. Further exploratory analyses on substance use showed a significant difference in substance use between students with and without ADHD for alcohol use and Rohypnol use. Future research should further investigate this preliminary finding. all types of disability were included. Although previous studies found college students with disabilities had higher rates of stress (Morrison & Cosden.to 24-year-olds. therefore. The correlation between stimulant use and perceived stress. students with a disability reported significantly lower use than students without a disability. did not include college students but was composed of people with disabilities at any educational level. As one possible symptom of ADHD is impulsivity. the higher their ratings were on sensation-seeking behaviors. which measured stress management rather than perceived stress.’s study were defined as having a disability if they were not 213 able to work. Furthermore. The study by Gilson et al. The demographics of college students between the ages of 18 and 24 may vary greatly from people not enrolled in college in that age range. most students with ADHD in this study were taking a prescribed stimulant medication. Students with ADHD indicated lower ratings of alcohol use than students without ADHD. Although speculative.Janusis and Weyandt also be more likely to know other students with ADHD who are taking stimulant medication. For the 18. Perhaps they may also be less likely to take a risk because students with disabilities have lower reports of sensationseeking behaviors as measured by the SSS.

Newbury Park. & Smith. Dusselier. Stimulant use of a prescribed stimulant medication by a doctor and misuse by students will need to be more clearly differentiated. Wang. given that approximately 6% to 8% of college students report having a disability (Henderson. respectively. what types of substances they are abusing. References American College Health Association. 2012 . Austin. D. (1983). (2007). A. This study highlights the need for additional research in college students with disabilities. future research should recruit students from a broader student population. 2001. (1994). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. Marvin Zuckerman. Journal of Health and Social Behavior.acha. (1996). Journal of American College Health. and what interventions can be done to help prevent and treat substance abuse will help prevent substance abuse and will provide effective interventions when it occurs.sagepub. the SPRIG research team. 64. Canada. Toronto. Students who are registered may have a significantly different level of stress. Students with ADHD were also significantly more likely to sell or give someone else their own stimulant medication.. CA: Sage. In P. (1993). Journal of Attention Disorders 14(3) educational. A further limitation was that students in this study who had a disability were required to be registered with the DSS office on campus. namely ADHD. Indeed. A. Cohen. Additional studies should evaluate what significant differences exist among groups of students with different disabilities. Horn & Berktold. negative affect. S. J. R. but were less likely to use alcohol than were students without ADHD. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interests with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article. (2003). Spacapam & S. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2009 conference of the American Psychological Association. 15-24. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Students with disabilities who register with the office may significantly differ from students who do not register in their level of severity. S.pdf Barton.. C. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank all of the staff at Disability Services for students.. In addition. Counseling and psychotherapy for adults with learning disabilities. (1988). 2005). and environmental predictors of stress for residence hall students. perceived stress. Illicit drug use by persons with disabilities: Insights from the National Downloaded from jad. thesis committee members. this issue needs to be further addressed. Personal. Although a variety of majors were present in this study. Negative life events. Dunn. Baltimore. results of the present study indicated that college students with disabilities who were sampled in this study reported lower levels of sensation seeking compared to those without disabilities. and need for accommodations. endorsed significantly higher ratings of stimulant use and/or misuse of prescription stimulant medication. Oskamp (Eds. 82-92). B. Sheldon Cohen. nature of disability. Additional research is needed to further explore the social. Students not registered with the office are generally not eligible for accommodations. L. and Dr.214 multiple colleges. MD: Author.org/ docs/sample_ncha. The National College Health Assessment. 54. sensation seeking. Retrieved from http://www. D. R.. F. A clearer understanding of which students are abusing. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.. 2003. In conclusion.org/projects_programs/assessment .acha-ncha. Future research should address the possible differences. & Fuhrman. M. Shelley II. Kamarck. TX: PRO-ED. Chilcoat. Dr. J.. and the National College Health Assessment. B. There are many students with disabilities in college who do not register with the DSS office (National Center for Education Statistics. Reiff (Eds. and susceptibility to the common cold. 1999).cfm American College Health Association. D. G. Cohen. 24. students for the comparison sample were recruited from psychology classes. Retrieved from http://www. 131-140. academic.. S.. In S.. which may confound the data to some degree. Substance use in college students with and without disabilities warrants further investigation. Gerber & H. Disabilities vary greatly. stimulant use and misuse. and psychological functioning of college students with disabilities. P. & Williamson. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The social psychology of health: Claremont Symposium on applied social psychology.. & Mermelstein. Gilson. S. and students who participated in this project. Another limitation is that the SSQ identifies both use and misuse of stimulant medication and does not differentiate on all questions whether the use is legitimate. Tyrrell. S. F. Baltimore. and especially when most students are unknowledgeable about the effects of the stimulants and any dangers they may pose. M. MD: Author.com by guest on August 27. & Whalen. Given that as many as 25% of college students misuse prescription stimulant medication (McCabe et al. 2000). (2005). B. the experiences of people with the same disability may vary significantly.. Y. Spring. Learning disabilities in adulthood: Persisting problems and evolving issues (pp.)... Also. American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment. 385-396. A global measure of perceived stress. S. H. health.). & Stapleton. Cohen. and substance use than students with disabilities who are not registered. Mary Hoban who granted us permission to use the Sensation Seeking Scale. college students with disabilities. T. Perceived Stress Scale.

243-253. (2001). New York: HarperCollins. M. F.. J. (1980). & Gibbon. H.. J. Zeleznik. A. E. Janusis. sensation seeking. Intrusive thoughts. 181-185. Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural.. M. National Center for Education Statistics. Wolf. Verdi. Her research interests include the study of ADHD in children and young adults as well as the study of executive functions in clinical and nonclinical populations. Grace. .. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: Prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Young adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Subtype differences in comorbidity. & Ellis. Lopes. Gregg. T. Journal of American College Health.. and outcomes. 1277-1286. & DuPaul. G. M. The prediction of drug use among college students from MMPI. Differences in life stress and reasons for living among college suicide ideators and nonideators. Dussault. J. 41. Learning Disability Quarterly.. M. Rockville. K. C.. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. A guide to disability rights law. Barkley. A.gov/programs/coe/2003/charts/ chart 34. N. 9-19. 66-78. (1996). 9. (2006). M. . L. DC: HEATH Resource Center.. . Harrington. & Russell. King.. & Archer. 46. 2012 .. M. Retrieved from http://nces. M. Eysenck. Roberti. Behavioral expression and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. 23. 609-617.. & Storch. and drug use in college students. Boyd. Stodden. New York: Cambridge University Press. Non-medical prescription stimulant use among a sample of college students: Relationship with psychological variables. Levy. B. (1978). L. Department of Education. M. American Council on Education. M. R. (2001). The MMPI-2 profile of adults with learning disabilities in universities and rehabilitation settings. (2006). L. C. Weyandt. age. Chang. T. ADHD in college students. & Fidell.. 31. M. (2000). Downloaded from jad. (2003).. Are you a risk taker? Psychology Today. C.. Zuckerman.pdf Weyandt. U. & Bush. R. Characteristics of admissions for primary stimulant dependence during 2001. R. (1987). Journal of Attention Disorders. 86. Fulton. J. 13. (2002). J. 386-395. L.. J. & Guthrie. B. Zuckerman. [NSDUH Report]. N. C. L. 385-395.ada. Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation. Savino. Wilson.sagepub. MA. G. L. MD: Author. Ridgeway. and sex comparisons. 53-87.ed. (2005). G. W. 215 Reiff.. S. Janusis. T.. and adjustment of individuals with learning disabilities. A. Health problems of college students. The relation of LD and gender with emotional intelligence in college students. (2005). E. (1997). N. 99. Teter.. 13-21. (1998). 36. and sensation seeking scales. 59-64. T. M. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. (2000. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. J. 1. A..gov/programs/quarterly/vol_1/ 1_3/4-esq13-a. Knight. Education Statistics Quarterly. & Wenman. 31. & Wechsler. 34. T. Teter. 2003. American Journal of Public Health. Stimulant use. & Berktold. participation. S. H.. 1613-1615. is a professor of School Psychology at the University of Rhode Island. H. Risk. M.. Washington. 10.. (1992).. 48. A. H.. . 30. resilience. Retrieved from www. E. Department of Justice. Illicit methylphenidate use in an undergraduate student sample: Prevalence and risk factors. (2005). A. College Student Journal. Fouts.. 135-147. 51. & Jagota. J. Morrison.. Margalit. H. Paquin. C. W.). Washington. Substance Abuse..gov/cguide . (2001).. Substance Use and Misuse. Moreland.. Pharmacotherapy. Journal of Attention Disorders. Arndt. Beatty. (2006). L. Tagayuna. C. R. D. College students with ADHD and other hidden disabilities: Outcomes and interventions. (1999). B. McCabe. PhD. 243-250. (1993). Journal of Learning Disabilities. Hatzes. (2003). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. Journal of American College Health. U. K. (1994). T.. G. 284-296. C. 22.S.com by guest on August 27.. Addiction. Bios Grace M.. L. N. 43-60. 96-106. S.. D. J. (2001).. 25. 190. L. . Retrieved from http://nces. & Eysenck.. Weyandt. Hines. (1997). Journal of Learning Disabilities.. 20.. Further psychometric support for the 10-item version of the perceived stress scale. . Weyandt. N.. 1999-2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. 382-389. MCMI. G. K. W.asp Jaffe. Journal of College Counseling. November/December). Ollerton. Bramel. G.. 931. S. Journal of Personality Assessment.. A. & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Journal of Learning Disabilities. A.. Lisa L. K. (2005). M. & Cosden. Heiligenstein. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. K. (2009). 662-664. Horn. pp. A two-year comparison of support provision for persons with disabilities in postsecondary education. Iwaszuk. Murphy.asp? popup=true Office of Applied Studies. Tabachnick. The Internal Restlessness Scale: Performance of college students with and without ADHD.ed. Hirsch. R.. College freshmen with disabilities: A statistical profile.. G. (1999). DC: Author.Janusis and Weyandt Household Survey on Drug Abuse. A. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. Greenlaw C.... & Shaw. L. L. Guenther.. Gunter. Psychological and academic functioning in college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.. P. educational. J. Loneliness and coherence among preschool children with learning disabilities.S. & Whelley. S. 45. 178-180. Henderson. 147-157. McCabe. 47. S.. G. J. Reliability and validity of the sensation-seeking scale: Psychometric problems in form V. E. C. 377-386. 139-149. 541-544. G. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases. Hoy. & Fulwiler. and clinical history. Zuckerman. J. is a doctoral student in School Psychology at the University of Rhode Island.