Drug and Alcohol Dependence 73 (2004) 33–40

The external validity of results derived from ecstasy users recruited
using purposive sampling strategies
Libby Topp, Bridget Barker∗ , Louisa
Degenhardt
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052,
Australia
Received 12 May 2003; accepted 2 September 2003

Abstract
This study sought to compare the patterns and correlates of ‘recent’ and ‘regular’ ecstasy use estimated on the basis of two datasets
generated in 2001 in New South Wales, Australia, from a probability and a non-probability sample. The first was the National Drug
Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), a multistage probability sample of the general population; and the second was the Illicit Drug
Reporting System (IDRS) Party Drugs Module, for which regular ecstasy users were recruited using purposive sampling strategies.
NDSHS recent ecstasy users (any use in the preceding 12 months) were compared on a range of demographic and drug use variables to
NDSHS regular ecstasy users (at least monthly use in the preceding 12 months) and purposively sampled regular ecstasy users (at least
monthly use in the preceding 6 months). The demographic characteristics of the three samples were consistent. Among all three, the mean
age was approximately 25 years, and a majority (60%) of subjects were male, relatively well-educated, and currently employed or
studying. Patterns of ecstasy use were similar among the three samples, although compared to recent users, regular users were likely to
report more frequent use of ecstasy. All samples were characterised by extensive polydrug use, although the two samples of regular ecstasy
users reported higher rates of other illicit drug use than the sample of recent users. The similarities between the demographic and drug use
characteristics of the samples are striking, and suggest that, at least in NSW, purposive sampling that seeks to draw from a wide crosssection of users and to sample a relatively large number of individuals, can give rise to samples of ecstasy users that may be considered
sufficiently representative to reasonably warrant the drawing of inferences relating to the entire population. These findings may partially
offset concerns that purposive samples of ecstasy users are likely to remain a primary source of ecstasy-related information.
© 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ecstasy; External validity; Representativeness; Sampling strategies; General population surveys; Random samples; Purposive samples

1. Introduction
Over the last 15 years, the use of ‘ecstasy’1 has been documented through the administration of surveys to samples
recruited in many countries, including Australia (Solowij
et al., 1992; Topp et al., 1999), the United Kingdom
(Curran and Travill, 1997; Forsyth, 1996; Parrott et al.,
2001; Winstock et al., 2001), Italy (Parrott et al., 2001;
Schifano

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-9385-0333;
fax: +61-2-9385-0222.
E-mail address: b.barker@unsw.edu.au (B. Barker).
1
The term ‘ecstasy’ originally referred to the drug N-Methyl-3,4methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDMA); in reality, drugs sold and consumed as ‘ecstasy’ could contain any combination of a number of compounds that may or may not be related to MDMA. For the purposes of the
current paper, the term ‘ecstasy’ is used on the understanding that drugs
consumed as such may not be MDMA or even one of its analogues.

et al., 1998), the United States (Cohen, 1995; Cottler et al.,
2001; Klitzman et al., 2002; Mansergh et al., 2001,
Peroutka et al., 1988) and Canada (Gross et al., 2002).
These studies have provided important information about
the patterns and correlates of ecstasy use among samples
accessed through a variety of means. Recruitment strategies
have included atten- dance at locations in which ecstasy use
appears likely to oc- cur, such as ‘rave’ (Gross et al., 2002),
dance (Forsyth, 1996) and club (Curran and Travill, 1997)
parties; advertising in media designed for patrons of
dance events (Topp et al.,
1999; Winstock et al., 2001); and the targeting of specific
populations such as men who have sex with men (Klitzman
et al., 2002; Mansergh et al., 2001), students (Peroutka et
al.,
1988) and clients of drug treatment programs (Schifano
et al., 1998). The extent to which such samples are representative of ecstasy users in general, however, is not
clear.

0376-8716/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. doi:10.2003.1016/j.09.001 .drugalcdep. All rights reserved.

and for the CATI surof ecstasy use among representative samples of the genvey was 46%. (Watters and Biernacki.sity. Method cited above apply.. eral population. 2002).1. In Germany. In Spain. National drug strategy household survey The term ‘hidden population’ has been used in a variety of contexts (e. to engage in or designer drugs?’ Although the ‘lay’ use of the term ‘demore social activities. 1989). because illicit drug use is a ‘hidden’ and often socially stigmatised activity (Griffiths et al. .g. More recently. patterns and in the studies cited above were generally obtained through corre.lates of ecstasy use among Australia’s general purposive sampling (characterised by the use of judgement population have been documented (Degenhardt et al. Regardless of exactly which definition is preferred. / Drug / Drug andand Alcohol Alcohol Dependence Dependence 7373 (2004) (2004) 33–33– 3 4 Survey research.. the recruitment of samples representa26. Wiebel. The ecstasy users recruited reliance on purposive sampling. al. seeks to exam1. Topp et al.744 Australians on their awareness of. This requirement. 2002) and (2) a a measurable degree of precision. Although many studies endeavour to recruit as wide a cross-section of users as possible. 2002). sampling (Topp et al. the prevalence of use of such drugs is low (Breen et 2002). 1992. 1986) rather than the more deof concordance between key demographic and drug use sirable probability sampling (in which each sampling unit variables obtained from two studies conducted in 2001: (1) has a known probability of being selected so that inferences a survey of a repre. 2002) collected data from of illicit drug use. and therefore to obtain a random.. This fact renders it impracconducted by Roy Morgan Research. but assessments of the inferences about the entire population are drawn from the extent of their external validity is constrained due to their results of studies of samples. in which the sample was stratified by geographic and found that those who had used ecstasy.. compared to those who had not used ecstasy.. et al. compulsory military service allows the recruitThe sampling frame was designed to provide (within each ment of representative samples of males. Topp et al. the samples thus derived required extensive drug use history (Bobes et al. Nonetheless. 2. Kerlinger... 1988.. Ecstasy users. those who All respondents were asked ‘Have you ever used ecstasy had were more likely to use other drugs. The 2001 NDSHS ple of that population. accepted). Those who responded affirmatively were subsequently asked whether they had used designer drugs in the preceding 12 months. Nevertheless. selected respondent was the person with the next birthday. users. 2002. (ND. 1986). In other words.partment of Health and Ageing. and the selection of respondents was designed to be stasy users were more likely than non-users to have an unbiased.. All hallucinogens were more likely to be male and to also respondents were aged 14 or older. Topp Topp et et al. and attitudes and tive of the general population is required to obtain results behaviour relating to. to spend less time studying.al. Lilienfeld and Lilienfeld. GHB. as in research with users of other ilthe 2001 NDSHS incorporated a sample interviewed using licit drugs. 1999). The fisearch.. Sudman et al. it is difficult to ascertain to which population(s) of users the results of the studies 2. Australian studies of sentinel samples of party drug were no more likely to be ‘academic underachievers’ or to users clearly indicate that even among regular ecstasy be dissatisfied with their college education (Strote et al. such as that cited 4040 4 above. and the smaller jurisdictions were oversampled. nal response rate for the self-completion sample was 68%. ployed.744 Australian about the population can be derived from the sample with adults aged 14 years or older (AIHW. 1992. Aims ine populations by selecting and studying samples chosen from the population of interest to determine the relative inPrevious Australian studies have been among the most cidence. in and a deliberate effort to include presumably typical groups press). some studies have examined correlates for face to face interviews was 39%. samAustralian National Univer. and the data made tical to define the parameters of the population of ecstasy available through the Social Sciences Data Archive at the users.sentative sample of 26. L. and execution of the sampling. Along with that can be generalised to the entire population of users. stimulants or region..1. Spreen. and to signer drugs’ could apply to drugs such as ketamine or have more than one sexual partner.SHS) was managed by the Australian Institute of it is clear that the illegal and stigmatised behaviours of Health and Welfare (AIHW) on behalf of the illicit drug users endow them with ‘low social visibility’ Commonwealth De. survey of 163 ecstasy users recruited using purposive 1980). and a study of geographic stratum) a close-to-random sample of housepatterns of illicit drug use demonstrated that Spanish echolds.3 L. distributions and interrelations of sociological and timely and detailed examinations of ecstasy use (Solowij psychological variables (Kerlinger. In each household the have used other illicit drugs (von Sydow et al. As a result of this ‘hidden’ nature (AIHW. face to face interviews and self-completion methodologies. 1993). has infrequently been met in ecstasy-related reComputer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). The aim of the present paper is to examine the extent in the sample. The 2001 National Drug Strategy Household Survey 1990). or probability. a prospective study examA multistage stratified sampling methodology was emined ecstasy use among two birth cohorts of adolescents. however.. licit and illicit drug use. A repreweighting to correct for imbalances arising in the design sentative survey of American college students found that. 2002).

2002. The rationale for a focus on this subsample relates to the characteristics of the ecstasy users recruited using purposive sampling. accepted).. Topp et al.. was sought for this research.3.stasy users recruited using a variety of methods successfully employed in earlier research (Topp et al.For the purposes of the present paper. The small size of the NDSHS regular sample precluded an exclusive reliance on these data for comparative purposes. Data analysis Data analysis for the present study proceeded through an examination of the demographic and drug use characteristics of the NDSHS sample (N = 199). accepted). 2002) of a sample of 163 regular ec. once again. Demographic characteristics The similarities in demographic characteristics of ecstasy users from the two NDSHS samples and the purposive sample were striking (Table 1).. coffee shops and parks. there was little difference in the proportion of males.pose of the study was explained before informed consent to participate was obtained. they must have used ecstasy at least monthly in the preceding six months. 3. two subsamples of the total NDSHS sample were derived: (1) respondents in New South Wales (NSW). participants had to be at least 16 years of age (due to ethical constraints). this sample is hereafter referred to as the ‘purposive sample’ (N = 163). For the purposes of the present paper. 2002.cedures (Biernacki and Waldorf. All three samples reported a mean age in their mid-20s. focused primarily on the preceding 6 months. Volunteers were reimbursed AUS$ 30 for participating in face to face interviews which took approximately 45 min and were conducted in various locations including pubs. The rationale for an examination of this group is that. and ‘snowballing’ pro.ogy of this study can be found elsewhere (Topp et al.. or. although. Results 3. Topp et al. 2003). notwithstanding the different timeframes.. 2000). 2000). Degenhardt et al. which. These respondents (N = 199) are hereafter referred to as the ‘NDSHS sample’. and they must have been a resident of the Sydney metropolitan region for a min- imum of 12 months.nical qualifications following their school education. accepted). and were recruited on the basis of recent regular ecstasy use. a discussion program on a national youth radio network. and the great majority of all groups had been raised in English speaking homes. More detail regarding the methodol. Consistent with the aim of monitoring trends in party drug markets. N = 48).2.. The structured interview schedule was based on previous research (Topp et al.2. with broad knowledge of a range of party drug markets. a ‘sentinel’ population of party drug users. and assessed a range of areas including demographic characteristics and ecstasy and other drug use history.g. the appropriate population was defined as regular ecstasy users. similar proportions of the three had gone on to complete either university or tech. To meet entry criteria. interviewer contacts. although the three groups looked similar. Topp et al. The nature and pur. Recruitment methods included advertisements placed in entertainment and gay and lesbian newspapers. Dillon et al. were considered of sufficient similarity to render reasonable their comparisons. these respondents reported a frequency of recent ecstasy use equivalent to that reported by the purposive sample (who were selected on the basis of at least monthly use of ecstasy in the preceding 6 months). aged between 17 and 45 years. flyers pinned on university bulletin boards. 2. a survey was conducted in Syd. All three groups .. Australia’s most populous jurisdiction). and compared key data from both groups with those derived from the purposive sample (N = 163). or those who had used ecstasy at least monthly in the 6 months preceding the interview (Breen et al.. were aged between 17 and 45 years. in other words. Although the two surveys included relatively few items that were exactly comparable. the mean age of initiation of the NDSHS regular sample was closer to the age of initiation of the purposive sample than was the broader NDSHS sample (Table 2).1. 2.ney in 2001 (Topp et al. Potential participants contacted the researchers by telephone and were screened for eligibility. The majority of all groups had completed high school. 2002. and the great majority of all three were currently either employed or studying.. Survey of regular ecstasy users recruited using purposive sampling As part of a two year methodological trial of the feasibility of monitoring trends in party drug markets (Breen et al.. who reported that they had used ecstasy in the 12 months preceding the interview. who were designated recent ecstasy users. although different. 3.. Given the entrenchment of ecstasy in Australia’s illicit drug markets relative to other party drugs (e.. they addressed many of the same demographic and drug use issues with questions. who all resided in Sydney (the capital city of NSW. 1981). as well as those among this group who reported regular ecstasy use (N = 48). and (2) respondents from the ‘NDSHS sample’ who reported using ecstasy at least monthly in the 12 months preceding the interview (‘NDSHS regular sample’. 2002. Ecstasy use All three samples reported a mean age of initiation to ecstasy use of around 20 years. It is notable that. the mean age of the NDSHS regular sample was closer to that of the purposive sample than was the broader NDSHS sample.

1) 59 95 24. cannabis and amphetamines. with smaller proportions obtaining ecstasy from a dealer (Table 2).6 (0. . this may reflect.0) 58 1.4) 19.8) 30 1. Whereas a greater proportion of the purposive sample than the NDSHS sample reported typically using more than one tablet per use occasion. the drugs most commonly used concurrently with ecstasy were alcohol. the different timeframes to which the two surveys referred.D.1) 62 Drugs used with ecstasy recentlya (%) Alcohol Cannabis Amphetamines Cocaine No other drug 73 62 52 26 12 79 82 85 44 4 56 34 42 7 8 Usual source of ecstasy (%) Friend Family member or other Dealer 71 4 25 61 2 37 90 3 50 Mean age of first ecstasy use (S.8) 19. Although the pat- Table 2 Patterns of ecstasy use among recent ecstasy users from the general population (N = 199).2) 58 93 Mean number of school years completed Completed post school qualifications (%) 11.4 (0.7) 56 12.) (years) Male (%) English speaking background (%) 25. The majority of all samples reported that they usually obtained ecstasy from their friends.5 (6. There were differences between the NDSHS and the purposive samples in other ecstasy-related variables (Table 2). among all three samples.5 (0.D.4 (0. For example. participants were asked to nominate which drug(s) they had used concurrently with ecstasy at least once in the preceding 12 months. and minorities of all groups reported using ecstasy without other drugs (Table 2).6 (4. in the purposive survey. at least in part.3) Frequency of recent ecstasy use (%) Daily Weekly or more often Monthly or more often Every few months Once or twice per year 0 5 19 32 44 0 20 80 N/A N/A 0 45 55 N/A N/A Mean number of ecstasy tablets typically used Typically use more than one tablet (%) 1.6 (4. ‘recent’ referred to use in the preceding 6 months. These differences may reflect. but these are likely to reflect differences in the information sought by the survey questions. Compared to both NDSHS samples.9) 53 Employment status (%) Employed full-time Employed part-time Current students Home duties Unemployed 58 13 22 3 4 64 22 12 1 1 48 23 20 1 9 using about 1. regular ecstasy users from the general population (N = 48) and regular ecstasy users from a purposive sample (N = 163) NDSHS sample (N = 199) NDSHS regular sample (N = 48) Purposive sample (N = 163) 20. at least in part.) (years) a a ‘Recent’ in the NDSHS survey referred to use in the preceding 12 months. equivalent proportions of the purposive and NDSHS regular samples reported engaging in this practice. a higher proportion of the purposive sample reported recently having taken ecstasy on at least a weekly basis.9 (1.9 (1. whereas the purposive sample were asked to nominate which drug(s) they had typically used concurrently with ecstasy in the preceding 6 months. regular ecstasy users from the general population (N = 48) and regular ecstasy users from a purposive sample (N = 163) NDSHS sample (N = 199) NDSHS regular sample (N = 48) Purposive sample (N = 163) Mean age (S. Although the proportions reporting concurrent polydrug use differed between the groups. the fact that in the NDSHS.Table 1 Demographic characteristics of recent ecstasy users from the general population (N = 199).5 tablets on a typical use occasion.9) 57 11.4 (5.7 (6.4) 62 95 24.6 (3. and/or the fact that the frequency of ecstasy use variable was continuous in the purposive survey but forced-choice categorical in the NDSHS.

sonably warrant the drawing of inferences relating to the demographic and drug use characteristics of the population. This was es.. cocaine. 1996. in the purposive survey.1 (0. such non-probability sampling strategies constrain the external validity of any population parameter estimated on their basis.9) 5. alcohol. Due to the ‘hidden’ nature of illicit drug use (Griffiths et al. 2002.. these results provide some assurance that relatively large purposive samples of NSW ecstasy users may be considered sufficiently representative to rea.acteristics of samples of heroin users purposively recruited . Recent polydrug use Among the three samples. Equivalent proportions of the NDSHS regular sample and the purposive sample reported the recent use of amphetamines. Although comparisons are yet to be drawn between users of other illicit drugs derived from representative samples of the general population and those recruited using purposive sampling.pecially the case when a subsample of regular ecstasy users from the NDSHS sample was examined..g. Not all drug classes were assessed in both survey. b tern of response was the same.. such as patrons of dance events (e. The similarities in demographic and drug use variables were particularly strik.ing between ecstasy users drawn from the general popula.. The extent of overall polydrug use was slightly greater among the pur.3. are young. cocaine. relatively well-educated. 3. clients of drug treatment programs (Schifano et al. 2001). but among regular users. demonstrated substantial concordance in key demographic and drug use variables between groups of ecstasy users sampled via distinct probability and non-probability methodologies.4 (1. the char. which was greater again than among the NDSHS sample (Table 3). hallucinogens and heroin. the general consistency in the pattern of results is notable. 1993). The theory of statistical inference demands that individual members of a target population have a known probability of being selected so that inferences about the population can be derived from the sample with a measurable degree of precision (Lilienfeld and Lilienfeld.1) a ‘Recent’ in the NDSHS survey referred to use in the preceding 12 months. students (Peroutka et al. the prevalence of recent use of other illicit drugs is higher among regular ecstasy users than among those who use the drug less frequently.Table 3 Prevalence of other recent drug use among recent ecstasy users from the general population (N = 199). the proportions varied across groups. 4. the ma. 1988). the use of one or two tablets at a frequency of between monthly and weekly appears to be the norm. however. whereas the purposive sample could nominate more than one. Results derived from the two sampling strategies were consistent in indicating that the majority of ecstasy users in NSW.. Patterns of ecstasy use vary widely among recent users. The present study. Topp et al. the similarities between purposive samples of users of other drugs are noteworthy. however.. Winstock et al.tion who reported at least monthly use of the drug and those with an equivalent frequency of use who were purposively sampled.D. and the drugs most commonly used by this group include alcohol. Although inherent in research conducted among hidden populations. along with the different timeframes to which the questions referred. 1999. Forsyth. 2001). cannabis and amphetamines. For example.jority of ecstasy-related surveys have targeted subcultural groups among whom ecstasy use appears likely to occur. 1998) and men who have sex with men (Klitzman et al.posive sample than the NDSHS regular sample. hallucinogens. and these proportions were higher than the proportion of the NDSHS sample that reported recent use of these drugs. regular ecstasy users from the general population (N = 48) and regular ecstasy users from a purposive sample (N = 163) Other recenta drug use (%) NDSHS sample (N = 199) NDSHS regular sample (N = 48) Purposive sample (N = 163) Alcohol Cannabis Amphetamine Cocaine Hallucinogens Heroin 99 84 64 39 18 2 97 89 89 59 35 5 98 82 87 57 23 6 Mean number drugs used recentlyb (S. tobacco and heroin.ferent timeframes (preceding 12 months for the NDSHS and preceding 6 months for the purposive survey). and tend to be employed or studying.) 4. Particularly when one considers that.. cannabis.2) 5. the great majority of participants reported the recent use of alcohol and cannabis (Table 3). Discussion Survey research seeks to infer the characteristics of a target population by selecting and studying samples recruited from the population (Kerlinger. this may reflect the fact that the NDSHS samples could nominate only one response option. Ecstasy use tends to occur within a context of extensive polydrug use. although many of the same issues were addressed in both surveys. few items were directly comparable. Mansergh et al. extent of recent polydrug use was calculated based on recent use of eight drug classes: ecstasy. Australia. 1980). hence.4 (1. amphetamines. and that the two surveys referred to dif. but. 1986). As might be expected. Given legitimate statistical concerns relating to purposive sampling strategies. ‘recent’ referred to use in the preceding 6 months.

. N = 197). and the use of about six or seven in the 6 months preceding interview. along with the fact that they focussed on different time periods and provided different response options (e. Hando and Hall. in light of the lack of directly comparable items.g.g. 1995. Relative to samples of heroin users. Darke and Hall. 1994. a history of incarceration (between one-fifth and one-third) and engagement in drug treatment (between one-tenth and one-quarter). and an average of about 10 years of school education. with a mean age of around 30 years. 1997b. the consistency in demographic and drug use characteristics between the samples renders it reasonable to suppose that the purposive sample is relatively representative of regular users recruited from the general population. 1997. Darke and Ross. Darke et al. 1999. Hando et al. smaller proportions of samples of amphetamine users report unemployment (between one-quarter and one-half). and.over almost 10 years have remained remarkably consistent (e. and the use of about six or seven in the 6 months preceding interview. 2002..1. Darke et al. N = 301. N = 100. the study’s opportunistic nature limited the data under examination to key demographic and drug use variables. N = 200. and an average of about 11 or 12 years of school education. it is considered that. and extensive polydrug use. They report a heroin use history of about 10 or 11 years. N = 329. N = 200. and. continuous versus categorical frequency of use data). with a lifetime use of around nine or 10 drugs. 1994. about half are currently in treatment. Although undoubtedly important. around half have a history of incarceration. These samples tend to be approximately onehalf to two-thirds male. extensive polydrug use is the norm. these data are not the only issues of interest among ecstasy users. 4. 1999. N = 222. with a mean age of about 25 years.. the majority of which comprises methadone maintenance.. and further work could usefully extend these preliminary results. Darke et al. Three-quarters or more report unemployment. Ross and Miller. Darke and Hall. . 1997a.. N = 145.g. However.. Although comparable results were obtained from samples recruited using probability and non-probability sampling. depending on the criteria for entry to the various studies. N = 312. N = 231. 2001. N = 331. with a lifetime use of around nine or 10 drugs. 1995.. Limitations The results of the present study are limited by the small number of directly comparable questions asked in the two surveys. Topp and Darke. the broad consistency of characteristics of sam. with respect to issues that could be compared across the two surveys. Vincent et al.ples of amphetamine users recruited in Australia over many years is notable (e. N = 788). Likewise. as with heroin users. They report an average duration of amphetamine use of around 7 years.. 1997. These samples tend to comprise approximately two-thirds male. Darke and Ross.

In the absence of unlimited resources for illicit drug research. It will also be valuable to determine whether the extent of generalisability demonstrated in the present results would be observed in comparisons of users of other illicit drugs recruited using distinct probability and non-probability sampling methods. Australia.grees of external validity. That this study was unable to com. and the Survey does not record harms perceived by drug users as related to their drug use. however. or recruited in different cultural contexts. and is the most important issue for the scientific community to examine using rigorous methodological designs.uals.pare the harms perceived by the groups as related to their ecstasy use constitutes a serious limitation of the results. can give rise to samples of ecstasy users that may be considered sufficiently representative to reasonably warrant the drawing of inferences relating to the demographic and drug use characteristics of the entire population. It is.sive sampling that seeks to draw from a wide crosssection of users and to sample a relatively large number of individ. purpo. Acknowledgements This research was funded by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. The Australian Institute of Health . remain the primary source of information regarding characteristics of ecstasy users and their patterns of drug use. at least in the near future. Conclusion Although any research methodology incorporating non-random sampling necessitates caution when assessing the external validity of the results. to acknowledge the political and social reality of the world in which research is conducted. This is not to deny the fact that different research designs enable the collection of data that can be characterised by varying de. it is likely that ecstasy users recruited using purposive sampling will. The results presented in this paper should provide some reassurance that inferences drawn from such research can reasonably be generalised to the entire population of users. The core business of the NDSHS is to document prevalence and patterns of drug use among Australia’s general population. but one that cannot be addressed within the constraints of extant monitoring systems. Future related work could usefully examine the degree of external validity of population parameters estimated from ecstasy users sampled using purposive methods different to those described in this paper.A related limitation is the inability of this study to compare the ecstasy-related harms reported by ecstasy users recruited using probability and non-probability sampling strategies. 5. It is the potential harm associated with ecstasy use that renders imperative research with its users. at least in NSW. the data compared in the present paper suggest that.

. R. Ltd.S. 1997. J.. 2002. Gossop. M. Drug Alcohol Depend. Hum. Shestowsky. techniques and chain referral sampling. Kerlinger.. 1994.. Guzman. S. 511–521. P. M. Ross. Biernacki... L.. S. R. R. MDMA (‘ecstasy’) consumption in the context of polydrug use: a report on 150 patients. N. Hando. Cottler. 821–831. Sociol.D. 77–82. Proceedings of the 1994 Autumn School of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 55. Addiction 92. S. Marks. Canberra. St. Snowball sampling: problems. NSW Party Drug Trends 2001: findings from the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) Party Drugs Module. 1993. 727–734. 1994. Ecstasy use in Australia: findings from a general population survey. 3. Australia.. Neurpsychopharmacology 1.. N. third ed. Lilienfeld.. 105–115.G. 2002. A.... L. H. Foundations of Epidemiology... Psychopharmacol 159... A. 2001. B. Strang. Darke..P. de Methodol. References Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. AIHW cat. M. 34–58. New York. purity. Topp.. Patterns of use and harms associated with the non-medical use of ketamine.. Psychiatry 21. Pollack. Sudman. NDARC Technical Report Number 136. S.. Compton.. G. P. Sampling rare and elusive populations.. L. Strote. 231–235.. Darke. Ross.. R. P.. Topp. C. Psychiatry 47. Ben-Abdallah. Lee. Wechsler. Parrott. H. H. Darke. Topp. and trace-linking designs: what and why? Bull. 10. Darke.Drug Statistics Series Number 9. second ed.. H. Pfister... 66. F. The applicability of the dependence syndrome to amphetamine. 2002.B. L. 2002. 8. F. J.. 1988. L. Jansen. Addiction 88. Characteristics of amphetamine users seeking information. Ali. Greenberg. S.. Kaye. S. Psychostimulants in Context. K... Addiction 94...-U. Lieb. Res. D. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2002. Bobes. Eur. S. H. Sydney. 48. Australia.. Drug Alcohol Depend. L. The Circuit Party Men’s Health Survey: findings and implications for gay and bisexual men.. Physical injecting sites among injecting drug users in Sydney. J. Milani. Japan.J.and Welfare manages the National Drug Strategy Household Survey on behalf of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Addict. Dillon.M. Drug Alcohol Depend.. J. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. Cohen. 113–118. R. G... 1996–2000: 5 year monitoring of trends in price.. W.. Hall. 79–85.4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA. (Eds. McCann. L. Reaching hidden populations of drug users by privileged access interviewers: methodological and practical issues. Public Health 91. 16. J. Hall. J. Levels and correlates of polydrug use among heroin users and regular amphetamine users.. D. CBS Publishing Limited. 1999. 1988. U. Sociol. Rare populations. availability and use from the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS). L. Am. Hidden use of amphetamine in metropolitan Melbourne.. Oxford University Press. Adapting the IDRS methodology to monitor trends in party drug markets: findings of a two year feasibility trial. pp. 1992. Australia.. 2002. Topp. Shoobridge. H. 1997... 1161–1172. 953–958. Ross...... Drug and Alcohol Dependence.. Drug Alcohol Depend. Australia. J.. Degenhardt. N. Addict. S.. M. Biol. Drug Alcohol Depend. Powis. and its association with high risk behaviours. von Sydow. Polydrug dependence and psychiatric comorbidity among heroin injectors. 1997a. Ross. Peroutka.D. 1997b. J. L. S.. S. Hofler. 18. Hall.. 1992..M. 48. Kaye. 2001. 23–28... Ross. B. 52. and other factors among gay/bisexual men in New York City.. 147–154.. Solowij.. W. Ricaurte. Adolescent Health 30... 1981. J. Addiction 91. J. 36. Schifano. 2001. S. 141– 163. Travill... C. 135– 141. 2002. and the data made available through the Social Sciences Data Archives at the Australian National University.V. P. Di Furia. Use. Can. Dillon. Darke.P. M. 546–551.M.. 2001. Adapting the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) methodology to examine the feasibility of monitoring trends in the markets for ‘party drugs’. J. HIV risk-taking behaviour among amphetamine users in Sydney.M. Ecstasy use in Australia: patterns of use and associated harms. GHB use among Australians: characteristics. W.. Kaye. R.. Vincent. C. Newman. S.. Res. S.D. Addiction. 991–996. 1795–1803. J.. In: Godding. W. 39. S. 62. 11–13 May 1994. 273–277. Recreational MDMA use in Sydney: a profile of ‘ecstasy’ users and their experiences with the drug. Solowij.. A..N. Miller. Ecstasy and drug consumption patterns: a Canadian rave population study.. Allsop. S. Subjective reports on the effects of the MDMA (ecstasy) experience in humans.. A. Methods Res. Breen. Hall. Topp.E. Drug Alcohol Depend.. C. 77– 82. L. Lilienfeld. 159–180. L....S. 179–186. J. Heroin use in New South Wales.. Drug Alcohol Depend. Harris. Breen.. J.. 1986. J.T. G. 2002. Addiction 97. no. J. Ask.. 2002. Cowan. 1999. 1996.. Topp. NDARC Technical Report Number 142. Whelan. MDMA (‘ecstasy’) use. Longo.. R. Bricolo. Amphetamine-related harms and treatment preferences of regular amphetamine users in Sydney. 1980.4-methylene-dioxymethamphetamine in recreational users. Rader. Buosono... Witthcen. help and treatment in Adelaide. W.. The 2001 Survey was conducted by Roy Morgan Research Pty.. Pihl. South Australia. M. Eur..C.. Places and patterns of drug use in the Scottish dance scene.. Gross.E..J. Degenhardt. S. Drug Alcohol Depend. Addiction 89. 63–73. Gonzalez. 2003. 87– 92.. 1617–1626. Copeland. 85–90. Addict.. S. W. L. ‘ecstasy’): weekend ‘high’ followed by mid-week low. P. Darke. Br... C.R. 115–125. J.. J.. 1995... use patterns and associated harm. in press. Topp. 105–113. R. hidden populations. G. Spreen.. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. A. PHE 35. Sirken. Drug Alcohol Depend.. Forsyth. L. Darke. S.J. mental health.. Overdose risk perceptions and behaviours among heroin users in Sydney. 67. 1997. accepted..N.. J.: Clin. 2002.. Use of MDMA and other illicit drugs by young adult males in northern Spain: a five-year study. 69. Darke. J. S.. A. Roche. Colfax. Darke. 89–94. Hall. R.. Transitions between the injection of heroin and amphetamines.. Australia. M. 1999.A. Klitzman. Exp... Mood and cognitive effects of (3. Ecstasy abuse and dependence among adolescents and young adults: applicability and reliability of DSM-IV criteria. Subjective effects of 3. Hando. J. Recreational ecstasy/MDMA and other drug users from the UK and Italy: psychiatric symptoms and psychobiological problems. Science 240. Lee.A..). Bascaran. 599–606. Increasing MDMA use among college students: results of a national survey. N... Parmar. Darke. R. S. 1998. Prog. 1995. Buchbinder. Psychopharmacol. K. 64–72. Sydney. Turner. abuse and dependence on ecstasy and related drugs in adoles- . R. G. Kaye. Dillon. G. Mansergh.. Forza.. 87.. S. Barrett. Melbourne. Saiz.O. 2001 National Drug Strategy Household Survey: First Results. Neuro-psychopharmacol. M. Vincents Hospital. S. Womack. N. P. Waldorf.. Breen. Drug Alcohol Depend.. Foundations of Behavioral Research. S. 46.. Minicuci. Griffiths. Hando. M. Curran. Dolezal. Barker. Drug Alcohol Rev. Kaye. Topp.

W.). National Institute on Drug Abuse. P. A.. . Drug Alcohol Depend..Y. Maryland. 1990. The Collection and Interpretation of Data from Hidden Populations.. Watters. Griffiths. Identifying and gaining access to hidden populations. 66.R. Stewart. W. NIDA Research Monograph Number 98. 416–430. Problems 36. Drug Alcohol Depend. Biernacki.cents and young adults—a transient phenomenon? Results from a longitudinal community study.. 9– 17.. J. Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden populations.. 1989. E. Soc. Winstock. (Ed. 2001.K. D. 147–159. Wiebel. In: Lambert. Drugs and the dance music scene: a survey of current drug use patterns among a sample of dance music enthusiasts in the UK. 64. P.