A Comparison of Remote Versus in-Person Assessments of Substance Use and Related Constructs Among Adolescents

Abstract

Objective: Underreporting of adolescent substance use is a known issue, with format of assessment (in-person vs. remote) a potentially important factor. We investigate whether being assessed remotely (via phone or videoconference) versus in-person affects youth report of substance use patterns, attitudes, and access, hypothesizing remote visits would garner higher levels of substance use reporting and more positive substance use attitudes. Methods: We used the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive DevelopmentSM [ABCD] Study data between 2021-2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants chose whether to complete assessments in-person (n=615; 49% female; meanage=13.9; 57% White) or remotely (n=1,467; 49% female, meanage=13.7; 49% White). Regressions predicted substance use patterns, attitudes, and access, by visit format, controlling for relevant sociodemographic factors. Effect sizes and standardized mean differences are presented. Results: 17% of adolescent participants reported any level of substance use. Youth interviewed remotely reported more negative expectancies of alcohol and cannabis. In addition, those queried remotely were less likely to endorse use), sipping alcohol, eating cannabis), and reported less curiosity or intent to try alcohol, though these differences did not survive an adjustment for multiple testing. Effect sizes ranged from small to medium. Conclusions: Preliminary evidence suggests youth completing remote visits were more likely to disclose negative expectancies toward alcohol and cannabis. Effect sizes were modest, though 37 of 39 variables examined trended toward restricted reporting during remote sessions. Thus, format of substance use assessment should be controlled for, but balanced by other study needs (e.g., increasing accessibility of research to all sociodemographic groups).