Evidence in cannabis research

P. Miller

Faculty of Arts, Deakin University, and Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, 54–62 Gertrude Street, Fitzroy, Victoria 3065, Australia. E-mail: millerp{at}pipeline.com.au

The article by Coffey et al (2003) regarding adolescent precursors of cannabis dependence has a number of substantial problems in the measures used, the analysis of data and the reporting and discussion of their findings. One of the study’s major findings is that the ‘relationship between cannabis dependence and persistent frequent drinking in adolescence changed direction, from a risk association in the univariate model to a protective association in the adjusted model’ (Coffey et al, 2003: p. 333, emphasis added). The use of the term protective implies causality, rather than the negative correlation which more accurately portrays the statistical relationship. It also tacitly implies a value judgement that heavy drinking is preferable to cannabis dependence.

This study utilises logistic regression for the majority of its statistical analysis without adequately considering some important caveats. First and foremost, as already mentioned, correlation does not equal causality. This is particularly the case when there are a substantial number of independent variables associated with the dependent variable. In the case of cannabis use, as the authors point out, there are many independent variables related to cannabis use, such as socio-economic status (not discussed), parental drug use patterns (not discussed), antisocial behaviour, cigarette smoking and level of education, to name a few that are known. Statistical texts (e.g. Gravetter & Wallnau, 1996) point out that to gain the best measure from the use of logistic regression, there should be few independent variables that are unrelated to each other and that ‘a regression solution is extremely sensitive to the combination of variables that is included in it’ (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996: p. 126).

These issues are particularly concerning when such papers can be reported in the mass media (as this study was) on a topic such as cannabis use, which generates strong public responses and is the forum for a great deal of misinformation and manipulation of research results to suit political and ideological agendas. The simple acknowledgement of study limitations would substantially improve the quality of the debate surrounding such a complex social, psychological and medical problem.

REFERENCES

Coffey, C., Carlin, J. B., Lynskey, M., et al (2003) Adolescent precursors of cannabis dependence: findings from the Victorian Adolescent Health Cohort Study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182, 330 -336.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Gravetter, F. J. & Wallnau, L. B. (1996) Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences: A First Course for Students of Psychology and Education (4th edn) . Minneapolis, MN: West.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996) Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd edn) . New York: HarperCollins.





This Article
Full Text (PDF)
Submit a response
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me when eLetters are posted
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Articles by Miller, P.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Miller, P.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals