Download
Download Free Electronic Document
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.3 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Purchase
Purchase Print Copy
| Format | List Price | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add to Cart | Paperback5 pages | $20.00 | $16.00 20% Web Discount |
Although testing for cotinine in saliva offers an attractive means to verify survey responses about recent use of tobacco, its relatively high cost prevents its use in many studies of substance use. Pooling two or more samples can dramatically reduce the cost when prevalence rates are low, but many researchers fear that failures in detecting users will outweigh the monetary benefit. Results from pools of two saliva specimens collected from seventh-grade students provide the first empirical evidence that pooling saves money without compromising the test's accuracy to detect recent tobacco use. Pooling successfully identified all specimens near or above the 10 ng/ml threshold for evidence of active tobacco exposure. The authors conclude that analysts can realize substantial savings by pooling saliva samples from young populations without losing valuable information.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Note series. The note was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1979 to 1993 that reported other outputs of sponsored research for general distribution.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.