Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 10, 2026

Evaluation of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf Wrist Wearables to Estimate Stress on Students
Published on: June 16, 2018
Physical and cognitive doping in university students using the unrelated question model (UQM): Assessing the
Pavel Dietz1,2, Anne Quermann3,4, Mireille Nicoline Maria van Poppel1
1Research Group Physical Activity and Public Health, Institute of Sports Science, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Study Objectives:
In order to increase the value of randomized response techniques (RRTs) as tools for studying sensitive issues, the present study investigated whether the prevalence estimate for a sensitive item [Formula: see text] assessed with the unrelated questionnaire method (UQM) is influenced by changing the probability of receiving the sensitive question p.
Material And Methods:
A short paper-and-pencil questionnaire was distributed to 1.243 university students assessing the 12-month prevalence of physical and cognitive doping using two versions of the UQM with different probabilities for receiving the sensitive question (p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3). Likelihood ratio tests were used to assess whether the prevalence estimates for physical and cognitive doping differed significantly between p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3. The order of questions (physical doping and cognitive doping) as well as the probability of receiving the sensitive question (p ≈ 1/3 or p ≈ 2/3) were counterbalanced across participants. Statistical power analyses were performed to determine sample size.
Results:
The prevalence estimate for physical doping with p ≈ 1/3 was 22.5% (95% CI: 10.8-34.1), and 12.8% (95% CI: 7.6-18.0) with p ≈ 2/3. For cognitive doping with p ≈ 1/3, the estimated prevalence was 22.5% (95% CI: 11.0-34.1), whereas it was 18.0% (95% CI: 12.5-23.5) with p ≈ 2/3. Likelihood-ratio tests revealed that prevalence estimates for both physical and cognitive doping, respectively, did not differ significantly under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3 (physical doping: χ2 = 2.25, df = 1, p = 0.13; cognitive doping: χ2 = 0.49, df = 1, p = 0.48). Bayes factors computed with the Savage-Dickey method favored the null ("the prevalence estimates are identical under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3") over the alternative ("the prevalence estimates differ under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3") hypothesis for both physical doping (BF = 2.3) and cognitive doping (BF = 5.3).
Conclusion:
The present results suggest that prevalence estimates for physical and cognitive doping assessed by the UQM are largely unaffected by the probability for receiving the sensitive question p.
Related Concept Videos
Estimation of the Physical Quantities
The Influence of Affect on Cognition
The Influence of Cognition on Affect
Probability Laws
Factors Influencing Attraction II: Physical Attraction
Prevalence and Incidence
Prevalence indicates the proportion of individuals in a population who have a specific disease or health...

