Early Detection of Drug Use and Bullying in Secondary School Children by Using a Three-Dimensional Simulation Program

Abstract

The current study analyzes the psychometric properties of an innovative three-dimensional (3D) simulation program, entitled Mii-School (MS), designed for the early detection of drug use and bullying in Secondary School children. This computer program showed adequate reliability and construct validity. The factorial structure, as well as the explanatory weight of the different factors, is presented. In addition, the results of a parallel version in paper and pencil format are also presented and compared with those of the computerized version (i.e., MS). There was a statistically significant difference between the two formats in the total (i.e., combined) sore of risk. When drug use and bullying were separately analyzed, differences were found only with regard to drug use. The relevance of these results as well as the suitability of this type of 3D instrument for the early detection of risky behaviors in young people are discussed.

Introduction

Drug use is a behavior that often develops during the school years. In fact, some of the factors that predict the development of such maladaptive behavior tend to be associated with school failure, lack of discipline, and other problems within the school environment.^1,2 Hence, educators and clinicians have become increasingly interested in these types of potentially predictive behaviors. Another phenomenon that has drawn attention in recent years is the high incidence of bullying and its apparent relationship to other problem behaviors, such as drug use. Being a bully or a bully victim appears to be correlated with increased drug use.³

Most assessment instruments currently available for the detection of drug use and bullying assess these behaviors separately, and for the most part, participants are only asked to report on their socio-demographic characteristics, frequency rates, and sometimes beliefs and attitudes about these behaviors. Another important limitation of these instruments is that they do not attempt to examine how adolescents respond to the actual risk situations in which these behaviors are likely to appear. Indeed, it is critical to study how adolescents behave in the specific contexts associated with drug use (e.g., being offered drugs, observing others use drugs, parents' reactions, etc.), as well as contexts associated with bullying (e.g., the presence of a “victim” to be ridiculed, insulted, or assaulted), as these behaviors are not likely to occur outside such specific contexts. Research shows that it is the responses in such specific situations that may be a crucial factor in the development and maintenance of drug use and bullying.^4–6

Recently, the field of psychological assessment and treatment has seen the incorporation of new technologies, such as the use of three-dimensional (3D) simulation and virtual reality.^7–9 With regard to the psychological assessment, many studies have compared the effectiveness of traditional paper-and-pencil instruments with other instruments having the same content and structure but formatted for computer administration. For example, McCabe et al.¹⁰ compared a questionnaire, administered either in paper form or Web form, for assessing tobacco and alcohol consumption in a sample of students. The results showed very similar response patterns to each mode of presentation. Similar studies with other populations (specifically, patients in treatment for drug abuse) have found the same result, no significant difference in the responses between the two assessment formats.¹¹

The aim of the current study was to develop a new program of 3D simulation to detect substance abuse and bullying in centers of education. To this end, first a paper-and-pencil questionnaire with different representative situations associated with these problems was created. This was then converted into a 3D simulation computerized version. The results of both versions (paper-and-pencil and 3D simulation) are shown in order to analyze the psychometric properties of the two instruments as well as the advantages of the 3D format.

The authors believe that programs of this type have an advantage (among others) in that participants do not need to “envision” the situations they are being asked about; rather, they view a re-creation of them. In this manner, their responses are more contextualized. In addition, all participants have a common and relevant frame of reference. Further, the youth tend to find this format more attractive than the traditional paper-and-pencil questionnaire.¹²

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 1,217 secondary school students, 45.5 percent boys and 54.5 percent girls, from four schools in the province of Almería (Spain), randomly selected, who consented to participate in the study. The four schools were then randomly divided into two groups, with two schools in each group. One group responded to the 3D computerized version of the instrument, and the other to the paper-and-pencil version. Group 1 (the computer version; Mii School) comprised 582 participants, whereas Group 2 (paper-and-pencil version) comprised 635 participants. The socio-demographic characteristics of the groups are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Each Group

	Group 1 MiiSchool version	Group 2 Paper version
N	582	635
Age range	11–19	13–19
Mean age	14.6 (SD: 1.781)	14.9 (SD: 1.449)
Boys	46 percent	45 percent
Girls	54 percent	55 percent
Grade level
1° ESO	19	20.5
2° ESO	19.5	25.0
3° ESO	20.4	20.5
4° ESO	20.9	20.1
1° Baccalaureate	12.5	13.9
2° Baccalaureate	7.7	—

“ESO” refers to Spanish obligatory secondary education, and it corresponds to grades 7–10. “Baccalaureate’ is nonobligatory secondary education, and it corresponds to grades 11 and 12.

SD, standard deviation.

Instruments

Mii School

Mii School (MS) developed by the authors of the current study re-creates 3D virtual environments in the style of contemporary videogames

The environments reflect contexts representative of drug use and bullying for adolescents, with the purpose of detecting problem behaviors and attitudes, as well as at-risk youth. Specifically, MS, a program made to be running on Personal Computers (Windows), contains 16 simulated scenes in which a variety of characters that interact among themselves provoke conflict situations. Participants should indicate how they respond to the situations by selecting from a list of options (e.g., refusing a drug offer, engaging in violent behavior, etc.) that appear on the screen. (Fig. 1)

FIG. 1.

Bullying scene of the Mii School program.

The 16 scenes are divided as follows: 6 scenes involve drug use where the participant's friends offer him some substances (tobacco, alcoholic drinks, cannabis, cocaine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA] or ecstasy), 4 involve bullying where the participant acts as a victim, bully, or witness of aggressive behaviors depending on the scene, 3 involve interactions with parents in their home, 2 involve interactions with classmates in the schoolyard during the recess and inside the class, and a final scene involves questions about beliefs and attitudes relating to school violence and drug use in different contexts (see Appendix). A more detailed description of MS may be found in Carmona, Espínola et al.^13,14 (Fig. 2).

FIG. 2.

Drug scene of the Mii School program.

School Conflict Questionnaire (CCE in the Spanish version)

CCE, also created by the authors of the current study, is the original paper-and-pencil version of MS

It describes the same situations and presents the same dialogue as the computer version, but in CCE, these appear in the format of a screenplay. CCE offers the same response options as MS.

Procedure

As just mentioned, MS was administered in two schools, and CCE was administered in two other schools, randomly selected from the province of Almeria, Spain, and randomly assigned to receive MS or CCE. Before any data collection, informed consent from the participants' parents was obtained via forms mailed to their home. Assent from the participants themselves was also obtained. The anonymity of the participants and the voluntary nature of participation were ensured throughout the study. Participants filled out the questionnaires in their regular classrooms as a group. The participants used standard desktop computers in a typical classroom setting to respond to the Mii School program.

The administration of both instruments was presented to the participants as a research project geared toward collecting “general information for understanding youth better.” Each participant was instructed to write a personal code on the questionnaire forms to safeguard its anonymity. The time required to complete the task was 40–50 minutes.

Results

As shown in Table 1, the main demographic variables analyzed for comparison were age, sex, and grade level. To test for statistically significant differences between the two samples, a one-way analysis of variance was performed. Significant differences were found with regard to age (F_(5–1,211)=7.622, p<0.001) and grade level (F_(5–1,186)=19.575, p<0.001); no statistically significant differences were found with regard to sex (F_(5–1,208)=1.275, p>0.05).

To examine the psychometric properties of each version of the instrument (MS and CCE), Cronbach's alpha (a measure of internal consistency of the items) was calculated to determine reliability. For the MS version, Cronbach's alpha indexes were 0.802 for the total instrument, 0.736 for the drug-use dimension, and 0.712 for the bullying dimension. For the CCE version, Cronbach's alpha indexes were 0.709 for the total instrument, 0.641 for the drug-use dimension, 0.682 for the bullying dimension, and 0.480 for the mixed dimension.

In addition, to examine the psychometric properties of each version of the instrument, an exploratory factor analysis with the principal components method and VARIMAX rotation (with KAISER normalization) was performed to determine item structure, as a measure of construct validity. Table 2 presents the factor analysis data for MS including the factor loadings. As shown in this Table, the factor analysis applied to the computer version of the instrument (MS) revealed eight factors that together explained 57.26 percent of the variance; four factors for drug use (total variance explained: 32.57 percent) and four for bullying (total variance explained: 24.69 percent). Further, the drug use factors may be distinguished based on whether the corresponding items refer to soft drugs (factor 1), hard drugs (factor 4), family relationships (factor 5), or problems in the classroom (factor 8). Similarly, the bullying factors may be distinguished based on whether the corresponding items refer to explicit situations and beliefs about school violence as a victim or bully victim (factor 2), personality issues (factor 3), being a bully (factor 6), or the presence of behavioral/emotional problems (factor 7).

Table 2.

Exploratory Factor Analysis and Internal Consistency of the Items for the Mii School (Three-Dimensional) Questionnaire

			Factors
Scale item	Item mean	Item SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Soft Drugs-2	0.20	0.398	0.664	0.295	0.059	0.194	0.133	−0.054	−0.144	−0.048
Soft Drugs-4	0.48	0.500	0.645	0.082	−0.094	−0.122	0.057	0.165	0.304	0.049
Soft Drugs-8	0.20	0.398	0.709	0.186	0.005	0.247	0.074	0.031	0.054	−0.040
Soft Drugs-13	0.26	0.440	0.698	0.006	−0.070	0.137	0.077	0.038	0.021	0.038
Soft Drugs-160.12	0.06	0.242	0.474	−0.012	0.092	0.410	−0.001	0.097	−0.125	0.220
Victim/Bully-victim-1	0.25	0.434	0.198	0.619	0.016	−0.046	−0.067	0.300	−0.005	0.010
Victim/Bully-victim-3	0.16	0.371	0.160	0.638	0.134	0.148	0.017	0.332	−0.081	0.055
Victim/Bully-victim-16.1	0.22	0.413	0.263	0.653	−0.027	−0.012	0.125	0.097	0.072	0.081
Victim/Bully-victim-16.2	0.28	0.450	−0.239	0.589	0.103	0.185	−0.080	−0.243	0.037	0.138
Victim/Bully-victim-16.3	0.29	0.454	0.076	0.714	−0.041	0.027	0.164	0.080	0.089	−0.050
Personality Issues-6	0.08	0.268	−0.064	0.009	0.531	0.262	0.335	0.199	−0.121	−0.097
Personality Issues-16.7	0.11	0.314	−0.031	0.016	0.666	−0.080	0.171	0.011	0.111	0.026
Personality Issues-16.8	0.07	0.253	0.025	0.002	0.767	0.078	0.008	0.016	0.051	−0.037
Personality Issues-16.10	0.09	0.286	−0.035	0.051	0.709	−0.045	−0.016	−0.018	0.330	0.088
Hard Drugs-9	0.05	0.226	0.192	0.005	0.051	0.666	0.148	0.246	−0.215	0.224
Hard Drugs-15	0.04	0.193	0.195	0.149	0.031	0.765	−0.017	0.054	0.176	−0.064
Hard Drugs-16.11	0.04	0.186	0.179	0.056	0.002	0.650	0.028	0.037	0.377	−0.053
Family Relationships-10	0.16	0.371	0.183	−0.015	0.111	0.038	0.680	0.096	0.033	0.009
Family Relationships-11	0.19	0.391	−0.030	0.052	0.022	0.131	0.786	−0.143	0.081	0.197
Family Relationships-12	0.07	0.253	0.135	0.157	0.170	−0.090	0.582	0.107	0.137	−0.113
Bully-7	0.22	0.417	0.238	0.145	0.028	0.022	0.098	0.646	0.033	0.127
Bully-14	0.25	0.434	−0.019	0.025	−0.190	0.305	0.170	0.436	0.130	−0.528
Bully-16.4	0.08	0.268	−0.080	0.289	0.109	0.225	−0.090	0.677	0.103	0.038
Behav. Probl.-16.5	0.07	0.248	0.040	0.014	0.205	0.100	0.075	0.185	0.698	0.004
Behav. Probl.-16.6	0.15	0.362	0.042	0.100	0.289	0.140	0.253	−0.132	0.562	0.144
Probl. Classroom-16.9	0.07	0.263	−0.022	0.231	0.342	0.212	0.118	0.329	−0.024	0.343
Probl. Classroom-5	0.21	0.409	0.070	0.110	−0.089	0.115	0.123	0.228	0.169	0.736
Percent of variance			18.270	9.341	6.948	5.788	4.603	4.280	4.127	3.911
Cronbach's α			0.723	0.678	0.653	0.638	0.546	0.515	0.376	—

Factor-analysis technique: principal component method and VARIMAX rotation (Kaiser Normalization) and Cronbach's alpha. Significant loadings are shown in bold face.

Behav. Probl.: behavioral/emotional problems; Probl. Classroom: problems in the classroom.

The factor analysis performed on CCE revealed 10 factors that together explained 63.39 percent of the total variance (see Table 3). These factors may be categorized along three dimensions: drug use (26.85 percent of the total variance explained); six bullying factors (32.37 percent of the total variance explained); and a mixed third dimension involving a bullying item and a drug item (4.173 percent of the total variance explained).

Table 3.

Exploratory Factor Analysis and Internal Consistency of the Items for the School Conflict Questionnaire (Paper)

			Factors
Scale item	Item mean	Item SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Behav. Probl.-6	0.05	0.227	0.825	−0.009	−0.034	0.104	0.017	−0.052	0.081	0.045	0.035	0.008
Behav.Probl.-16.5	0.04	0.200	0.520	−0.096	0.044	−0.060	0.232	0.076	0.054	−0.575	−0.135	0.010
Behav. Probl.16.6	0.16	0.366	0.396	−0.092	0.128	0.100	−0.269	0.246	0.259	−0.150	−0.080	−0.389
Behav.Probl.16.7	0.14	0.349	0.551	0.016	0.045	−0.021	−0.092	0.237	0.420	−0.163	−0.074	0.096
Behav. Probl.-16.8	0.07	0.257	0.713	−0.046	−0.075	0.078	0.014	−0.062	−0.051	−0.065	0.160	0.061
Behav.Probl.-16.10	0.06	0.235	0.736	0.025	−0.041	−0.092	−0.012	0.102	−0.077	0.093	0.099	−0.093
Hard Drugs-9	0.03	0.169	−0.044	0.739	0.032	0.062	0.137	0.065	0.054	0.016	0.023	0.220
Hard Drugs-15	0.01	0.091	−0.023	0.836	0.056	0.097	−0.034	−0.075	−0.055	−0.188	0.088	0.019
Soft Drugs-2	0.08	0.264	−0.051	−0.131	0.778	−0.064	0.154	0.088	0.079	−0.077	−0.056	0.070
Soft Drugs-4	0.35	0.478	−0.062	0.184	0.450	0.149	0.096	0.192	−0.444	0.166	−0.285	−0.015
Soft Drugs-8	0.05	0.210	−0.063	0.427	0.654	0.174	0.027	0.039	0.012	−0.174	0.079	−0.013
Soft Drugs-13	0.05	0.210	−0.074	0.364	0.507	−0.032	0.150	0.039	0.150	0.186	0.154	−0.014
Family Relation-10	0.21	0.407	0.083	0.041	0.023	0.861	0.087	0.072	−0.019	0.010	−0.045	0.029
Family Relation-11	0.20	0.398	−0.012	0.147	0.036	0.789	0.087	0.092	0.188	−0.047	−0.063	0.061
Victim-1	0.33	0.472	0.091	0.071	0.128	−0.003	0.796	−0.052	0.040	0.009	−0.174	0.061
Victim-3	0.18	0.384	−0.142	0.111	0.095	0.164	0.650	0.250	0.039	−0.064	0.093	−0.149
Victim-5	0.05	0.210	0.122	−0.166	0.346	0.231	0.433	−0.003	0.026	−0.024	0.285	0.130
Bully/Victim-16.1	0.10	0.306	0.000	0.065	0.184	0.210	0.270	0.517	0.063	−0.074	0.001	0.293
Bully/Victim-16.4	0.04	0.190	0.055	−0.038	0.052	0.019	0.026	0.765	−0.093	−0.162	−0.031	0.146
Bully/Victim-16.9	0.06	0.235	0.078	0.045	0.007	0.094	0.005	0.587	0.352	0.151	0.173	−0.264
Bully-14	0.05	0.210	0.097	−0.012	0.310	0.166	−0.067	−0.081	0.645	0.220	−0.100	0.260
Bully-16.3	0.26	0.441	−0.069	0.098	−0.004	0.147	0.377	0.171	0.639	−0.104	−0.020	−0.107
Parents/Bullyin.-12	0.07	0.250	0.164	0.389	0.205	0.081	0.112	0.234	0.115	0.420	−0.416	−0.217
Parents/Bullyin.-16.2	0.95	0.210	0.025	−0.233	−0.057	−0.067	0.002	−0.123	−0.006	0.685	0.044	0.045
Drug beliefs-16.11	0.03	0.156	0.167	0.037	−0.069	−0.160	−0.008	0.085	0.024	0.217	0.654	−0.058
Drug beliefs-16.12	0.01	0.111	0.134	0.392	0.266	0.079	−0.038	0.006	−0.081	−0.152	0.619	−0.061
Aggression Witness-7	0.11	0.311	0.037	0.174	0.073	0.101	−0.061	0.171	0.092	0.003	−0.059	0.770
Percent of variance			14.187	10.698	6.844	5.390	5.222	4.681	4.537	4.173	3.918	3.744
Cronbach's α			0.732	0.677	0.653	0.727	0.438	0.462	0.274	0.480	0.380	—

Factor-analysis technique: principal component method and VARIMAX rotation (Kaiser Normalization) and Cronbach's alpha. Significant loadings are shown in bold face.

Family Relation: family relationships; Parents/Bullyin: Parent Relationship/Bullying Belief; Drug beliefs: Beliefs about drugs.

Lastly, we compared the total and the two-dimensional scores of both instrument formats (MS and CCE). The total mean of CCE (3.91) was no significantly higher than that of MS (3.51) (see Table 4). MS showed significantly higher drug use scores (mean=1.62; standard deviation [SD]=2.03) than CCE (mean=1.35; SD=1.576). CCE showed no significantly higher bullying scores (mean=2.56; SD=1.84) than MS (mean=1.89; SD=2.247).

Table 4.

Average Scores on Mii-School and Paper Version

	Total score		Drug score		Bullying score
	MS	Paper	MS	Paper	MS	Paper
Average	3.51	3.91	1.62	1.35	1.89	2.56
SD	3.695	2.774	2.036	1.576	2.247	1.842
Variance	13.651	7.696	4.146	2.484	5.050	3.392

MS, Mii School questionnaire (3D computer version).

Since there were statistically significant differences between the groups on the variables of age (F_(5–1,211)=7.622, p<0.001) and grade level (F_(5–1,186)=19.575, p<0.001), an analysis of covariance was conducted to control for any effect that these variables might have on the total scores or each dimensional score. After controlling for the effect of sex, age, and grade level, significant differences were found between the two versions of the instrument with regard to total scores (drug use and bullying combined) with higher scores in CCE (F_(1–1,185)=6.109, p<.05). With regard to the dimensional scores (drug use and bullying separately), when the potential effects of age, sex, and grade level had been removed, statistically significant differences were found for drug use with regard to age, with higher scores in MS (F_(1–1,185)=12.617, p<0.05). However, when the potential effects of age, sex, and grade level on bullying had been removed, no statistically significant differences between the two groups/versions were found (F_(1–1,185)=.795, p>0.05).

Discussion

In this article, the psychometric properties of a 3D simulation program (MS) geared toward the early detection of drug use and bullying were analyzed. The results showed that the instrument has adequate reliability and construct validity. In addition, the psychometric properties of a paper-and-pencil version of the same instrument (CCE) were analyzed, yielding comparable reliability and construct validity values. However, the MS version showed superior internal consistency reliability for both, the total and the dimensional values.

For the purpose of examining construct validity, the item structure of both versions of the instrument was analyzed. The results showed a similar factorial structure; however, in the MS version, the various dimensions expressed by the items were grouped more tightly, with two fewer factors than in CCE. This finding suggests higher item homogeneity in the MS version, with minimal differences in total variance explained. Although the eight factors found in the MS version may seem high, it is important to note that the instrument incorporates content/items reflecting two separate constructs, drug use, and bullying. In fact, the results of the factor analysis confirm this contention. Moreover, within each factor, the items are similar to each other in content, and different from the items of other factors. Thus, the drug-use factors differ on the basis of whether they refer to soft drugs, hard drugs, family problems, or classroom problems (four factors total). The bullying factors differ on the basis of whether they refer to specific situations of school violence as a victim or bully victim, personality problems, being a bully, or experiencing mental problems (four factors total).

With regard to the scores obtained with each version of the instrument, significant differences remained on total score and drug use, but not on bullying, after statistically controlling for differences in demographic data (i.e., age and grade level). MS showed higher drug use scores than CCE, and the total and bullying mean of CCE was higher than that of MS. These statistical differences may accurately reflect “true” differences in problem behaviors associated with age and grade level, that is, older may use more, or less, substances. Alternatively, the observed differences in scores might stem from essential differences in the two formats. That is, although the paper-and-pencil version is likely to require that participants envision the situations described in each item in order to make their ratings, in the computer version, participants observe the actual situations, where stimuli such as music, character re-creations, and so on remain constant for all participants. This possibility will need to be explored in greater detail in future research.

In conclusion, although there are several programs that use 3D simulation environments primarily for evaluation, in the field of substance abuse, evaluating the craving responses in adults in the presence of diverse substances and objects related to their consumption,^15–18 and for the treatment and prevention of bullying behaviors in children in primary school,¹⁹ there are currently no programs that use 3D technology for the detection of these types of problematic behaviors in school-age adolescents. Based on the results of reliability and validity obtained, we can affirm that the Mii School test is the first computer program specifically designed to conduct joint detection of drug use and bullying in adolescents that uses 3D simulation environments to recreate real life situations in which these behaviors appear and to record the responses given when teens find themselves immersed in these types of conflictive situations.

Computer-based instruments using 3D technology are a new technology in psychological assessment and may offer several advantages over paper-and-pencil formats for adolescent populations. The familiarity of the younger population with this type of technology, the technology's easy applicability, and the ability to present virtual depictions of high-risk situations that occur in real life may equip the field of early detection of problem behaviors with more useful and valid instruments.^20–23

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

This work was funded by a research grant from the Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs (National Plan on Drugs, ref. 2007/063) awarded to the second author.

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Appendix

Summary of Content of the Items on the Mii School Computerized Questionnaire and Paper Version

Situation 1: At the school playground. Some school children insult and make fun of his physical appearance. Answer choices: (a) Indifference; (b) Speak up in defense; (c) Insult; (d) Make an ironic reference to the insults; (e) Violent threats; (f) Afraid, get away; (g) Ashamed.

Situation 2: At the school playground. He is offered a cigarette. Answer choices: (a) Not smoke and advise his friends not to smoke; (b) Not smoke; (c) Smoke (Usually smokes); (d) Try it; (e) Leave.

Situation 3: In the classroom. Another student starts to insult the participant. Answer choices: (a) Indifference; (b) Speak up in defense; (c) Violent threats; (d) Tell the teacher; (e) Ashamed; (f) Make an ironic reference to the insults.

Situation 4: At a friend's house. He is offered a drink. Answer choices: (a) Not drink and advise his friends not to drink; (b) Not drink; (c) Drink (Usually drinks); (d) Try it; (e) Leave.

Situation 5: In the classroom while the teacher is giving the lesson. We watch the student's behavior. Answer choices: (a) Participative; (b) Attentive; (c) Bored; (d) Difficulties in following the lesson due to personal problems; (e) Doesn't understand.

Situation 6: At the school playground. We watch the behavior of the student with others. Response choices: (a) He is happy with a group of friends; (b) He is alone; (c) He is “nervous” with his friends; (d) He feels “different” from others.

Situation 7: At the school playground. The participant witnesses physical aggression. Answer choices: (a) Instigation; (b) Join the aggressor; (c) Speak up in defense; (d) Separate them; (e) Watch; (f) Defenselessness.

Situation 8: At a city park. He is offered marihuana. Answer choices: (a) Not smoke and advise his friends not to smoke; (b) Not smoke; (c) Smoke (Usually smokes) (d) Try it; (e) Leave.

Situation 9: At a friend's house. He is offered cocaine. Answer choices: (a) Not use and advise his friends not to use; (b) Not use; (c) Use (Usually uses); (d) Try it; (e) Leave.

Situation 10: At home with father. Breaks the rules and gets home later than agreed. Father's reaction. Answer choices: (a) Shouts; (b) Angry; (c) No authority; (d) Aggressive; (e) Indifferent.

Situation 11: At home with mother. Breaks the rules and gets home later than agreed. Mother's reaction. Answer choices: (a) Shouts; (b) Angry; (c) No authority; (d) Aggressive; (e) Indifferent.

Situation 12: At home with both parents. The participant is sad because of personal problems. Reaction of both parents. Answer choices: (a) Father understanding; (b) Mother understanding; (c) Father and mother understanding; (d) Father and mother Indifferent.

Situation 13. With usual friends. Answer choices: (a) Friends are users (not the participant); (b) Friends are not users; (c) Group of users (participant included); (d) The participant and his friends stay away from drug-use contexts.

Situation 14: The participant insults another kid. After doing that, the participant's response is, (a) Did it for fun; (b) He provoked me; (c) Insults about him; (d) Apologizes for behavior; (e) Justifies behavior; (f) Jokes about behavior; (g) Shrugs behavior off; (h) Did it to give him a fright; (i) Shouldn't have done it.

Situation 15: A place in the city away from people. He is offered ecstasy 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Answer choices: (a) Not use and advises his friends not to use; (b) Not use; (c) Use (Usually uses it); (d) Try it; (e) Leave.

Situation 16: (types of answers Yes/No). Beliefs: It is better to attack than be attacked; Prefers dialogue; Unable to control aggressiveness; Amused by suffering; Wants to disappear; Uneasiness; Doesn't fit in with others; Is weak; Is better than the rest; Is different; Uses drugs to not feel bad; Uses drugs to not be different from friends.

References

Hawkins

, Catalano

, Miller

. Risk and Protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 1992; 112:64–105.

González

, García-Señorán

, González

. Consumo de Drogas en la Adolescencia. (Drug use during adolescence) Psicothema, 1996; 8:257–267.

Kaltiala-Heino

, Rimpelä

, Rantanen

et al. Bullying at school: an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 2000; 23:661–674.

Chassin

, Presson

, Sherman

et al. Changes in peer and parent influence during adolescence: longitudinal versus cross-sectional perspectives on smoking initiation. Developmental Psychology, 1986; 22:327–334.

Doherty

, Allen

. Family Functioning and parental smoking as predictors of adolescence cigarette use: a six-year prospective study. Journal of Family Psychology, 1994; 8:347–353.

Newcomb

, Huba

, Bentler

. Mothers' Influence on the drug use of their children: confirmatory test of direct modeling and mediational theories. Developmental Psychology, 1983; 19:714–726.

Riva

. Virtual reality in psychotherapy: review. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2005; 8:220–230.

Gutiérrez-Maldonado

, Ferrer-García

, Caqueo-Urízar

et al. Body image in eating disorders: the influence of exposure to virtual-reality environments. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2010; 13:521–531.

Parsons

, Rizzo

. Initial validation of a virtual environment for assessment of memory functioning: virtual reality cognitive performance assessment test. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2008; 11:17–25.

10.

McCabe

, Boyd

, Young

et al. Mode effects for collecting alcohol and tobacco data among 3rd and 4th grade students: a randomized pilot study of Web-form versus paper-form surveys. Addictive Behaviors, 2005; 30:663–671.

11.

Sarrazin

, Hall

, Richards

et al. A comparison of computer-based versus pencil-and-paper assessment of drug use. Research on Social Work Practice, 2002; 12:669–683.

12.

Carmona

, Espínola

, Cangas

et al. Mii-School: a 3D videogame for the early detection of abuse of substances, bullying and mental disorders in adolescents. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 2011; 4:75–85.

13.

Carmona

, Espínola

, Cangas

et al. Detecting drug use in adolescents using a 3D simulation program. Psychology, Society and Education, 2010; 2:143–153.

14.

Carmona

, Espínola

, Cangas

et al. 2010. Mii School: new 3D technologies applied in education to detect drug abuses and bullying in adolescents. Lytras

. Ordonez De Pablos

, Avison

et al. Technology Enhanced Learning: Quality of Teaching and Educational Reform. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 65–72.

15.

Bordnick

, Graap

, Copp

et al. Utilizing virtual reality to standardize nicotine craving research: a pilot study. Addictive Behaviors, 2004; 29:1889–1894.

16.

Bordnick

, Traylor

, Copp

et al. Assessing reactivity to virtual reality alcohol based cues. Addictive Behaviors, 2008; 33:743–756.

17.

Bordnick

, Copp

, Traylor

et al. Reactivity to cannabis cues in virtual reality environments. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 2009; 41:105–112.

18.

Saladin

, Brady

, Graap

et al. A preliminary report on the use of virtual reality technology to elicit craving and cue reactivity in cocaine dependent individuals. Addictive Behaviors, 2006; 31:1881–1894.

19.

Zoll

, Enz

, Schaub

et al. 2006. Fighting bullying with the help of autonomous agents in a virtual school environment. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Cognitive Modelling, April 5–8, Trieste, Italy, 340–345.

20.

Adams

, Finn

, Moes

et al. Distractibility in attention/deficit/hiperactivity disorder (ADHD): the virtual reality classroom. Child Neuropsychology, 2009; 15:120–135.

21.

Perpiñá

, Botella

, Baños

. Virtual reality in eating disorders. European Eating Disorders Review, 2003; 11:261–278.

22.

Schultheis

, Himelstein

, Rizzo

. Virtual reality and neuropsychology: upgrading the current instruments. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 2002; 17:378–394.

23.

Botella

, García-Palacios

, Baños

et al.

Realidad Virtual y Tratamientos Psicológicos. (Virtual Reality and Psychological Treatments)

Cuadernos de medicina psicosomática y psiquiatría de enlace, 2007; 82:17–31.