What matters most? Assessing the influence of demographic characteristics, college-specific risk factors, and poly-drug use on nonmedical prescription drug use.

OBJECTIVE: Although prior recent research has revealed a significant relationship between the nonmedical use of prescription drugs, demographic characteristics, college-specific risk factors, and other substance use among college students, there remains a need to conduct a comparative analysis on the differential impact these factors may have on predicting nonmedical prescription drug use. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: In 2008 a convenience sample of 599 undergraduate students attending a southeastern university completed a self-report survey measuring substance use behaviors. RESULTS: Males, Greeks, and freshman were more likely than females, non-Greeks, and upperclassman to use nonmedical prescription drugs in the past year. Multivariate analyses, however, indicate that the excessive use of alcohol and other illicit drugs are more influential than demographic and college-specific risk factors. CONCLUSION: Poly-drug use was found to be the most significant predictor of the use of nonmedical prescription drugs as compared to demographic and college-specific risk factors.

Science in the jury box: jurors' comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence.

Questions about how jurors understand and apply scientific evidence were addressed in a mock jury study in which 480 jury pool members watched a videotaped mock trial that included expert testimony about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence purportedly linking a defendant to a crime. Collectively, jurors showed moderately good comprehension of the mtDNA evidence, although some made definitional and inferential errors. Comprehension was better among jurors with higher educational attainment and more mathematics and science courses. Lower comprehension was associated with jurors' reservations about science and concerns about the contamination of mtDNA evidence. The results suggest that most jurors are capable of comprehending and employing scientific evidence presented during trial, although errors and doubts about the evidence should be anticipated.