Skip to main content

Table 4 Correlation matrix (1–6 Likert scale) (N = 173)

From: Police discretion in encounters with people who use drugs: operationalizing the theory of planned behavior

Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

1

        

2

.910**

1

       

3

.697**

.752**

1

      

4

.547**

.556**

.596**

1

     

5

.484**

.480**

.544**

.725**

1

    

6

−.122

−.086*

−.036

−.091

−.0788

1

   

7

.080

−.119

−.071

−.078

−.026

.184*

1

  

8

−.203*

−.222*

−.154*

−.138

−.077

.307**

.582**

1

 

9

−.047

−.070

−.043

−.120

−.112

.500**

− 0.050

.027

1

10

−.100

−.070

−.058

−.077

−.126

.261**

− .036

.068

.327**

11

−.106

− .098

−.085

−.112

−.175*

.175*

.241*

.333**

.146

12

− .178*

− .222*

−.216*

−.261**

−.216*

.163*

.145

.272**

.238*

13

.453**

.386**

.345**

.423**

.353**

−.068

− .065

− .238*

− .062

14

.349**

.299*

.243*

.281**

.164*

−.108

− .166*

− .226*

− .072

15

.297**

.237*

.180*

.259**

.193*

−.106

− .186*

− .212*

.020

16

.168*

.227*

.194*

.206*

.203*

−.099

− .160*

− .272**

− .085

17

.118

.134

.116

.237*

.284**

−.116

.047

.043

− .120

Variables

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1

       

2

       

3

       

4

       

5

       

6

       

7

       

8

       

9

       

10

1

      

11

.255**

1

     

12

.298**

.396**

1

    

13

− .054

− .183*

− .290**

1

   

14

− .052

− .103

− .126

.252**

1

  

15

− .156*

− .130

− .007

.010

.542**

1

 

16

− .243*

− .191*

− .554**

.018

.017

.067

1

17

− .059

.015

− .050

− .0643

.064

.086

.125

  1. *p ≤.05; **p ≤.001 Cronbach's alpha for all variables=0.81
  2. 1. My supervisor would approve of me referring a subject who appears to have an opioid addiction to MAT as an alternative to arrest
  3. 2. My coworkers would approve of me referring a subject who appears to have an opioid addiction to MAT as an alternative to arrest
  4. 3. My friends or neighbors would approve of me referring a subject who appears to have an opioid addiction to MAT as an alternative to arrest
  5. 4. Referring subjects who appears to have an opioid addiction to MAT helps reduce future arrests
  6. 5. Referring a subject who appears to have an opioid addiction to MAT increases his/her trust in the police, since they are getting the help they need
  7. 6. People who become addicted to opioids are to blame for their own condition
  8. 7. People who are addicted to opioids won’t hesitate to lie when it benefits their addiction
  9. 8. I would worry about a person in recovery for opioid addiction taking care of my family’s children for a few hours
  10. 9. When people become addicted to opioids, it’s because they lack the willpower to stop before it’s too late
  11. 10. Opioid/heroin users will use more Opioid/heroin if they know they have acesse to naloxone
  12. 11. Harm reduction services that distribute items such as syringes and naloxone condone a person’s addiction
  13. 12. There should be a limit on the number of times one person receives naloxone to reverse an overdose
  14. 13. How often do you provide information or make referrals to drug treatment or naloxone distribution programs?
  15. 14. When someone has illicit drugs, how often do you use your discretion not to arrest for drug possession?
  16. 15. When someone has a syringe, how often do you use your discretion not to arrest for syringe possession?
  17. 16. Everyone at risk of experiencing or witnessing an overdose should be given a supply of naloxone
  18. 17. People can successfully overcome an opioid addiction
Back to article page

Harm Reduction Journal

ISSN: 1477-7517