Abstract
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) was used to estimate adolescents' vulnerability to inhalant abuse, operationalized by intentions to use or avoid inhalants. The model correctly differentiated 78% of all respondents (N=596). A second analysis highlighted variables that discriminated properly identified from misclassified youth. False positives, those defined as being at-risk, but who repudiated inhalants, were significantly less likely than their at-risk peers to have used inhalants; they used inhalants and marijuana less frequently; were monitored more closely by parents; and were less rebellious (all p<.05). False negatives, defined as not at-risk, but who had not unequivocally rejected inhalants, were significantly more likely than their similarly classed peers to have used inhalants and marijuana, and to have used both more frequently; also, they were less highly acculturated. This study reaffirmed the utility of the TRA and underscored factors that might improve classification accuracy. This approach may facilitate prevention efforts, and may be extrapolated to any context in which risk categorization is used as a basis for prevention or amelioration.