Monitoring Youth Behavior in Response to Structural Changes: Alternative Approaches for Measuring Adolescent Drinking

Evaluation Review

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 231-245

  Grube, Joel W ^a  

^a PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CAR DRIVING; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD BEHAVIOR; COMMUNITY CARE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; DRINKING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVIEW; MALE; METHODOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; TELEPHONE; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; ALCOHOL DRINKING; AUTOMOBILE DRIVING; CALIFORNIA; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES; DATA COLLECTION; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; RESEARCH DESIGN; TELEPHONE;

EID: 0031107691     PISSN: 0193841X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9702100206     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Aquilino, W. S. 1992. Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing for household drug use surveys. International Journal of the Addictions 27:71-91.
2. _. 1994. Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 58:210-40.
3. Aquilino, W. S., and L. A. lo Sciuto. 1990. Effects of interview mode on self-reported drug use. Public Opinion Quarterly 54:362-95.
4. Brick, M., J. Waksberg, D. Kulp, and A. Starer. 1994. Bias in list assisted telephone samples. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research, Danvers, MA, May 12-15.
5. De Leeuw, E. D., G. J. Mellenbergh, and J. J. Hox. 1996. The influence of data collection method on structural models: A comparison of a mail, telephone, and a face-to-face survey. Sociological Methods & Research 24:443-72.
6. Gfroerer, J. 1985. Influence of privacy on self-reported drug use by youths. In Self-report methods of estimating drug use: Meeting current challenges to validity, edited by B. A. Rouse, N. J. Kozel, and L. G. Richards, 22-30. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
7. Johnson, T. P., J. G. Hougland, and R. R. Clayton. 1989. Obtaining reports of sensitive behavior: A comparison of substance use reports from telephone and face-to-face interviews. Social Science Quarterly 70:174-83.
8. Johnston, L. D., and P. M. O'Malley. 1985. Issues of validity and population coverage in student surveys of drug use. In Self-report methods of estimating drug use: Meeting current challenges to validity, edited by B. A. Rouse, N. J. Kozel, and L. G. Richards, 31-54. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
9. Kandel, D. 1980. Drug and drinking behavior among youth. Annual Review of Sociology 6:235-85.
10. Kearney, K. A., R. Hopkins, A. L. Mauss, and R. A. Weisheit. 1983. Sample bias resulting from a requirement for written parental consent. Public Opinion Quarterly 47:96-102.
11. Mangione, T. W., R. Hingson, and J. Barrett. 1982. Collecting sensitive data: A comparison of three survey strategies. Sociological Methods & Research 10:337-46.
12. Moberg, D. P., and D. L. Piper. 1990. Obtaining active parental consent via telephone in adolescent substance abuse research. Evaluation Review 14:315-23.
13. Schwarz, N., F. Strack, H.-J. Hippler, and G. Bishop. 1991. The impact of administration mode on response effects in survey measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5:193-212.