Mode effects on self-reported alcohol use and problem drinking: Mail questionnaires and personal interviewing compared

Journal of Studies on Alcohol

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 280-285

  Bongers, I M B ^a   Van Oers, J A M ^a  

^a Addiction Research Institute Rotterdam   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; ALCOHOLISM; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF REPORT;

EID: 0031901631     PISSN: 0096882X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.15288/jsa.1998.59.280     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. AQUILINO, W.S. Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing for household drug use surveys. Int. J. Addict. 27: 71-91, 1992.
2. AQUILINO, W.S. Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use, a field experiment. Publ. Opinion Q. 58: 210-240, 1994.
3. AQUILINO, W.S. AND LO SCIUTO, L.A. Effects of interview mode on self-reported drug use. Publ. Opinion Q. 54: 362-395, 1990.
4. BONGERS, I.M.B., LEMMENS, P.H.H.M., VAN OERS, J.A.M. AND TAN, F.E.S. Methode ter correctie voor vertekening van survey-resultaten ten gevolge van indirecte selectieve non-response (Method to correct for bias in survey-results due to indifferential selective non-response). Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg 75: 122-128, 1997a.
5. BONGERS, I.M.B., VAN OERS, J.A.M., VAN DE GOOR, L.A.M. AND GARRETSEN, H.F.L. Alcohol use and problem drinking: Prevalences in the general Rotterdam population. J. Subst. Use Misuse. 32: 1491-1512, 1997b.
6. CAHALAN, D. Problem Drinkers, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Pubs., 1976.
7. COCHRAN, W.G. Sampling Techniques, 3rd Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1977.
8. DE BIE, S.E. Naar een standaard-definitie van de responsfractie in personensteekproeven. Kwantitatieve Methoden 24: 67-73, 1987.
9. DE LEEUW, E.D. Data quality in mail, telephone and face to face surveys (Ph.D. dissertation), Amsterdam: TT-Publikaties, 1992.
10. GARRETSEN H.F.L. Probleemdrinken (Ph.D. dissertation), Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1983.
11. GOYDER, J. Face-to-face interviews and mailed questionnaires: The net difference in response rate. Pub. Opinion Q. 49: 234-252, 1985.
12. HARKIN, A.-H., ANDERSON, P. AND LEHTO, J. Alcohol in Europe: A Health Perspective. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1995.
13. KISH, L. Statistical Design for Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1987.
14. KNIBBE, R.A. Van gangbaar tot problematies drankgebrink (Ph.D. dissertation), Maastricht, Rijksuniversiteit Limburg, 1984.
15. REHM, J. AND ARMINGER, G. Alcohol consumption in Switzerland 1987-1993: Adjusting for differential effects of assessment techniques on the analysis of trends. Addiction 91: 1335-1344, 1996.
16. REHM, J. AND SPUHLER, T. Measurement error in alcohol consumption: the Swiss Health Survey. European J. Clin. Nutr. 47 (Suppl. No. 2): S25-30, 1993.
17. SCHWARTZ, N., STRACK, F., HIPPLER, H.-J. AND BISHOP, G. The impact of administration mode on response effects in survey measurement. Appl. Cog. Psychol. 5: 193-212, 1991.
18. STANDAARD BEROEPENCLASSIFICATIE 1992. Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics, Voorburg/Heerlen 1993.
19. WISEMAN, F. AND BILLINGTON, M. Comment on a standard definition of response rates. Journal of Marketing Research 21: 336-338, 1984.