Self-reported frequency of drinking assessed with a closed- or open- ended question format: A split-sample study in Switzerland

Journal of Studies on Alcohol

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 450-454

  Gmel, Gerhard ^a   Lokosha, Osango ^a  

^a SWISS INSTITUTE FOR THE PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROBLEMS   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRINKING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVIEW; MALE; METHODOLOGY; RESEARCH; SELF REPORT; SWITZERLAND; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0034057384     PISSN: 0096882X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.15288/jsa.2000.61.450     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. AQUILINO, W.S. Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: A field experiment. Publ. Opin. Q. 58: 210-240, 1994.
2. AQUILINO, W.S. AND LOSCIUTO, L.A. Effects of interview mode on self-reported drug use. Publ. Opin. Q. 54: 362-395, 1990.
3. BRADBURN, N.M. Response effects. In: ROSSI, P.H., WRIGHT, J.D. AND ANDERSON, A.B. (Eds.) Handbook of Survey Research, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1983, pp. 289-328.
4. BRADBURN, N.M., SUDMAN, S. AND ASSOCIATES. Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design: Response Effects to Threatening Questions in Survey Research, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979.
5. BURTON, S. AND BLAIR, E. Task conditions, response formulation processes, and response accuracy for behavioral frequency questions in surveys. Publ. Opin. Q. 55: 50-79, 1991.
6. DOHRENWEND, B.S. AND RICHARDSON, S.A. Directiveness and nondirectiveness in research interviewing: A reformulation of the problem. Psychol. Bull. 60: 475-485, 1963.
7. FAHRENKRUG, H. AND MÜLLER, R. Alkohol und Gesundheit in der Schweiz, Lausanne: Schweizerische Fachstelle fhr Alkohol- und andere Drogenprobleme (SFA), 1989.
8. GFROERER, J.C. AND HUGHES, A.L. Collecting data on illicit drug use by phone. In: TURNER, C.F., LESSLER, J.T. AND GFROERER, J.C. (Eds.) Survey Measurement of Drug Use: Methodological Studies. DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 92-1929, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1992. pp. 277-295.
9. GMEL, G. Antwortverhalten bei Fragen zum Alkoholkonsum: Non-Response-Bias in schriftlichen Nachbefragungen (Response behavior to questions on alcohol consumption: Nonresponse bias in mailed follow-up questionnaires). Schweiz. Z. Soziol./Rev. 22: 285-301, 1996.
10. GOYDER, J. The Silent Minority: Nonrespondents on Sample Surveys, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987.
11. GREENE, W.H. Econometric Analysis, 2nd Edition. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
12. GROVES, R.M. Survey Errors and Survey Costs, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989.
13. IVIS, F.J., BONDY, S.J. AND ADLAF, E.M. The effect of question structure on self-reports of heavy drinking: Closed-ended versus open-ended questions. J. Stud. Alcohol 58: 622-624, 1997.
14. KISH, L. Survey Sampling, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965.
15. KRECH, D. AND CRUTCHFIELD, R.S. Theory and Problems of Social Psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948.
16. LAZARSFELD, P.E. The controversy over detailed interviews: An offer or negotiation. Publ. Opin. Q. 8: 38-60, 1944.
17. LEE, R.M. Doing Research on Sensitive Topics, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 1993.
18. MIDANIK, L. The validity of self-reported alcohol consumption and alcohol problems: A literature review. Brit. J. Addict. 77: 357-382, 1982.
19. MIDANIK, L.T. Validity of self-reported alcohol use: A literature review and assessment. Brit. J. Addict. 83: 1019-1030, 1988.
20. POIKOLAINEN, K. AND KÄRKKÄINEN, P. Nature of questionnaire options affects estimates of alcohol intake. J. Stud. Alcohol 46: 219-222, 1985.
21. REHM, J. Measuring quantity, frequency, and volume of drinking. Alcsm Clin. Exp. Res. 22 (Suppl. No. 2): 4S-14S, 1998.
22. REHM, J. AND SPUHLER, T. Measurement error in alcohol consumption: The Swiss Health Survey. Europ. J. Clin. Nutr. 47 (Suppl. No. 2): S25-S30, 1993.
23. ROOM, R. Measuring alcohol consumption in the United States: Methods and rationales. In: KOZLOWSKI, L.T., ANNIS, H.M., CAPPELL, H.D., GLASER, F.B., GOODSTADT, M.S., ISRAEL, Y. KALANT, H., SELLERS, E.M. AND VINGILIS, E.R. (Eds.) Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems, Vol. 10, New York: Plenum Press, 1990, pp. 39-80.
24. SCHNELL, R., HILL, P.B. AND ESSER, E. Methoden der Empirischen Sozialforschung, München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1995.
25. SCHUMAN, H. AND PRESSER, S. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1981.
26. SCHWARZ, 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.
27. SOBELL, L.C. AND SOBELL, M.B. Alcohol consumption measures. In: ALLEN, J.P. AND COLUMBUS, M. (Eds.) Assessing Alcohol Problems: A Guide for Clinicians and Researchers. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Treatment Handbook Series No. 4, NIH Publication No. 95-3745, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1995, pp. 55-73.
28. SUDMAN, S. AND BRADBURN, N.M. Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis, Chicago: Aldine, 1974.
29. SUDMAN, S. AND BRADBURN, N.M. Asking Questions, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.
30. SUDMAN, S., BRADBURN, N.M. AND SCHWARZ, N. Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
31. TOURANGEAU, R. AND SMITH, T.W. Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Publ. Opin. Q. 60: 275-304, 1996.
32. WATERTON, J.J. AND DUFFY, J.C. A comparison of computer interviewing techniques and traditional methods in the collection of self-report alcohol consumption data in a field survey. Int. Stat. Rev. 52: 173-182, 1984.
33. WEISS, W., SPUHLER, T., GRUET, F. ET AL. Enquête auprès de la Population "La Santé et la Promotion de Santé," Aarau: Institut Suisse de la Santé Publique et des Hôpitaux, ISH/SKI, 1990.