Interview mode choice by survey respondents: A methodological analysis

Social Science Computer Review

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 185-191

  Gazel, Ricardo C ^a,c   Keith Schwer, R ^b   Daneshvary, Rennae ^b  

^a Federal Reserve   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^c Kansas City Federal Reserve   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25144487334     PISSN: 08944393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/089443939801600206     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 210-240.
2. Aquilino, W. S., & LoSciuto, L. (1990). Effects of interview mode on self-reported drug use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 362-395.
3. Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J. E., & Rosenfeld, P. (1992). Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 562-566.
4. Bozionelos, N. (1996). Psychology of computer use: XXXIX. Prevalence of computer anxiety in British managers and professionals. Psychological Reports, 78, 995-1002.
5. Busch, T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 147-158.
6. Dyck, J. L., & Smither, J. A. (1994). Age differences in computer anxiety: The role of computer experience, gender and education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10, 239-248.
7. Groves, R. M., & Kahn, R. L. (1979). Surveys by telephone: A national comparison with personal interviews. New York: Academic Press.
8. Henson, R., Cannell, C. F., & Roth, A. (1978). Effects of interview mode on reporting of moods, symptoms, and need for social approval. Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 123-129.
9. Herman, J. B. (1977). Mixed-mode data collection: Telephone and personal interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 399-404.
10. Johnson, T. P., Hougland, J., & Clayton, R. (1989). Obtaining reports of sensitive behavior: A comparison of telephone and face-to-face interviews. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 174-193.
11. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402-413.
12. Kormendi, E. (1988). The quality of income information in telephone and face-to-face surveys. In R. Groves, P. Biemer, L. Lyberg, J. Massey, W. Nichols, & J. Waksberg (Eds.), Telephone survey methodology (pp. 341-355). New York: Wiley.
13. Skinner, H. A., & Allen, B. A. (1983). Does the computer make a difference? Computerized versus face-to-face versus self-report assessment of alcohol, drug and tobacco use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(2), 267-275.
14. Sykes, W., & Collins, M. (1988). Effects of mode of interview: Experiments in the U.K. In R. Groves, P. Biemer, L. Lyberg, J. Massey, W. Nichols, & J. Waksberg (Eds.), Telephone survey methodology (pp. 301-320). New York: Wiley.
15. Synodinos, N. E., Papacostas, C. S., & Okimoto, G. M. (1994). Computer-administered versus paper-and-pencil surveys and the effect of sample selection. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 26(4), 395-401.
16. Watson, C. G., Manifold, V., Klett, W. G., Brown, J., Thomas, D., & Anderson, D. (1990). Comparability of computer- and booklet-administered Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventories among primarily chemically dependent patients. Psychological Assessment, 2(3), 276-280.