Collecting data on alcohol use and alcohol-related victimization: A comparison of telephone and web-based survey methods

Journal of Studies on Alcohol

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 318-323

  Parks, Kathleena ^a   Pardi, Ann M ^a   Bradizza, Clara M ^a  

^a RESEARCH INSTITUTE ON ADDICTIONS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL;

ABSENTEEISM; ADULT; ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; ALCOHOLISM; ARTICLE; COLLEGE STUDENT; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; FAMILY; FEMALE; FRIEND; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNET; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PERSONALITY; RESPONSIBILITY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL CRIME; TELEPHONE; VICTIM; WITHDRAWAL SYNDROME;

EID: 33244493578     PISSN: 0096882X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.15288/jsa.2006.67.318     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. BEST, S.J., KRUEGER, B., HUBBARD, C., AND SMITH, A. An assessment of the generalizability of internet surveys. Social Sci. Comput Rev. 19: 131-145, 2001.
2. BORSARI, B., NEAL, D.J., COLLINS, S.E., AND CAREY, K.B. Differential utility of three indexes of risky drinking for predicting alcohol problems in college students. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 15: 321-324, 2001.
3. CAHALAN, D., CISIN, I.H., AND CROSSLEY, H.M. American Drinking Practices: A National Study of Drinking Behavior and Attitudes, Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies Monograph No. 6, New Brunswick, NJ, 1969.
4. COLLINS, R.L., KOUTSKY, J.R., MORSHEIMER, E.T., AND MACLEAN, M.G. Binge drinking among underage college students: A test of a restraint-based conceptualization of risk for alcohol abuse. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 15: 333-340, 2001.
5. COLLINS, R.L., PARKS, G.A., AND MARLATT, G.A. Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. J. Cons. Clin. Psychol. 53: 189-200, 1985.
6. CORBIN, W.R., MCNAIR, L.D., AND CARTER, J. Self-esteem and problem drinking among male and female college students. J. Alcohol Drug Educ. 42 (1): 1-14, 1996.
7. CRONK, B.C. AND WEST, J.L. Personality research on the internet: A comparison of web-based and traditional instruments in take-home and in-class settings. Behav. Res. Meth. Instr. Comput. 34: 177-180, 2002.
8. DAVIS, R.N. Web-based administration of a personality questionnaire: Comparison with traditional methods. Behav. Res. Meth. Instr. Comput. 31: 572-577, 1999.
9. HODGSON, S. Cutting through the silence: A sociological construction of self-injury. Sociol. Inquiry 74: 162-179, 2004.
10. JOINSON, A. Social desirability, anonymity, and internet-based questionnaires. Behav. Res. Meth. Instr. Comput. 31: 433-438, 1999.
11. KNAPP, H. AND KIRK, S.A. Using pencil and paper, Internet and touch-tone phones for self-administered surveys: Does methodology matter? Comput. Human Behav. 19: 117-134, 2003.
12. MCCABE, S.E. Comparision of web and mail surveys in collecting illicit drug use data: A randomized experiment. J. Drug Educ. 34: 61-72, 2004.
13. MCCABE, S.E., BOYD, C.J., COUPER, M.P., CRAWFORD, S., AND D'ARCY, H. Mode effects for collecting alcohol and other drug use data: Web and U.S. mail. J. Stud. Alcohol 63: 755-761, 2002.
14. MCCABE, S.E., COUPER, M.P., CRANFORD, J.A., AND BOYD, C.J. Comparison of web and mail surveys for studying secondary consequences associated with substance use: Evidence for minimal mode effects. Addict. Behav., in press.
15. MEHO, L.I. E-mail interviews in qualitative research: A methodological discussion. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech., in press.
16. MILLER, E.T., NEAL, D.J., ROBERTS, L.J., BAER, J.S., CRESSLER, S.O., METRIK, J., AND MARLATT, G.A. Test-retest reliability of alcohol measures: Is there a difference between internet-based assessment and traditional methods? Psychol. Addict. Behav. 16: 56-63, 2002.
17. ROGERS, S.M., MILLER, H.G., AND TURNER, C.F. Effects of interview mode on bias in survey measurements of drug use: Do respondent characteristics make a difference? Subst. Use Misuse 33: 2179-2200, 1998.
18. ROSTER, C.A., ROGERS, R.D., ALBAUM, G., AND KLEIN, D. A comparison of response characteristics from web and telephone surveys. Int. J. Market Res. 46: 359-373, 2004.
19. SCHONLAU, M., ZAPERT, K., SIMON, L.P., SANSTAD, K.H., MARCUS, S.M., ADAMS, J., SPRANCA, M., KAN, H., TURNER, R., AND BERRY, S.H. A comparison between responses from a propensity-weighted web survey and an identical RDD survey. Social Sci. Comput. Rev. 22: 128-138, 2004.
20. THORNTON, B. AND GUPTA, S. Comparative validation of a partial (versus full) randomized response technique: Attempting to control for social desirability response bias to sensitive questions. Indiv. Diff. Res. 2: 214-224, 2004.
21. TOURANGEAU, R., COUPER, M.P., AND STEIGER, D.M. Humanizing self-administered surveys: Experiments on social presence in web and IVR surveys. Comput. Human Behav. 19: 1-24, 2003.
22. WHITE, H.R. AND LABOUVIE, E.W. Towards the assessment of adolescent problem drinking. J. Stud. Alcohol 50: 30-37, 1989.
23. WHITTIER, D.K., SEELEY, S., AND ST. LAWRENCE, J.S. A comparison of web-with paper-based surveys of gay and bisexual men who vacationed in a gay resort community. AIDS Educ. Prev. 16: 476-485, 2004.