A Comparison of Mail and Telephone Administration of District-Level Questionnaires for the School Health Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS) 2006: Effects on Estimates and Data Quality

Journal of School Health

Volumn 80, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 304-311

  Denniston, Maxine ^a   Brener, Nancy ^a  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION AND HEALTH PROMOTION   (United States)

Author keywords

Data quality; Health policy; Mixed mode; School health programs

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PHYSICAL EDUCATION; POLICY; POSTAL MAIL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCHOOL; SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE; STANDARD; STATISTICS; TELEPHONE; UNITED STATES; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

DATA COLLECTION; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING; POSTAL SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICES; SCHOOLS; TELEPHONE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77954026130     PISSN: 00224391     EISSN: 17461561     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00505.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Aquilino WS. Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing for household drug use surveys. Int J Addict 1992, 27(1):71-91.
2. LoSciuto L, Aquilino WS, Licari FC. Interviewing Minority Youth About Drug Use: Telephone vs. In-person Surveys, Vol. 130 1993, 201-223. Washington, DC, National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monogram
3. Fowler FJ, Roman AM, Di ZX. Mode effects in a survey of Medicare prostate surgery patients. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association Section on Survey Research Methods. 1993, 730-735. Alexandria, VA
4. Grube JW. Monitoring youth behavior in response to structural changes: Alternative approaches for measuring adolescent drinking. Eval Rev 1997, 21(2):231-245.
5. Kraus L, Augustin R. Measuring alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems: comparison of responses from self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews. Addiction 2001, 96:459-471.
6. Clusen NA, Schone E, Kasprzyk D, Williams TV. Nonsampling error in a survey of Department of Defense health care beneficiaries. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods 2002, 585-590. Alexandria, VA
7. McCabe SE, Boyd CJ, Couper MP, Crawford S, D'Arcy H. Mode effects for collecting alcohol and other drug use data: Web and U.S. mail. J Stud Alcohol 2002, 755-761. November
8. Ellen JM, Gurvey JE, Pasch L, Tschann J, Nanda JP, Catania J. A randomized comparison of A-CASI and phone interviews to assess STD/HIV-related risk behaviors in teens. J Adolesc Health 2002, 31:26-30.
9. Hewitt M. Attitudes toward interview mode and comparability of reporting sexual behavior by personal interview and audio computer-assisted self-interviewing: analyses of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Sociol Methods Res 2002, 31(1):3-26.
10. McCabe SE. Comparison of Web and mail surveys in collecting illicit drug use data: a randomized experiment. J Drug Educ 2004, 34(1):61-72.
11. Kypri K, Gallagher SJ, Cashell-Smith ML. An Internet-based survey method for college student drinking research. Drug Alcohol Depend 2004, 76:45-53.
12. Hewett PC, Mensch BS, Erulkar AS. Consistency in the reporting of sexual behaviour by adolescent girls in Kenya: a comparison of interviewing methods. Sex Transm Infect 2004, 80:43-48.
13. Moskowitz JM. Assessment of cigarette smoking and smoking susceptibility among youth: telephone computer-assisted self-interviews versus computer-assisted telephone interviews. Public Opin Q 2004, 68(4):565-587.
14. Biglan M, Gilpin EA, Rohrbach LA, Pierce JP. Is there a simple correction factor for comparing adolescent tobacco-use estimates from school- and home-based surveys? Nicotine Tob Res 2004, 6(3):427-437.
15. Wang Y, Lee C, Lew-Ting C, Hsiao CK, Chen D, Chen WJ. Survey of substance use among high school students in Taipei: Web-based questionnaire versus paper-and-pencil questionnaire. J Adolesc Health 2005, 37:289-295.
16. McCabe SE, Boyd CJ, Young A, Crawford S, Pope DH. Mode effects for collecting alcohol and tobacco data among 3rd and 4th grade students: a randomized pilot study of Web-form versus paper-form surveys. Addict Behav 2005, 30:663-671.
17. Mangunkusumo RT, Duisterhout JS, de Graaff N, Maarsingh EJ, de Koning HJ, Raat H. Internet versus paper mode of health and health behavior questionnaires in elementary schools: asthma and fruit as examples. J Sch Health 2006, 76(2):80-86.
18. Feveile H, Olsen O, Hogh A. A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: response patterns in a survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7:27-33.
19. Graham A, Goss C, Xu S, Magid DJ, Diguiseppi C. Effect of using different modes to administer the AUDIT-C on identification of hazardous drinking and acquiescence to trail participation among injured patients. Alcohol Alcohol 2007, 42(5):423-429.
20. Roberts C, Jäckle A, Lynn P. Causes of Mode Effect: Separating out interviewer and stimulus effects in comparisons of face-to-face and telephone surveys. AAPOR-ASA Section on Survey Research Methods 2006, 4221-4228. Alexandria, VA, American Statistical Association
21. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, Chang Y, Liss CL, Wilson H, Stek M. The American Urological Association Symptom Index: does mode of administration affect its psychometric properties? J Urol 1995, 154:1056-1059.
22. Aquilino WS. Effects of interview mode on measuring depression in younger adults. J Off Stat. 1998, 14(1):15-29.
23. Walker AH, Restuccia JD. Obtaining information on patient satisfaction with hospital care: mail versus telephone. Health Serv Res 1984, 19(3):291-306.
24. McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE. Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 Health Survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national study. Med Care 1994, 32(6):551-567.
25. Lynn P. Data collection mode effects on response to attitudinal questions. J Off Stat 1998, 14(1):1-14.
26. Burroughs TE, Waterman BM, Cira JC, Desikan R, Dunagan WC. Patient satisfaction measurement strategies: A comparison of phone and mail methods. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2001, 27(7):349-361.
27. Chan KS, Orlando M, Ghosh-Dastidar B, Duan N, Sherbourne CD. The interview mode effect on the Center for Epidemiology Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale: an item response theory analysis. Med Care 2004, 42(3):281-289.
28. Hepner KA, Brown JA, Hays RD. Comparison of mail and telephone in assessing patient experiences in receiving care from medical group practices. Eval Health Prof 2005, 28(4):377-389.
29. Kwak N, Radler B. A comparison between mail and Web surveys: response pattern, respondent profile, and data quality. J Off Stat 2002, 18(2):257-273.
30. Fowler FJ, Gallagher PM, Nederend S. Comparing telephone and mail responses to the CAHPS™ survey instrument. Med Care 1999, 37(3):MS41-MS49. (suppl)
31. Kyle TM, Brener ND, Kann L. Methods: School Health Policies and Programs Study. J Sch Health 2007, 77(8):398-407.
32. Bates N. Data quality issues in a multi-mode census: results from the Mail and Telephone Mode Test (MTMT). Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods. 1993, 736-741. Alexandria, VA
33. J Sch Health 2007, 77(8):384-582. American School Health Association, [entire issue].