Feasibility of including cellular telephone numbers in random digit dialing for epidemiologic case-control studies

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 173, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 118-126

  Voigt, Lynda F ^a,b   Schwartz, Stephen M ^a,b   Doody, David R ^a   Lee, Spencer C ^a   Li, Christopher I ^a,b  

^a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

bias (epidemiology); case control studies; epidemiologic methods; selection bias; telephone

Indexed keywords

DISEASE CONTROL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; TELEPHONE NETWORK; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HISPANIC; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; MALE; MARRIAGE; MOBILE PHONE; OBESITY; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; RANDOM DIGIT DIALING; SAMPLING; TELEPHONE;

ADULT; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CELLULAR PHONE; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SELECTION BIAS; WASHINGTON; YOUNG ADULT;

UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON [UNITED STATES];

EID: 78650490690     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq322     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Lavrakas PJ, Shuttles CD, Steeh C, et al. The state of surveying cell phone numbers in the United States: 2007 and beyond. Public Opin Q. 2007;71(5):840-854.
2. Voigt LF. Use of random digit dialing to recruit representative population samples. In: Roberts AR, Yeager K, eds. Evidence-Based Practice Manual: Research and Outcome Measures in Health and Human Services. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2004:410-419.
3. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV, Cynamon ML, et al. Recent trends in household telephone coverage in the United States. In: Lepkowski JM, Tucker C, Brick JM, et al, eds. Advances in Telephone Survey Methodology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2008:56-86.
4. Frankel MR, Battaglia MP, Link M, et al. Integrating cell phone numbers into random digit-dialed (RDD) landline surveys. In: Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, Salt Lake City, UT, July 29-August 2, 2007. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association; 2007. (http://www.amstat.org/ Sections/Srms/Proceedings/).
5. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV. Wireless substitution: state-level estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January-December, 2007. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2009. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/ nhsr014.pdf).
6. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV. Wireless substitution: early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January- June, 2009. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health
7. Statistics; 2009. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/ wireless200912.htm).
8. Link MW, Battaglia MP, Frankel MR, et al. Reaching the US cell phone generation. Public Opin Q. 2007;71(5):814-839.
9. Tuckel P, O'Neill H. Ownership and usage patterns of cell phones: 2000-2005. Presented at the Second International Conference on Telephone Survey Methodology, Miami, FL, January 11-15, 2006.
10. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV. Reevaluating the need for concern regarding noncoverage bias in landline surveys. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(10):1806-1810.
11. Delnevo CD, Gundersen DA, Hagman BT. Declining estimated prevalence of alcohol drinking and smoking among young adults nationally: artifacts of sample undercoverage. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(1):15-19.
12. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV. Coverage bias in traditional surveys of low-income and young adults. Public Opin Q. 2007;71(5): 734-749.
13. Potthoff RF, Halabi S, Schildkraut JM, et al. Flexible frames and control sampling in case-control studies: weighters (survey statisticians) versus anti-weighters (epidemiologists). Am Stat. 2008;62(4):307-313.
14. Waksberg J. Sampling methods for random digit dialing. J Am Stat Assoc. 1978;73:40-46.
15. Dillman DA. Mixed-mode surveys. In: Dillman DA. ed. Mail and Internet Surveys, The Tailored Design Method, Second Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2007: 217-244.
16. Groves RM, Fowler FJ, Couper MP, et al. Methods of data collection. In: Groves RM, Fowler FJ, Couper MP, et al, eds. Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2004:155-160.
17. Kreuter F, Presser S, Tourangeau R. Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR and Web surveys. Public Opin Q. 2008;72(5): 847-865.
18. Rankin KM, Rauscher GH, McCarthy B, et al. Comparing the reliability of responses to telephone-administered versus self-administered Web-based surveys in a case-control study of adult malignant brain cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(10):2639-2646.
19. Bates N. Cell-only households: a good target for Internet surveys. [electronic article]. In: Survey Practice. Deerfield, IL: American Association for Public Opinion Research; 2009. (http://surveypractice.org/2009/10/17/cell- nternet-surveys/).
20. Brick JM, Edwards WS, Lee S. Sampling telephone numbers and adults, interview length, and weighting in the California Health Interview Survey Cell Phone Pilot Study. Public Opin Q. 2007;71(5):793-813.