Reducing sensitive survey response bias in research on adolescents: A comparison of web-based and paper-and-pencil administration

American Journal of Health Promotion

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 349-352

  Wyrick, David L ^a   Bond, Lloyd ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO   (United States)

^b GEOPHYSICAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adolescent; Computerized; High School; Middle School; Paper and Pencil; Response Bias; Response Rates; Sensitive; Survey; Web Based

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PAPER; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RESEARCH; SCHOOL; SELF REPORT; STATISTICS; STUDENT; WRITING;

ADOLESCENT; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CHILD; DATA COLLECTION; DISCLOSURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; PAPER; RESEARCH; SCHOOLS; SELF REPORT; STUDENTS; WRITING;

EID: 79961153434     PISSN: 08901171     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4278/ajhp.080611-ARB-90     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Lessler JT, Reilly JM. 1999. Mode of interview and reporting of sensitive issues: design and implementation of audio computer-assisted self-interviewing. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu. Accessed June 10, 2008.
2. Weinberg NZ, Rahdert E, Colliver JD, Glantz MD. Adolescent substance abuse: a review of the past 10 years. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998;37:252-261. (Pubitemid 28101222)
3. Winters KC, Stinchfield RD, Henly GA, Schwartz RH. Validity of adolescent selfreport of alcohol and other drug involvement. Int J Addict. 1992;25: 1379-1390.
4. Sudman S, Bradburn NM. Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis. Chicago, Ill: Aldine Publishing Company; 1974. National Opinion Research Center Monographs in Social Research.
5. Aquilino W. Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: a field experiment. Public Opin Q. 1994;58:210-240.
6. Turner CF, Lessler J, Devore J. Effects of mode of administration and wording on reporting of drug use. In: Turner CF, Lessler JT, Gfroerer J, eds. Survey Measurement of Drug Use: Methodological Studies. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1992:177-220.
7. Rahdert E. Adolescent Assessment/Referral System Manual. Rockville, Md: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1991. DHHS publication ADM 91-1735.
8. Knight JR, Goodman E, Pulerwitz T, DuRant RH. Reliability of the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT) in adolescent medical practice. J Adolesc Health. 2001;29:125-130. (Pubitemid 32705458)
9. Beebe T, Harrison PA, McRae JA, Anderson RE, Fulkerson JA. An evaluation of computer-assisted self-interviews in a school setting. Public Opin Q. 1998;62:623-632. (Pubitemid 128370951)
10. Halfors D, Khatapoush S, Kadushin C, Watson K, Saxe L. A comparison of paper vs. computer-assisted self interview for school alcohol, tobacco, and other drug surveys. Eval Program Plann. 2000;23:149-155.
11. Tourangeau R, Smith TW. Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin Q. 1996;60:275-304.