Value of audio-enhanced handheld computers over paper surveys with adolescents

American Journal of Health Behavior

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 62-69

  Trapl, Erika S ^a   Taylor, H Gerry ^b   Colabianchi, Natalie ^d   Litaker, David ^b   Borawski, Elaine A ^c  

^a Prevention Research Center for Healthy Neighborhoods   (United States)

^b Department of Pediatrics ^*  (United States)

^c CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Adolescent health survey; Audio enhancement; Handheld computer; Survey data collection

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; AUDIOVISUAL AID; CHILD BEHAVIOR; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MICROCOMPUTER; PAPER; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; STATISTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; AUDIOVISUAL AIDS; COMPUTERS, HANDHELD; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; PAPER; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84865320389     PISSN: 10873244     EISSN: 19457359     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5993/AJHB.37.1.7     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Petersen AC, Leffert N. Developmental issues influencing guidelines for adolescent health research: a review. J Adolesc Health. 1995;17(5):298-305. (Pubitemid 26001399)
2. Resnick MD, Bearman PS, Blum RW, et al. Protecting adolescents from harm. JAMA. 1997;278(10):823.
3. Gans JE, Brindis CD. Choice of research setting in understanding adolescent health problems. J Adolesc Health. 1995;17(5):306-313. (Pubitemid 26001400)
4. Beebe TJ, Mika T, Harrison PA, et al. Computerized school surveys. Social Science Computer Review. 1997;15(2):159.
5. Ellen JM, Gurvey JE, Pasch L, et al. A randomized comparison of A-CASI and phone interviews to assess STD/HIV-related risk behaviors in teens. J Adolesc Health. 2002;31(1):26-30. (Pubitemid 34667294)
6. Gribble JN, Miller HG, Rogers SM, Turner CF. Interview mode and measurement of sexual behaviors: methodological issues. J Sex Res. 1999;36(1):16-24. (Pubitemid 29118091)
7. Romer D, Hornik R, Stanton B, et al. "Talking" computers: a reliable and private method to conduct interviews on sensitive topics with children. J Sex Res. 1997;34(1):3-9. (Pubitemid 27328640)
8. Turner CF, Forsyth BH, O'Reilly JM, et al. Automated self-interviewing and the survey measurement of sensitive behaviors. In Couper MP, Baler RP, Bethlehem J, et al (Eds). Computer-Assisted Survey Information Collection. New York: John Wiley and Sons 1998: 455-473.
9. Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, et al. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science. 1998;280(5365):867.
10. Turner CF, Lessler JT, Devore J. Effects of mode of administration and wording on reporting of drug use. In Turner CF, Lessler JT, Gfroerer JD (Eds). Survey Measurement of Drug Use: Methodological Studies. DHHS Pub. no. 92-1929. Washington, DC 1992:177-220.
11. Couper M. Technology trends in survey data collection. Social Science Computer Review. 2005;23(4):486-501. (Pubitemid 41560993)
12. Ramos M, Sedivi BM, Sweet EM. Computerized selfadministered questionnaires. In Couper MP, Baler RP, Bethlehem J, et al (Eds). Computer-Assisted Survey Information Collection. New York: John Wiley and Sons 1998:389-408.
13. Couper MP, Singer E, Tourangeau R. Understanding the effects of audio-CASI on self-reports of sensitive behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2003;67(3):385-395. (Pubitemid 37528152)
14. Hallfors D, Khatapoush S, Kadushin C, et al. A comparison of paper vs computer-assisted self interview for school alcohol, tobacco, and other drug surveys. Eval Program Plann. 2000;23(2):149-155.
15. Jaspan HB, Flisher AJ, Myer L, et al. Brief report: methods for collecting sexual behaviour information from South African adolescents - a comparison of paper versus personal digital assistant questionnaires. J Adoles. 2007;30(2):353-359. (Pubitemid 46421850)
16. Denny SJ, Milfont TL, Utter J, et al. Hand-held internet tablets for school-based data collection. BMC Research Notes. 2008;1:52.
17. McClamroch KJ. Evaluating the usability of personal digital assistants to collect behavioral data on adolescents with paradata. Field Methods. 2011;23(3):219-242.
18. Olson AL, Gaffney CA, Hedberg VA, Gladstone GR. Use of inexpensive technology to enhance adolescent health screening and counseling. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(2):172-177.
19. Hallfors D, Hyunsan C, Simbarashe R, et al. Supporting adolescent orphan girls to stay in school as HIV risk prevention: evidence from a randomized controlled trial in Zimbabwe. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1082-1088.
20. Laska MN, Graham D, Moe SG, et al. Situational characteristics of young adults' eating occasions: a real-time data collection using Personal Digital Assistants. Public Health Nutr. 2010;14(3):472-479.
21. Trapl ES, Borawski EA, Stork PP, et al. Use of audio-enhanced personal digital assistants for school-based data collection. J Adolesc Health. 2005;37(4):296-305. (Pubitemid 41338017)
22. Kilanowski JF, Trapl ES. Evaluation of the use of audioenhanced personal digital assistants to survey Latino migrant farmworkers. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33(2):156-163.
23. Williams KT, Service AG. GRADE: Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation. American Guidance Service; 2001. Available at: http://www. pearsondiagnostic. com/. Accessed January 26, 2012.
24. Beebe TJ, Harrison PA, Mcrae JA, et al. An evaluation of computer-assisted self-interviews in a school setting. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1998;62(4):623-632. (Pubitemid 128370951)
25. 2005 Cleveland Municipal School District Middle School Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Case Western Reserve University, Division of Adolescent Health 2005. Available online: http://prchn.org/reports/. Accessed January 26, 2012.
26. Nass C, Moon Y, Green N. Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1997;27(10):864-876.