Does computer survey technology improve reports on alcohol and illicit drug use in the general population? A comparison between two surveys with different data collection modes in France

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Beck, François ^a,b   Guignard, Romain ^a   Legleye, Stéphane ^c,d  

^a Institut National de Prévention et d'Education À la Santé INPES   (France)

^b EHESS Sciences   (France)

^c INSTITUT NATIONAL D'ÉTUDES DÉMOGRAPHIQUES   (France)

^d UNIVERSITÉ PARIS SACLAY   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

3,4 METHYLENEDIOXYMETHAMPHETAMINE; AMPHETAMINE; COCAINE; DIAMORPHINE; STREET DRUG;

ADULT; AGE; ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; ALCOHOL USE DISORDER; ALCOHOLISM; ARTICLE; AUDIO COMPUTER ASSISTED SELF INTERVIEW; CANNABIS USE; COCAINE DEPENDENCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TELEPHONE INTERVIEW; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; DRUG MISUSE; FEMALE; FRANCE; HEROIN DEPENDENCE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METHAMPHETAMINE DEPENDENCE; MIDDLE AGED; SEX DIFFERENCE; YOUNG ADULT; ADOLESCENT; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH SURVEY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVIEW; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PREVALENCE; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ALCOHOLISM; AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREVALENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STREET DRUGS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84899882814     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085810     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Beck F, Gautier A, Guilbert P (2007) Baromètre santé 2005. Attitudes et comportements de santé. Saint-Denis: INPES. 608 p.
2. Cavalin C (2009) L'élaboration du questionnaire et du protocole de collecte: innovations et précautions méthodologiques. In: Beck F, Cavalin C, Maillochon F, editors. Violences et santé en France: Etats des lieux. Paris: La documentation française.
3. Bless R, Korf D, Riper H, Diemel S (1997) Improving the Comparability of General Population Surveys on Drug Use in the European Union. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
4. Beck F, Peretti-Watel P (2002) The Impact of Data Collection Methodology on the Reporting of mode de Illicit Drug Use by Adolescents. Population 57: 571-591.
5. Gmel G (2000) The effect of mode of data collection and of non-response on reported alcohol consumption: a split-sample study in Switzerland. Addiction 95: 123-134.
6. Midanik LT, Greenfield TK (2003) Telephone versus in-person interviews for alcohol use: results of the 2000 National Alcohol Survey. Drug Alcohol Depend 72: 209-214. (Pubitemid 37485897)
7. Greenfield TK, Midanik LT, Rogers JD (2000) Effects of telephone versus face-to-face interview modes on reports of alcohol consumption. Addiction 95: 277-284. (Pubitemid 30111248)
8. Miller JW, Gfroerer JC, Brewer RD, Naimi TS, Mokdad A, et al. (2004) Prevalence of adult binge drinking: a comparison of two national surveys. Am J Prev Med 27: 197-204. (Pubitemid 39278318)
9. Aquilino WS, Lo Sciouto LA (1990) Effect of interview mode on self-reported drug use Public Opinion Quarterly 54: 362-393.
10. Grucza RA, Abbacchi AM, Przybeck TR, Gfroerer JC (2007) Discrepancies in estimates of prevalence and correlates of substance use and disorders between two national surveys. Addiction 102: 623-629. (Pubitemid 46398838)
11. Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, Lindberg LD, Pleck JH, et al. (1998) Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science 280: 867-873. (Pubitemid 28215590)
12. Gfroerer J, Wright D, Kopstein A (1997) Prevalence of youth substance use: the impact of methodological differences between two national surveys. Drug Alcohol Depend 47: 19-30. (Pubitemid 27374633)
13. Kann L, Brener ND, Warren CW, Collins JL, Giovino GA (2002) An assessment of the effect of data collection setting on the prevalence of health risk behaviors among adolescents. J Adolesc Health 31: 327-335. (Pubitemid 35304630)
14. Turner CF, Lessler JT, Devore JW (1992) Effects of mode of administration and wording on reporting drug use. In: Turner C, Lessler J, Gfroerer J, editors. Survey measurement of drug use, methodological issues. Washington, DC: US Departement of Health and Human Services, Government Printing Office.
15. Hochstim JR (1967) A Critical Comparison of Three Strategies of Collecting Data from Households. Journal of the American Statistical Association 62: 976-989.
16. Wiseman F (1971) Methodological bias in public opinion surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 105-108.
17. Siemiatycki J, Campbell S, Richardson L, Aubert D (1984) Quality of response in different population groups in mail and telephone surveys. Am J Epidemiol 120: 302-314. (Pubitemid 14052622)
18. Smart RG (1985) When to do cross-sectional studies. In: Robins L, editor. Studying drug abuse. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. pp. 47-56.
19. Aquilino WS (1994) Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 210-240.
20. Kraus L, Augustin R (2001) Measuring alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems: comparison of responses from self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews. Addiction 96: 459-471. (Pubitemid 32217485)
21. Beebe TJ, McRae JA, Jr., Harrison PA, Davern ME, Quinlan KB (2005) Mail surveys resulted in more reports of substance use than telephone surveys. J Clin Epidemiol 58: 421-424. (Pubitemid 40601992)
22. Needle RH, Jou SC, Su SS (1989) The impact of changing methods of data collection on the reliability of self-reported drug use of adolescents. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 15: 275-289. (Pubitemid 19195560)
23. Needle R, McCubbin H, Lorence J, Hochhauser M (1983) Reliability and validity of adolescent self-reported drug use in a family-based study: a methodological report. Int J Addict 18: 901-912. (Pubitemid 14239416)
24. Fendrich M, Johnson TP (2001) Examining prevalence differences in three national surveys of youth: Impact of consent procedures, mode, and editing rules. Journal of Drug Issues 31: 615-642. (Pubitemid 32884878)
25. Babor TF, Kranzler HR, Lauerman RJ (1989) Early detection of harmful alcohol consumption: Comparison of clinical, laboratory, and self-report screening procedures. Addictive Behaviors 14: 139-157. (Pubitemid 19157711)
26. Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Raskinki K (2000) The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27. Rouse BA, Kozel NJ, Richards LG (1985) Self-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to Validity. Rockville: Department Of Health And Human Services (NIDA).
28. Tourangeau R, Smith TW (1996) Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact Of Data Collection Mode, Question Format, And Question Context. Public Opinion Quarterly 60: 275-304.
29. Beebe TJ, Harrison PA, Mcrae Jr JA, Anderson RE, Fulkerson JA (1998) An Evaluation of Computer-Assisted Self-Interviews in a School Setting. Public Opinion Quarterly 62: 623-632. (Pubitemid 128370951)
30. Webb PM, Zimet GD, Fortenberry JD, Blythe MJ (1999) Comparability of a computer-assisted versus written method for collecting health behavior information from adolescent patients. J Adolesc Health 24: 383-388. (Pubitemid 29283351)
31. Hallfors D, Khatapoush S, Kadushin C, Watson K, Saxe L (2000) A comparison of paper vs computer-assisted self interview for school alcohol, tobacco, and other drug surveys Evaluation and Program Planning 23: 149-155.
32. Bless R, Korf D, Riper H, Diemel S, Arvidsson O, et al. (1999) Comparability of general population surveys; Statistics TABoSRa, editor: EMCDDA.
33. Vereecken CA, Maes L (2006) Comparison of a computer-administered and paper-and-pencil-administered questionnaire on health and lifestyle behaviors. J Adolesc Health 38: 426-432.
34. Newman JC, Des Jarlais DC, Turner CF, Gribble J, Cooley P, et al. (2002) The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes. Am J Public Health 92: 294-297. (Pubitemid 34101445)
35. Rodgers SM, Gribble JN, Turner CF, Miller HG (1999) Entretiens autoadministre ́s sur ordinateurs et mesure des comportements sensibles. Population 54: 231-250. (Pubitemid 29373551)
36. Thornberry OT, Jr. (1987) An experimental comparison of telephone and personal health interview surveys. Vital Health Stat 2: 1-4.
37. Biemer PP (2001) Nonresponse Bias and Measurement Bias in a Comparison of Face to Face and Telephone Interviewing. Journal of Official Statistics 17: 295-320.
38. Brogger J, Bakke P, Eide GE, Gulsvik A (2002) Comparison of telephone and postal survey modes on respiratory symptoms and risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 155: 572-576. (Pubitemid 34208049)
39. ACSF (1992) Analysis of sexual behaviour in France (ACSF). A comparison between two modes of investigation: telephone survey and face-to-face survey. ASCF principal investigators and their associates. Aids 6: 315-323.
40. Mangione T, Hingson R, Barrett J (1982) Collecting Sensitive Data A Comparison of Three Survey Strategies. Sociological Methods and Research 10: 337-346.
41. Czaja R (1987) Asking Sensitive Behavioral questions in Telephone Interviews. Int Q Community Health Educ 8: 23-32.
42. de Leeuw ED, Van der Zouwen J (1988) Data quality in telephone and face to face surveys: a comparative meta-analysis. In: Groves RM, Biemer PP, Lyberg LE, Massey JT, Nicholls WL, et al., editors. Telephone Survey Methodology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 283-299.
43. Sykes W, Collins M (1988) Effects of mode of interview: experiments in the UK. In: Groves RM, Biemer PP, Lyberg LE, Massey JT, Nicholls WL, et al., editors. Telephone Survey Methodology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 301-320.
44. Gfroerer JC, Hughes AL (1991) The feasibility of collecting drug abuse data by telephone. Public Health Rep 106: 384-393.
45. Aquilino WS, Wright DL (1996) Substance use estimates from RDD and area probability samples: Impact of differential screening methods and unit nonresponse. Public Opinion Quarterly 60: 563-573.
46. Guilbert P, Baudier F, Arwidson P (1999) [Comparison of two types of behavior and attitude surveys on alcohol, tobacco and illegal drug use]. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 47: 129-138.
47. Beck F (2000) La tentation de la représentativité dans les enquêtes en population générale sur les usages de drogues. Psychotropes, revue internationale des toxicomanies 6: 7-25.
48. Mayfield D, McLeod G, Hall P (1974) The CAGE questionnaire: validation of a new alcoholism screening instrument. Am J Psychiatry 131: 1121-1123.
49. EMCDDA (2011) 2011 Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe. Lisbon: EMCDDA. 105 p.
50. Beck F, Chaker S, Legleye S (2005) [Gender differences in drug use] Différences de genre dans les usages de substances psychoactives. OFDT, 2005 National report (2004 data) to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point France New development, trends and in-depth information on selected issues French version. St Denis: OFDT. pp. 73-91.
51. Makela P, Huhtanen P (2010) The effect of survey sampling frame on coverage: the level of and changes in alcohol-related mortality in Finland as a test case. Addiction 105: 1935-1941.
52. Gmel G, Daeppen JB (2007) Recall bias for seven-day recall measurement of alcohol consumption among emergency department patients: implications for case-crossover designs. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 68: 303-310.
53. Kaskutas LA, Graves K (2000) An alternative to standard drinks as a measure of alcohol consumption. J Subst Abuse 12: 67-78. (Pubitemid 38198177)
54. Hjorthøj C, Hjorthøj A, Nordentoft M (2012) Validity of Timeline Follow-Back for self-reported use of cannabis and other illicit substances-systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav 37: 225-233.
55. Fendrich M, Mackesy-Amiti ME (2000) Decreased drug reporting in a cross-sectional student drug use survey. J Subst Abuse 11: 161-172.
56. Dietze PM, Fitzgerald JL, Jenkinson RA (2008) Drinking by professional Australian Football League (AFL) players: prevalence and correlates of risk. Med J Aust 189: 479-483.
57. Carpenter C (2003) Seasonal variation in self-reports of recent alcohol consumption: racial and ethnic differences. J Stud Alcohol 64: 415-418.
58. Weir E (2003) Seasonal drinking: let's avoid the "January effect". Cmaj 169: 1186.
59. McAuliffe WE, LaBrie R, Woodworth R, Zhang C (2002) Estimates of potential bias in telephone substance abuse surveys due to exclusion of households without telephones. Journal of Drug Issues 32: 1139-1154. (Pubitemid 36109875)
60. Nelson DE, Powell-Griner E, Town M, Kovar MG (2003) A comparison of national estimates from the National Health Interview Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Am J Public Health 93: 1335-1341. (Pubitemid 38480203)
61. Cottler LB, Zipp JF, Robins LN, Spitznagel EL (1987) Difficult-to-recruit respondents and their effect on prevalence estimates in an epidemiologic survey. American Journal of Epidemiology 125: 329-339. (Pubitemid 17007983)
62. Beck F, Legleye S, Peretti-Watel P (2004) Using the telephone in general population surveys on drugs. In: Decorte T, Korf DJ, editors. European studies on drugs and drug policy Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of the European Society for Social Drug Research (ESSD) in Ghent from 2-4 October 2003. Brussels: VUB Press. pp. 113-140.
63. Fowler Jr FJ, Stringfellow VL (2001) Learning From Experience: Estimating Teen Use of Alcohol, Cigarettes, and Marijuana From Three Survey Protocols. Journal of Drug Issues 31: 643-664.
64. Brittingham A, Tourangeau R, Kay W (1998) Reports of smoking in a national survey: data from screening and detailed interviews, and from self- and interviewer-administered questions. Ann Epidemiol 8: 393-401. (Pubitemid 28340540)
65. Moskowitz JM (2004) Assessment of Cigarette Smoking and Smoking Susceptibility among Youth: Telephone Computer-Assisted Self-Interviews versus Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly 68: 565-587.
66. Villarroel MA, Turner CF, Rogers SM, Roman AM, Cooley PC, et al. (2008) TACASI reduces bias in STD measurements: the National STD and Behavior Measurement Experiment. Sex Transm Dis 35: 499-506. (Pubitemid 351670557)
67. Turner CF, Villarroel MA, Rogers SM, Eggleston E, Ganapathi L, et al. (2005) Reducing bias in telephone survey estimates of the prevalence of drug use: a randomized trial of telephone audio-CASI. Addiction 100: 1432-1444. (Pubitemid 41442313)
68. Turner CF, Al-Tayyib A, Rogers SM, Eggleston E, Villarroel MA, et al. (2009) Improving epidemiological surveys of sexual behaviour conducted by telephone. Int J Epidemiol 38: 1118-1127.
69. Harmon T, Turner CF, Rogers SM, Eggleston E, Roman AM, et al. (2009) Impact of T-ACASI on Survey Measurements of Subjective Phenomena. Public Opinion Quarterly 73: 255-280.