Question Order and Interviewer Effects in CATI Scale-up Surveys

The scale-up estimator is a network-based estimator for the size of hidden or hard to count subpopulations. Several issues arise in the public health context when the aim is the estimation of injuries occurring in a certain population, where two common problems are present: (a) Small injuries are usually difficult to observe and rarely reported in the official data and (b) people are not always compliant in giving information about some specific injuries, in particular when children are involved. This study checked the methodological issues arising from using a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey using the scale-up methodology for detecting the number of injuries due to choking in children ages 0 to 14 in Italy. For this purpose, 1,000 CATI interviews were conducted during a week using a questionnaire based on 33 questions about populations of known size according to census data. Then, each respondent was asked about other questions related to the main target population (e.g., number of children known to suffer from a choking accident). A sensitivity analysis was conducted for estimating the effect of varying subpopulations, order of the questions, and interviewer effects on the resulting estimates. For the interviewer effect, no particular differences were observed in the overall estimates of injuries. The conclusion is the scale-up estimator in association with CATI methodology shows a high potential in the field of injury prevention, being accurate and robust, but particular attention should be given to the training of the interviewers to improve stability of the estimates.

[1]  Tian Zheng,et al.  How Many People Do You Know in Prison? , 2006 .

[2]  B. Morra,et al.  Child mortality due to suffocation in Europe (1980-1995): a review of official data. , 2006, Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale.

[3]  R. Rimal,et al.  Assessing the Perceived Importance of Skin Cancer: How Question-Order Effects Are Influenced by Issue Involvement , 2005, Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education.

[4]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Support for the Death Penalty and Rehabilitation: Question Order or Communication Effect?1 , 2001 .

[5]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  A social network approach to estimating seroprevalence in the United States , 1998 .

[6]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  Scale-Up Methods as Applied to Estimates of Heroin use , 2006 .

[7]  Carol C. Bienstock,et al.  Question order effects in measuring service quality , 2003 .

[8]  J. Moody,et al.  Fighting a Hydra: A Note on the Network Embeddedness of the War on Terror , 2005 .

[9]  C. McCarty,et al.  Comparing Two Methods for Estimating Network Size , 2001 .

[10]  Thomas F. Crossley,et al.  The reliability of self-assessed health status. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[11]  Peter V. Marsden,et al.  Interviewer effects in measuring network size using a single name generator , 2003, Soc. Networks.

[12]  T. Tilburg,et al.  Interviewer Effects in the Measurement of Personal Network Size A Nonexperimental Study , 1998 .

[13]  D. Gregori,et al.  The Network Scale-Up Method: A Simulation Study in Case of Overlapping Sub-Populations , 2004 .

[14]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  Estimating the size of personal networks , 1990 .

[15]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  Estimating the Ripple Effect of a Disaster 1 , 2001 .

[16]  S. McFarland.  Effects of Question Order on Survey Responses , 1981 .

[17]  I. Crespi,et al.  Question Order Effect and the Measurement of Candidate Preference in the 1982 Connecticut Elections , 1984 .

[18]  C. McCarty,et al.  COMPARING FOUR DIFFERENT METHODS FOR MEASURING PERSONAL SOCIAL NETWORKS , 1990 .

[19]  D. Gregori,et al.  Estimating the Number of Foreign Bodies Injuries in Children with the Scale-up Method , 2005 .

[20]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  Estimation of Seroprevalence, Rape, and Homelessness in the United States Using a Social Network Approach , 1998, Evaluation review.

[21]  G. Loosveldt,et al.  Modeling interviewer effects in panel surveys: - an application , 2000 .

[22]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  Measuring Patterns of Acquaintanceship [and Comments and Reply] , 1984, Current Anthropology.

[23]  Lluís Coromina,et al.  Reliability and validity of egocentered network data collected via web: A meta-analysis of multilevel multitrait multimethod studies , 2006, Soc. Networks.

[24]  Geert Loosveldt,et al.  A simultaneous analysis of interviewer effects on various data quality indicators with identification of exceptional interviewers , 2004 .

[25]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  Estimating the size of an average personal network and of an event subpopulation: Some empirical results☆ , 1991 .

[26]  M. Straus,et al.  The Effect of Question Order on Disclosure of Intimate Partner Violence: An Experimental Test Using the Conflict Tactics Scales , 2006, Journal of Family Violence.

[27]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  From the Generic to the Condition‐specific? Instrument Order Effects in Quality of Life Assessment , 2003, Medical care.

[28]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  A social network approach to corroborating the number of AIDS/HIV+ victims in the US ° , 1995 .