BackgroundTelephone interviews have become established as an alternative to traditional mail surveys for collecting epidemiological data in public health research. However, the use of telephone and mail surveys raises the question of to what extent the results of different data collection methods deviate from one another. We therefore set out to study possible differences in using telephone and mail survey methods to measure health-related quality of life and emotional and behavioural problems in children and adolescents.MethodsA total of 1700 German children aged 8-18 years and their parents were interviewed randomly either by telephone or by mail. Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and mental health problems (MHP) were assessed using the KINDL-R Quality of Life instrument and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) children's self-report and parent proxy report versions. Mean Differences ("d" effect size) and differences in Cronbach alpha were examined across modes of administration. Pearson correlation between children's and parents' scores was calculated within a multi-trait-multi-method (MTMM) analysis and compared across survey modes using Fisher-Z transformation.ResultsTelephone and mail survey methods resulted in similar completion rates and similar socio-demographic and socio-economic makeups of the samples. Telephone methods resulted in more positive self- and parent proxy reports of children's HRQoL (SMD ≤ 0.27) and MHP (SMD ≤ 0.32) on many scales. For the phone administered KINDL, lower Cronbach alpha values (self/proxy Total: 0.79/0.84) were observed (mail survey self/proxy Total: 0.84/0.87). KINDL MTMM results were weaker for the phone surveys: mono-trait-multi-method mean r = 0.31 (mail: r = 0.45); multi-trait-mono-method mean (self/parents) r = 0.29/0.36 (mail: r = 0.34/0.40); multi-trait-multi-method mean r = 0.14 (mail: r = 0.21). Weaker MTMM results were also observed for the phone administered SDQ: mono-trait-multi-method mean r = 0.32 (mail: r = 0.40); multi-trait-mono-method mean (self/parents) r = 0.24/0.30 (mail: r = 0.20/0.32); multi-trait-multi-method mean r = 0.14 (mail = 0.14). The SDQ classification into borderline and abnormal for some scales was affected by the method (OR = 0.36-1.55).ConclusionsThe observed differences between phone and mail surveys are small but should be regarded as relevant in certain settings. Therefore, while both methods are valid, some changes are necessary. The weaker reliability and MTMM validity associated with phone methods necessitates improved phone adaptations of paper and pencil questionnaires. The effects of phone versus mail survey modes are partly different across constructs/measures.
Leit the ma: Te le fo ni sche Ge sund heits sur veys, Teil 2 M. Er hart · R. Wet zel · A. Krü gel · U. Ra vens-Sie be rer Ro bert Koch-In sti tut, Ber linEr fas sung der ge sund heitsbe zo ge nen Le bens qua li tät mit dem deut schen SF-8Ein Ver gleich der te le fo ni schen und po sta li schen Be fra gungs me tho de In epi de mio lo gi schen Stu di en ha ben sich po sta li sche und te le fo ni sche Be fra gungsme tho den be währt. Die Vor-und Nach teile die ser Me tho den sind viel fach be schrieben und für Aspek te der Re spon se, der Öko no mie und der Prak ti ka bi li tät gut belegt [1,2,3]. Deut lich kon tro ver ser dis kutiert wird die Fra ge, in wie weit die ver schiede nen Er he bungs me tho den zu äqui va lenten Be fra gungs er geb nis sen füh ren. Ge genstand der Be trach tung sind da bei die verschie dens ten Aspek te der Da ten qua li tät.Viel fach wird eine un ter schied li che Teilnah me be reit schaft be rich tet. Dies ist insbe son de re vor dem Hin ter grund teil nahme be ding ter Stich pro ben ver zer run gen be deut sam. So fin den sich Be rich te zu unter schied li chem Teil nah me ver hal ten beispiels wei se in Ab hän gig keit vom Al ter [4] und Ge schlecht [5] oder des so zio öko nomi schen Sta tus [6].Ein Vor teil te le fo ni scher Be fra gun gen liegt in der Voll stän dig keit von Da ten sät-zen; dies be züg lich zeich nen sie sich durch äu ßerst ge rin ge Miss in gra ten aus. Dement spre chend fin den sich für te le fo ni sche und po sta li sche Be fra gun gen nur in we nigen Stu di en ver gleich ba re Miss in gra ten [7,8], in der Mehr zahl der Stu di en er weist sich die te le fo ni sche Da te ner he bung der po sta li schen als über le gen [2,4,9].Zent ral bleibt da rü ber hi naus die Frage, wel chen mög li chen Ver zer run gen das Ant wort ver hal ten selbst un ter liegt. Un tersu chun gen zei gen, dass per sön li che Be fragungs me tho den po si ti ve re An ga ben zu Mor bi di tät, In an spruch nah me me di zi nischer Leis tun gen oder so zi al un er wünsch-tem Ver hal ten her vor ru fen kön nen als posta li sche Be fra gun gen [9,10,11]. Die se Beob ach tun gen wer den haupt säch lich auf die grö ße re An ony mi tät po sta li scher Befra gun gen zu rück ge führt. In ei ni gen an deren Stu di en wer den für un ter schied li che Be fra gungs mo di hin ge gen kei ne re le vanten Ver zer run gen im Ant wort ver hal ten fest ge stellt [7,8]. Die se un ein heit li che Befund la ge führt zu der Not wen dig keit, den Ein fluss un ter schied li cher Er he bungs metho den auf ge nau ab ge grenz te The men berei che und ver schie de ne Be fra gungs in strumen te ex pli zit em pi risch zu prü fen. Be sonders viel schich tig stel len sich mög li che Metho den ein flüs se auf kom ple xe Kon struk te wie die ge sund heits be zo ge ne Le bens qua lität (HR QoL) dar. Das Kon zept der ge sundheits be zo ge nen Le bens qua li tät um fasst bei der Be trach tung von Ge sund heit physio lo gi sche, emo tio na le, psy chi sche so wie so zia le Aspek te und hat sich als fes ter Bestand teil der Ge sund he...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.