A comparison of three survey methods to obtain data for community mental health program planning

Abstract

A perennial problem for mental health planners is assessing community needs and existing services. The three most common methods used to obtain this data are the telephone survey, the mail-out questionnaire, and the face-to-face interview. However, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with each approach in terms of sampling, response rates, and economic costs. The present study utilized all three methods to survey the same community population in order to determine the comparability of obtained data and relative efficacy of the methods. A standard 21-item questionnaire was developed to obtain demographic and epidemiological data. This included nine Likert-type items to obtain opionions on a typical question such as "To what extent would you have confidence in recommending the Mental Health Center to members of your immediate family?" In the first method, survey teams made door-to-door interviews to complete 449 questionnaires on a random sample. In the second method, 1,000 questionnaires were mailed to a random sample with returns requested. In the third method, 224 people were randomly selected from the telephone directory and asked to respond to the questionnaire over the phone. Precautions were taken in all methods to ensure confidentiality of responses. All respondents were classified according to a two-factor index based on occupation and education. The data were analyed to determine whether comparable data were obtained through divergent methods. Results are discussed and implications are given for community mental health planners.

Sampling procedures and sample representativeness in a national telephone survey: a Portuguese example

“…Fifteen percent were refusals and among eligible contacts the proportion of subjects not accepting to participate was 40%, confirming what has been described about difficulties in reaching participants and regarding the increasing resistance to telephone surveys (Boland et al 2006;Wilson et al 1999;Yang and Eyeson-Annan 2006). Although the number of non-replied calls was high, as previously reported in other settings (Hinkle and King 1978;Rogers et al 2004;Yang and Eyeson-Annan 2006), in our study there was an immediate replacement of all these numbers. The time spent with unsuccessful calls would be even higher if these calls had been repeated.…”

Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires

“…Two of these studies reported a significant mode effect: Weeks et al (1983) found that telephone respondents were significantly more likely to report that they had visited a dentist during the past 5. A number of past studies examined item nonresponse for questions that did not offer an explicit no-opinion response option (Greenfield, Midanik, and Rogers 2000;Groves and Kahn 1979;Hinkle and King 1978;Jordan, Marcus, and Reeder 1980;Kormendi 1988;Quinn, Gutek, and Walsh 1980;Saris and Kaase 1997). By definition, this behavior is not satisficing, so those studies are not relevant to testing the satisficing hypothesis.…”

Assessing Community Responsiveness in a Metropolitan Area

“…Many behavioral strategies could be employed to assess different aspects of an agency's responsiveness to citizen need (Hinkle and King, 1978). While the present study focused on the time to answer a phone, other possible tactics include (a) requesting specific information or services over the phone, (b) sending letters to ask for needed information, or (c) using confederates to request services when visiting agencies.…”