An Evaluation of the Effects of Interviewer Characteristics in an RDD Telephone Survey of Drug Use

Johnson, Timothy P.; Fendrich, Michael; Shaligram, Chitra; Garcy, Anthony M.; Gillespie, Samuel

doi:10.1177/002204260003000105

Cited by 40 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Johnson et al (42) found that increased social distance between respondent and interviewer (i.e. decreased respondent-interview similarity) decreased the probability of respondents reporting lifetime and recent substance use behaviour in a telephone survey.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of Adolescent Self-Report of Substance Use

Williams

Nowatzki

2005

Substance Use & Misuse

172

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The validity of self-report of substance use was examined in 367 adolescents referred for a substance use assessment between 1996 and 2000. Referrals came from a wide variety of sources, including pediatricians, the courts, social services, as well as self-referred by their parents. Average age of the sample was 15, 52% were male, and 82% were Caucasian. Adolescents were first asked about the details of their substance use by a clinician using a structured interview with established reliability and validity (Adolescent Drug and Alcohol Diagnosis). They were subsequently asked to provide a urine sample, a requirement they were unaware of when being interviewed about their substance use. If the urine sample was deemed valid by the laboratory technician it was analyzed by means of fluorescence polarization immunoassay and paper chromatography. If positive screens were obtained for any substance, the sample was subjected to gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for confirmation and quantification. Biochemical test results were compared to self-report. Overall, 28% (96/338) of the self-reports were not corroborated by urinalysis. Twenty-six percent (56/219) of adolescents who reported nonuse of a substance had a positive urinalysis. More surprisingly, 34% (40/119) of adolescents reporting substance use in the urinalysis detection window had a negative urinalysis. The present study found self-report of substance use in adolescents to only have fair validity. It is recommended that biochemical corroboration be routinely used for this population.KEY WORDS: urinalysis, adolescent, substance use, self-report, validity Validity of Self-Report 3 RÉSUMÉ La validité de l'auto-évaluation a été étudiée chez 367 adolescents qui se sont soumis à une évaluation au regard de l'utilisation de substance entre 1996 et 2000. Les références émanaient d'une grande variété de spécialistes, notamment les pédiatres, des décisions judiciaires, des données obtenues auprès de services sociaux et d'individus se présentant spontanément sous les conseils de leurs parents. L'âge moyen des participants était de 15 ans; parmi les participants, 52% étaient des hommes et 82% d'origine européenne. Un clinicien a d'abord interrogé les adolescents sur leurs habitudes d'utilisation de substance à l'aide d'un questionnaire détaillé reconnu (Adolescent Drug and Alcohol Diagnosis). On les a ensuite invités à fournir un échantillon d'urine, ce à quoi les adolescents n'avaient pas été informé au départ. Lorsque l'analyse, faite par un technicien de laboratoire, donnait un résultat positif, l'urine faisait ensuite l'objet d'examens plus poussés : polarisation de fluorescence, immunoessai et chromatographie sur papier. Si des résultats positifs étaient obtenus à l'égard de n'importe quelle substance, l'échantillon était alors soumis à la chromatographie en phase gazeuse et à la spectrométrie de masse afin de confirmer les résultats initiaux, de même qu'à une évaluation quantitative. Les résultats des tests biochimiques étaient ensuite comparés aux informa...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of Adolescent Self-Report of Substance Use

Williams

Nowatzki

2005

Substance Use & Misuse

172

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are two common approaches for analyzing interviewer effects: the Social Attribution Model and the Conditional Social Attribution Model (Fendrich et al, 1999;Johnson et al, 2000). In the first approach, interviewer characteristics have a direct effect on individual responses in the sense that -respondents evaluate interviewers and make inferences about their norms, values, and beliefs based upon their observable characteristics‖ and may -tailor their answers in an effort to elicit interviewer approval by conforming to their perceived expectations‖ (Fendrich et al, 1999).…”

Section: Williams 1964and1968)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The greater the social distance between respondent and interviewer, the more likely a respondent alters her answer to conform to the interviewer. Social distance is usually measured in terms of differences or similarities in the social identities of interviewers and respondents (Johnson et al, 2000). For instance, the social distance of an interviewer and a respondent is smaller when they are of the same gender.…”

Section: Williams 1964and1968)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interview Effects in an Environmental Valuation Telephone Survey

Gong

Aadland

2010

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Because of the lack of markets for many environmental services, economists have turned to valuation surveys to estimate the value of these services. However, lack of market experience may cause respondents in valuation surveys to be more prone to interview effects than they would be with other opinion surveys. Without reference to market price or experience, respondents are less likely to have well-defined preferences, which may cause respondents to be more easily influenced by the interview process and characteristics of the interviewer. In this paper, we investigate interview effects in a random digit dial telephone survey of recycling valuation and behavior. Following previous research in both psychology and survey methodology, we test the direct effects of interviewer gender and race, as well as the interaction effects between interviewer and respondent characteristics. Using data from 130 interviewers and 1,786 interviewees, we apply a hierarchical regression model that accounts for the clustering of interviews and controls for a variety of other confounding variables. We confirm the existence of both direct and conditional interviewer effects. Respondents state higher willingness to pay when interviewed by white or female interviewers than by non-white or male interviewers. There were also significant interaction effects between interviewer and respondent characteristics. The directions of the interviewer effects are consistent with previous survey research and social psychology theories. We also identify some non-traditional interview process factors that have an influence on survey responses.

show abstract

“…It is conceivable that the reason is a shorter social distance between the interviewer and the respondent, a hypothesis propounded by previous research (Kuebler and Hausser 1997, Johnson et al 2000, Williams and Nowatzki 2005. Another possibility is that the respondents did not try to hide certain sensitive behaviors from the PAIs since they, by virtue of their acquaintanceship, already knew that the PAIs had prior knowledge of them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A comparison of privileged access interviewing and traditional interviewing methods when studying drug users in treatment

Johnson

Richert

2016

Addiction Research & Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: Privileged Access Interviewing (PAI) has traditionally been used to reach illicit drug users and other 'hidden' populations. How PAI data compare to other self-reported data has seldom been discussed. We compare data from patients in opioid substitution treatment (OST), gathered through PAI and researcher interviews, respectively, to investigate whether PAIs and researchers are reaching comparable populations, and whether differences in answers are due to the sensitive nature of the questions.Methods: Structured interviews were conducted with 368 patients from nine OST clinics in three Swedish cities. 237 interviews were carried out by researchers, and 131 by nine PAIs (OST patients). Data were analyzed with χ 2 test, Fisher's exact test, t-test, and logistic regression analysis.Results: PAIs and researchers recruited comparable populations, with few differences in terms of individual, treatment, and social factors. However, self-reported behaviors revealed several significant differences. Alcohol consumption and drinking to intoxication was more commonly reported among patients interviewed through PAI (p<0.001 and p=0.001, respectively). Furthermore, the PAI group reported selling medication (p<0.001 last month, p<0.001 during treatment episode), and snorting buprenorphine (p=0.010 last month, p=0.001 during treatment episode) more frequently.Conclusions: PAI is a useful method in studies of illicit drug use and a valuable complement to more traditional interviewing methods. Specifically as regards revelations of a sensitive or controversial nature, PAI seems to produce different results than researcher interviews, and possibly also more truthful responses. PAI may have considerable potential as a datagathering method also when studying other, more easily accessible populations.

show abstract

An Evaluation of the Effects of Interviewer Characteristics in an RDD Telephone Survey of Drug Use

Cited by 40 publications

References 33 publications

Validity of Adolescent Self-Report of Substance Use

Validity of Adolescent Self-Report of Substance Use

Interview Effects in an Environmental Valuation Telephone Survey

A comparison of privileged access interviewing and traditional interviewing methods when studying drug users in treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About