Comparison of Two Within-Household Selection Methods in a Telephone Survey of Substance Abuse and Dependence

Purpose Random-digit dial telephone surveys often rely on the random selection of one respondent within the household. We compared a new method of within-household selection to a standard “next birthday” approach on selected survey process measures, respondent characteristics, and substantive result...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAnnals of epidemiology Vol. 17; no. 6; pp. 458 - 463
Main Authors Beebe, Timothy J., PhD, Davern, Michael E., PhD, McAlpine, Donna D., PhD, Ziegenfuss, Jeanette K
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Elsevier Inc 01.06.2007
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Purpose Random-digit dial telephone surveys often rely on the random selection of one respondent within the household. We compared a new method of within-household selection to a standard “next birthday” approach on selected survey process measures, respondent characteristics, and substantive results. Methods From October 2004 through June 2005, we conducted a survey of adults in Minnesota to obtain information about substance use and need for treatment. Control group respondents (n = 1944) were selected using the “next birthday” method, and experimental group respondents (n = 1086) were selected using a new method developed by Rizzo, Brick, and Park. We assessed group differences for survey process measures, such as the number of attempts to interview and the refusal, response, and cooperation rates. We also examined whether the groups differed in demographic factors, substance use, and mental health. Results The experimental group had higher rates of refusal and lower response and cooperation rates. Demographic factors and most measures of substance use and mental health did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions The experimental method of within-household selection developed by Rizzo and colleagues does not offer advantages over the classic “next birthday” method. Study limitations are discussed and opportunities for future research are identified.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1047-2797
1873-2585
DOI:10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.01.031