Estimates of Potential Bias in Telephone Substance Abuse Surveys Due to Exclusion of Households without Telephones

By McAuliffe, William E.; LaBrie, Richard et al. | Journal of Drug Issues, Fall 2002 | Go to article overview

Estimates of Potential Bias in Telephone Substance Abuse Surveys Due to Exclusion of Households without Telephones


McAuliffe, William E., LaBrie, Richard, Woodworth, Ryan, Zhang, Caroline, Journal of Drug Issues


This article reports estimates of the bias that may result in telephone substance abuse surveys because of the noncoverage of households without telephones. The study analyzed 1995-1998 data from the face-to-face National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Residents of households with telephones reported less drug use, less dependence on drugs and alcohol, but more alcohol use than residents of households without telephones. The resulting percentage differences between respondents with telephones and respondents in all households averaged one tenth of a percent (0.1%), and ratios of percentage estimates for all households to households with telephones averaged 1.04. The bias varied by substance, time frame, use versus dependence, and demographic characteristics. For example, use of marijuana ever had less bias than past year cocaine dependence. American Indians/Alaska Natives had the greatest amount of potential bias. For most populations and policy objectives, it may not be worth the added expense of conducting supplementary face-to-face interviews with residents of households without telephones in order to eliminate the bias.

INTRODUCTION

This study focused on the amount of potential noncoverage bias in telephone survey estimates of the alcohol and drug use and dependence that may result because telephone surveys fail to include households without telephones. Of the populations missed by a telephone survey, the largest group consists of residents of households without telephones (McAuliffe, Geller, LaBrie, Paletz, & Fournier, 1998). If the substance use disorder rate of residents of households without telephones differs from the rate of residents of all households, failing to adjust for this difference would result in bias if a telephone survey's estimates were generalized to the entire household population. This potential shortcoming of telephone surveys is of course widely recognized by scientists and lay persons, but few researchers can afford to eliminate it by conducting a face-to-face survey or a multi-mode survey that includes face-to-face interviews of households without telephones (McAuliffe et al.). To address the issue, authors of publications of the results of telephone substance abuse surveys routinely caution readers that there is a potential for bias due to noncoverage of households without telephones.

These caveats provide readers with little guidance to interpret a survey's results. The amount of bias depends upon the proportion of households without telephones and the size of the difference between rates for households with and without telephones. In the last decade, the national rate of households without telephones was between 5% and 6%. The most recent national estimate was 5.6% in 2000 (Belinfante, 2001). The median state rate was 5% in 1990 and 5.4% in 2000 (Bureau of the Census, 1994; Belinfante). In the most recent figures, the range for individual states was narrow: only two states had rates in excess of 10% (Mississippi 10.2% and Arkansas 11.4%) (Belinfante).

Because the telephone subscribership is so large in most places, the size of the difference between households with and without telephones would have to be substantial to cause a meaningful amount of bias for most purposes. For example, if a state's telephone noncoverage rate were 5% and the substance use disorder rate for the residents of households with telephones were 10%, the rate for residents of households without telephones would have to be 30%, or three times greater, in order to increase the estimated rate for residents of all households by one percent, that is, to 11%. If the difference in the substance abuse rate between households with and without telephones were much smaller than 30%, even though the difference was statistically significant, the amount of bias may be no more than a few tenths of a percent. Removing bias of this magnitude may not be important enough for many substantive questions to justify increasing the survey cost significantly. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Estimates of Potential Bias in Telephone Substance Abuse Surveys Due to Exclusion of Households without Telephones
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.