Are Telephone Surveys Suitable for Studying Substance Abuse? Cost, Administration, Coverage and Response Rate Issues

By McAuliffe, William E.; Geller, Stephanie et al. | Journal of Drug Issues, Spring 1998 | Go to article overview

Are Telephone Surveys Suitable for Studying Substance Abuse? Cost, Administration, Coverage and Response Rate Issues


McAuliffe, William E., Geller, Stephanie, LaBrie, Richard, Paletz, Susannah, Fournier, Elizabeth, Journal of Drug Issues


Substance-abuse telephone surveys have become increasingly popular; however, the methodological literature has focused solely on potential disadvantages of the method when compared to face-to-face surveys. Striving for greater balance, this paper examines the potential advantages (lower cost, greater security and privacy, and easier administration) and disadvantages (noncoverage, lower response rates, and lower validity). Existing evidence suggests that the disadvantages typically have a small impact on prevalence estimates. When there is a risk of substantial bias, researchers should employ available techniques for minimizing it. On balance, the telephone survey 's advantages appear to outweigh the disadvantages for many research problems, but enhanced designs are needed to realize the method's full potential in this substantive area.

Introduction

Telephone surveys are an increasingly popular method of estimating alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence in the general population (McAuliffe, Paletz, et al. 1996). At present, all states are regularly collecting alcohol-use data by telephone as part of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (Gentry et al. 1985; Remington et al. 1988; Bradstock et al. 1985; Gentry and CDC 1989). States are also collecting alcohol and drug use and use-disorder data as part of the State Needs Assessment Program sponsored by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) (Becker et al. 1993). Canadians have used telephone administration in 1989 and 1994 to conduct their national substance-abuse survey (Single and Wortley 1994; Sobell et al. 1996; Statistics Canada 1994), and many individual scientists have conducted national, state, and local telephone surveys (see McAuliffe, Paletz, et al. 1996 for a review). We estimate that approximately 700 telephone surveys that collected substance use and abuse data have been completed since 1967 (McAuliffe, Paletz, et al. 1996). Thus, it appears that telephone surveys have quietly become a commonly used form of substance-abuse interview survey.

Surprisingly, the most widely cited literature on related methodological issues (e.g., Johnson et al. 1989; Gfroerer and Hughes 1991; Aquilino 1992, 1994) has focused mainly on the disadvantages and limitations of telephone surveys for collecting drug-use data rather than on the advantages that have led to the increasingly widespread adoption of the method for substance-abuse studies. Citing several deficiencies of telephone surveys, these authors concluded that telephone interview surveys produced drug-use data that were less valid than data produced in face-toface interview surveys, especially the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (NHSDA). Two leading government officials concerned with drug abuse epidemiology, Gfroerer and Hughes ( 1991:391), concluded that, "...biases seem to be present in telephone surveys...which suggests that they may not be appropriate for collecting drug use data."

As a result, the growing use of telephone surveys for collecting drug-use data has been questioned. For example, in a comprehensive assessment of drug-abuse statistics for the federal government, the Rand Corporation expressed doubts about the CSAT decision to use telephone surveys in its needs assessment program (Ebener et al. 1994).

The most common criticism of telephone surveys of substance abuse is that their results are biased because they miss people without telephones, fewer people are willing to participate in telephone surveys than in face-to-face surveys, and people who participate in telephone surveys are more likely to underreport drug use than are people who participate in face-to-face surveys (e.g., LoSciuto et al. 1993). However, no publication that we could find has comprehensively examined the advantages and disadvantages of telephone surveys when compared to face-to-face substance-abuse surveys. …

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

Are Telephone Surveys Suitable for Studying Substance Abuse? Cost, Administration, Coverage and Response Rate Issues
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.