Health status and disability comparisons between CATI calendar and conventional questionnaire instruments

Robert F Belli, Sangeeta Agrawal, Ipek Bilgen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In comparison to conventional questionnaires, calendar interviews produce higher quality retrospective reports of factual information. This study sought to examine whether calendar interviews would also be advantageous in collecting retrospective reports of subjective assessment information. Respondents in a panel study were randomly assigned to either a calendar or conventional questionnaire method; both methods asked for retrospective reports on years in which disability was present and annual health status since young childhood. Panel data served as a source of validation for the retrospective reports. Both methods tended to underreport the number of years disabled and yielded mean levels of better annual health status in comparison to the panel reports. Calendar interviews demonstrated higher quality retrospective reports for disability in yielding a significantly stronger correlation in the frequency of years being disabled and in providing a greater number of years of higher annual correspondence with the panel data in comparison to the conventional questionnaire. Calendar interviews also demonstrated the ability to preserve the slope of change associated with aging as seen in the panel data, whereas the conventional questionnaire led to a significantly shallower slope of change. This latter finding could not be explained by the presence of an acquiescence bias.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)813-828
Number of pages16
JournalQuality and Quantity
Volume46
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2012

Fingerprint

Calendar
Disability
Questionnaire
health status
Health
disability
Panel Data
questionnaire
Annual
interview
Slope
childhood
Correspondence
ability
trend

Keywords

  • Health reports
  • Interviewing methods
  • Questionnaire design
  • Retrospective reports
  • Validation studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Statistics and Probability
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Health status and disability comparisons between CATI calendar and conventional questionnaire instruments. / Belli, Robert F; Agrawal, Sangeeta; Bilgen, Ipek.

In: Quality and Quantity, Vol. 46, No. 3, 01.04.2012, p. 813-828.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1b3106ea8d8d4355b190b4dc03aff219,
title = "Health status and disability comparisons between CATI calendar and conventional questionnaire instruments",
abstract = "In comparison to conventional questionnaires, calendar interviews produce higher quality retrospective reports of factual information. This study sought to examine whether calendar interviews would also be advantageous in collecting retrospective reports of subjective assessment information. Respondents in a panel study were randomly assigned to either a calendar or conventional questionnaire method; both methods asked for retrospective reports on years in which disability was present and annual health status since young childhood. Panel data served as a source of validation for the retrospective reports. Both methods tended to underreport the number of years disabled and yielded mean levels of better annual health status in comparison to the panel reports. Calendar interviews demonstrated higher quality retrospective reports for disability in yielding a significantly stronger correlation in the frequency of years being disabled and in providing a greater number of years of higher annual correspondence with the panel data in comparison to the conventional questionnaire. Calendar interviews also demonstrated the ability to preserve the slope of change associated with aging as seen in the panel data, whereas the conventional questionnaire led to a significantly shallower slope of change. This latter finding could not be explained by the presence of an acquiescence bias.",
keywords = "Health reports, Interviewing methods, Questionnaire design, Retrospective reports, Validation studies",
author = "Belli, {Robert F} and Sangeeta Agrawal and Ipek Bilgen",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11135-010-9415-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "813--828",
journal = "Quality and Quantity",
issn = "0033-5177",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Health status and disability comparisons between CATI calendar and conventional questionnaire instruments

AU - Belli, Robert F

AU - Agrawal, Sangeeta

AU - Bilgen, Ipek

PY - 2012/4/1

Y1 - 2012/4/1

N2 - In comparison to conventional questionnaires, calendar interviews produce higher quality retrospective reports of factual information. This study sought to examine whether calendar interviews would also be advantageous in collecting retrospective reports of subjective assessment information. Respondents in a panel study were randomly assigned to either a calendar or conventional questionnaire method; both methods asked for retrospective reports on years in which disability was present and annual health status since young childhood. Panel data served as a source of validation for the retrospective reports. Both methods tended to underreport the number of years disabled and yielded mean levels of better annual health status in comparison to the panel reports. Calendar interviews demonstrated higher quality retrospective reports for disability in yielding a significantly stronger correlation in the frequency of years being disabled and in providing a greater number of years of higher annual correspondence with the panel data in comparison to the conventional questionnaire. Calendar interviews also demonstrated the ability to preserve the slope of change associated with aging as seen in the panel data, whereas the conventional questionnaire led to a significantly shallower slope of change. This latter finding could not be explained by the presence of an acquiescence bias.

AB - In comparison to conventional questionnaires, calendar interviews produce higher quality retrospective reports of factual information. This study sought to examine whether calendar interviews would also be advantageous in collecting retrospective reports of subjective assessment information. Respondents in a panel study were randomly assigned to either a calendar or conventional questionnaire method; both methods asked for retrospective reports on years in which disability was present and annual health status since young childhood. Panel data served as a source of validation for the retrospective reports. Both methods tended to underreport the number of years disabled and yielded mean levels of better annual health status in comparison to the panel reports. Calendar interviews demonstrated higher quality retrospective reports for disability in yielding a significantly stronger correlation in the frequency of years being disabled and in providing a greater number of years of higher annual correspondence with the panel data in comparison to the conventional questionnaire. Calendar interviews also demonstrated the ability to preserve the slope of change associated with aging as seen in the panel data, whereas the conventional questionnaire led to a significantly shallower slope of change. This latter finding could not be explained by the presence of an acquiescence bias.

KW - Health reports

KW - Interviewing methods

KW - Questionnaire design

KW - Retrospective reports

KW - Validation studies

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84858442716&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84858442716&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11135-010-9415-8

DO - 10.1007/s11135-010-9415-8

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 813

EP - 828

JO - Quality and Quantity

JF - Quality and Quantity

SN - 0033-5177

IS - 3

ER -