Citation

Midanik LT, Greenfield TK, Rogers JD. J. Stud. Alcohol 2001; 62(1): 74-78.

Affiliation

Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, Berkeley, California, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2001, Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

11271967

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of mode of administration in alcohol surveys (telephone vs face-to-face interviews), prevalence rates of self-reported harms due to alcohol were compared for two datasets with equivalent measures. METHOD: Two national alcohol surveys were used: the 1990 Warning Labels Survey, in which random digit dialing was used to generate a sample of 2,000 adults interviewed by telephone, and the 1990 National Alcohol Survey (face-to-face interviews), a probability sample of U.S. adults living in households (N = 2,058). Both surveys included identical items on five areas of alcohol-related harm, yielding one composite index of any harm reported in the last 12 months that was compared between the two surveys for current drinkers. RESULTS: After controlling for demographic characteristics and alcohol use, the telephone survey yielded significantly higher rates of alcohol-related health harm, work harm and "any harm" as compared to the in-person survey. The interaction between heavier drinking (five or more drinks during 1 day, weekly or more often) and method of data collection was significant for health harm and any harm. Respondents in the telephone survey who drank 5+ less than weekly were more likely than those interviewed in person to report health harm due to alcohol use; those in the telephone survey who drank 5+ weekly or more often were more likely to report any harm. CONCLUSIONS: Possible explanations for differences between the surveys include anonymity and fewer social desirability issues associated with telephone surveys, as well as potentially differing cognitive requirements in telephone versus face-to-face interviews.

Language: en