Public Opin Q. 2001 Spring;65(1):45-74. doi: 10.1086/320037.
The research reported in this article provides the first direct experimental comparison between Event History Calendar (EHC; N=309; 84.4 percent response rate) and standardized state-of-the-art question list (Q-list; N=307; 84.1 percent response rate) interviewing methodologies. Respondents and 20 interviewers were randomly assigned to EHC and Q-list interviews that were conducted via telephone in the spring of 1998. All interviews asked for retrospective reports on social and economic behaviors that occurred during the calendar years of 1996 and 1997. Using data from the same respondents collected 1 year earlier on events reported during 1996 as a standard of comparison, the quality of retrospective reports on 1996 events from the 1998 administration of EHC and Q-list interviews was assessed. In comparison to the Q-list, the EHC condition led to better-quality retrospective reports on moves, income, weeks unemployed, and weeks missing work resulting from self illness, the illness of another, or missing work for these reasons in combination with other ones. For reports of household members entering the residence, and number of jobs, the EHC led to significantly more overreporting than the Q-list. Contingent on additional research that examines a wider range of reference periods and different modes of interviewing, the EHC may become a viable and potentially superior method to the Q-list in the collection of self-reported retrospective information.
本文报告的研究对事件历史日历(EHC;N=309;84.4%的回复率)和标准化的最先进问题列表(Q-list;N=307;84.1%的回复率)采访方法进行了首次直接的实验比较。受访者和 20 名访谈者被随机分配到 EHC 和 Q-list 访谈中,这些访谈于 1998 年春季通过电话进行。所有访谈都要求受访者回顾 1996 年和 1997 年日历年内发生的社会和经济行为。使用 1 年前收集的来自同一受访者的关于 1996 年报告事件的数据作为比较标准,评估了 1998 年 EHC 和 Q-list 访谈中对 1996 年事件的回顾性报告的质量。与 Q-list 相比,EHC 条件导致了更好的回顾性报告,包括搬家、收入、失业周数和因病、他人疾病或因这些原因与其他原因结合而缺勤的周数。对于报告家庭成员进入住所和工作数量,EHC 比 Q-list 导致了明显更多的过度报告。在进一步研究检验更广泛的参考期和不同访谈模式的基础上,EHC 可能成为比 Q-list 更可行和潜在优越的自我报告回顾性信息收集方法。