Reports of alcohol-related harm: telephone versus face-to-face interviews.

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.