Rosenbaum Alan, Rabenhorst Mandy M, Reddy Madhavi K, Fleming Matthew T, Howells Nicolette L
Northern Illinois University, Department of Psychology, DeKalb 60115, USA.
Violence Vict. 2006 Aug;21(4):461-71.
Insufficient attention has been paid to whether disclosure rates of sensitive or stigmatizing information vary as a function of method of inquiry. Methods vary both in terms of the anonymity afforded the participant and the opportunity to make a connection with the researcher, both of which might affect participants' willingness to disclose such information. In this investigation, 215 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to complete identical questionnaires using one of the three most common methods of data collection (in-person interview, telephone interview, and paper-and-pencil questionnaire) or an automated telephonic data collection (ATDC) system. Questions on six topic areas of increasing social sensitivity (study habits, substance use, physical and sexual aggression, victimization and perpetration) were included. The results indicated that there were no differences in disclosure rates due to methods and no method by topic interaction, but the two telephonic methods both produced significantly higher participation rates than the two other methods. The results suggest that, at least for a college student sample, an automated telephonic system produces data comparable to that of more traditional methods, while offering greater convenience, economy, and participation.
对于敏感或污名化信息的披露率是否会因询问方式的不同而有所变化,人们尚未给予足够的关注。询问方式在给予参与者的匿名程度以及与研究者建立联系的机会方面存在差异,而这两者都可能影响参与者披露此类信息的意愿。在这项调查中,215名本科生被随机分配,使用三种最常见的数据收集方法之一(面对面访谈、电话访谈和纸笔问卷)或自动电话数据收集(ATDC)系统来完成相同的问卷。问卷包含了六个社会敏感度不断增加的主题领域的问题(学习习惯、物质使用、身体和性侵犯、受害和犯罪)。结果表明,由于方法不同,披露率没有差异,且方法与主题之间没有交互作用,但两种电话调查方法的参与率均显著高于其他两种方法。结果表明,至少对于大学生样本而言,自动电话系统产生的数据与更传统方法的数据相当,同时具有更大的便利性、经济性和参与度。