Livingston Melvin D, Komro Kelli A, Wagenaar Alexander C
Department of Health Outcomes & Policy and Institute for Child Health Policy, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015 Apr;39(4):710-5. doi: 10.1111/acer.12659. Epub 2015 Mar 9.
We examined differences in response to self-reported alcohol use items by survey mode, whether self-report differences were the result of modality effects or self-selection, and whether these differences varied across the treatment and control arms of a preventative intervention trial.
Data from an existing alcohol prevention trial were used to estimate the effect of survey modality on adolescent's self-reported alcohol use at ages 17 to 18. Estimates were derived from regression models controlling for self-reported alcohol use during 8th grade, measured using a single survey modality, as well as time invariant selection factors.
No statistically significant survey modality effects were found. No differential effects of survey modality were observed by assigned intervention group.
We provide initial evidence that adolescent alcohol prevention trials may use multiple survey modalities when necessary to increase response rates without harming interpretation of intervention effects.
我们通过调查方式研究了自我报告饮酒项目的反应差异，自我报告差异是模态效应还是自我选择的结果，以及这些差异在预防性干预试验的治疗组和对照组中是否有所不同。
利用现有酒精预防试验的数据来估计调查方式对17至18岁青少年自我报告饮酒情况的影响。估计值来自回归模型，该模型控制了八年级时使用单一调查方式测量的自我报告饮酒情况以及时间不变的选择因素。
未发现具有统计学意义的调查方式效应。按指定干预组未观察到调查方式的差异效应。
我们提供了初步证据，表明青少年酒精预防试验在必要时可使用多种调查方式，以提高回复率，同时不影响对干预效果的解释。
