Grant K A, Arciniega L T, Tonigan J S, Miller W R, Meyers R J
Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque 87131-1161, USA.
Addiction. 1997 May;92(5):601-6.
When follow-up interviews are missed, researchers sometimes try to reconstruct the data that would have been obtained by asking clients to recall the missed interval when they are interviewed at a later point. Are such data reliable? The reliability of remote reconstruction was estimated by asking 57 participants in a clinical trial to recall their drinking for the 12-month follow-up interval when interviewed, on average, 33 weeks later. These reports were obtained after delays averaging 231 days. These reconstructed reports were compared with the same clients' self-reports obtained during the 12-month interview. Reconstructed data were found to be reasonably accurate estimates of clients' reports at the time of original interview on global alcohol use variables including percentage of drinking days and total volume of consumption. No systematic bias was found for over-reporting or under-reporting at the point of reconstruction. However, on some variables (e.g. total drinks consumed), clients on average reported more drinking at the reconstruction period than during the initial interview. Discrepancies between initial and reconstructed reports were found to be unrelated to the length of delay in the second interview or to client characteristics.
当随访访谈缺失时，研究人员有时会尝试通过让客户在之后接受访谈时回忆缺失的时间段来重建本应获取的数据。这些数据可靠吗？通过要求一项临床试验中的57名参与者在平均33周后接受访谈时回忆他们在12个月随访期间的饮酒情况，来估计远程重建的可靠性。这些报告是在平均延迟231天后获得的。将这些重建报告与同一客户在12个月访谈期间获得的自我报告进行比较。研究发现，对于包括饮酒天数百分比和总消费量在内的总体酒精使用变量，重建数据是对客户在原始访谈时报告的合理准确估计。在重建时未发现系统的高估或低估偏差。然而，在一些变量上（例如饮用的饮料总量），客户在重建期间平均报告的饮酒量比初次访谈时更多。发现初次报告与重建报告之间的差异与第二次访谈的延迟时间长短或客户特征无关。
