Show simple item record

The impact of survey mode on US national estimates of adolescent drug prevalence: results from a randomized controlled study

dc.contributor.authorMiech, Richard A.
dc.contributor.authorCouper, Mick P.
dc.contributor.authorHeeringa, Steven G.
dc.contributor.authorPatrick, Megan E.
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-12T17:24:41Z
dc.date.available2022-06-12 13:24:40en
dc.date.available2021-05-12T17:24:41Z
dc.date.issued2021-05
dc.identifier.citationMiech, Richard A.; Couper, Mick P.; Heeringa, Steven G.; Patrick, Megan E. (2021). "The impact of survey mode on US national estimates of adolescent drug prevalence: results from a randomized controlled study." Addiction 116(5): 1144-1151.
dc.identifier.issn0965-2140
dc.identifier.issn1360-0443
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/167490
dc.description.abstractBackground and AimsIncreasing numbers of school‐based drug surveys are transitioning data collection to electronic tablets from paper‐and‐pencil, which may produce a survey mode effect and consequent discontinuity in time trends for population estimates of drug prevalence. This study tested whether (a) overall, self‐reported drug use prevalence is higher on electronic tablets versus paper‐and‐pencil surveys, (b) socio‐demographics moderate survey mode effects and (c) levels of missing data are lower for electronic tablet versus paper‐and‐pencil modes.DesignA randomized controlled experiment.SettingResults are nationally representative of students in the contiguous United States.ParticipantsA total of 41 866 8th, 10th and 12th grade students who participated in the 2019 Monitoring the Future school‐based survey administration.Intervention and comparatorSurveys were administered to students in a randomly selected half of schools with electronic tablets (intervention) and with paper‐and‐pencil format (comparator) for the other half.MeasurementsPrimary outcome was the total number of positive drug use responses. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of respondents completing all drug questions, percentage of drug questions unanswered and mean number of missing drug items.FindingsThe relative risk (RR) for total number of positive drug use responses for electronic tablets versus paper‐and‐pencil surveys were small and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) included the value of one for reporting intervals of life‐time (RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.93–1.14), past 12 months (RR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91–1.11), past 30 days (RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93–1.20) and for heavy use (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.93–1.29). Multiplicative interaction tests indicated no moderation of these relative risks by race (white versus non‐white), population density, census region, public/private school, year of school participation, survey version or non‐complete drug responses. Levels of missing data were significantly lower for electronic tablets versus paper‐and‐pencil surveys.ConclusionsAdolescent drug prevalence estimates in the United States differed little across electronic tablet versus paper‐and‐pencil survey modes, and showed little to no effect modification by socio‐demographics. Levels of missing data were lower for electronic tablets.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherInter‐American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), Organization of American States (OAS)
dc.subject.otherAdolescent
dc.subject.otherexperiment
dc.subject.othernationally representative
dc.subject.othertablet
dc.subject.othersurvey mode
dc.subject.othersurveillance
dc.titleThe impact of survey mode on US national estimates of adolescent drug prevalence: results from a randomized controlled study
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Health
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPsychiatry
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167490/1/add15249.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167490/2/add15249_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/add.15249
dc.identifier.sourceAddiction
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAhumada G., Arneda J. C., Clarke P., Cumsille F., Hynes M. Report on Drug Use in the Americas 2019. Washington, DC: Inter‐American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), Organization of American States (OAS); 2019.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcClain C. A., Couper M. P., Hupp A. L., Keusch F., Peterson G., Piskorowski A. D. et al. A typology of web survey paradata for assessing total survey error. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2019; 37: 196 – 213.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCouper M. P., Kreuter F. Using paradata to explore item level response times in surveys. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc 2013; 176: 271 – 286.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSnijders T. A., Bosker R. J. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHeeringa S. G., West B. T., Berglund P. A. Applied Survey Data Analysis, 2nd edn. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinkelman R. Poisson Regression. Econometric Analysis of Count Data, 5th edn. Berlin: Springer; 2008, pp. 63 – 126.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiech R. A., Johnston L., O’Malley P. M., Bachman J. G., Schulenberg J. E., Patrick M. E. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2019: Volume I, Secondary School Students. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research; 2020.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKreuter F. Improving Surveys with Paradata: Analytic Uses of Process Information. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiech R. A., Johnston L., O’Malley P. M., Bachman J. G., Patrick M. E. Trends in adolescent vaping from 2017 to 2019—U.S. National Estimate. N Eng J Med 2019; 381: 1490 – 1491.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiech R. A., Patrick M. E., O’Malley P. M., Johnston L. D., Bachman J. G. Trends in reported marijuana vaping among U.S. adolescents, 2017–2019. JAMA 2019; 323: 475 – 476.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCullen K. A., Gentzke A. S., Sawdey M. D., Chang J. T., Anic G. M., Wang T. W. et al. E‐cigarette use among youth in the United States, 2019. JAMA 2019; 322: 2095 – 2103.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBachman J. G., Johnston L. D., O’Malley P. M., Schulenberg J. E., Miech R. A. The Monitoring the Future Project after Four Decades: Design and Procedures. Occasional Paper #82. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research; 2015.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUniversity of Michigan. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; 2019.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHallfors D., Khatapoush S., Kadushin C., Watson K., Saxe L. A comparison of paper vs computer‐assisted self interview for school alcohol, tobacco, and other drug surveys. Eval Program Plann 2000; 23: 149 – 155.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLucia S., Herrmann L., Killias M. How important are interview methods and questionnaire designs in research on self‐reported juvenile delinquency? An experimental comparison of internet vs paper‐and‐pencil questionnaires and different definitions of the reference period. J Exper Crim 2007; 3: 39 – 64.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaier D. Computer‐assisted versus paper‐and‐pencil self‐report delinquency surveys: results of an experimental study. Eur J Crim 2018; 15: 385 – 402.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGomes H. S., Farrington D. P., Maia Â., Krohn M. D. Measurement bias in self‐reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments. J Exper Crim 2019; 15: 313 – 339.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGnambs T., Kaspar K. Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self‐administered survey modes: a meta‐analysis. Behav Res Methods 2015; 47: 1237 – 1259.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCouper M. P., Tourangeau R., Marvin T. Taking the audio out of audio‐CASI. Public Opin Q 2009; 73: 281 – 303.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAquilino W. S., Wright D. L., Supple A. J. Response effects due to bystander presence in CASI and paper‐and‐pencil surveys of drug use and alcohol use. Subst Use Misuse 2000; 35: 845 – 867.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTurner C. F., Ku L., Rogers S. M., Lindberg L. D., Pleck J. H., Sonenstein F. L. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science 1998; 280: 867 – 873.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTourangeau R., Rasinski K., Jobe J. B., Smith T. W., Pratt W. F. Sources of error in a survey on sexual behavior. J Off Statis Stock 1997; 13: 341 – 366.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKraus L., Nociar A. ESPAD report 2015: results from the European School Survey Project On Alcohol and Other Drugs. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; 2016.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.