American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 146, No. 5: 429-438
Copyright © 1997 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
research-article |
Interviewer Effects in a Cohort Study
Results from the Massachusetts Women's Health Study
From theNew England Research Institutes Watertown, MA
Reprint requests to Dr. Catherine B. Johannes, New England Research Institutes, 9 Galen Street, Watertown, MA 02172
Although interviewer error is widely recognized as an important source of variation in epidemiologic investigations, scant published information exists documenting the impact of interviewer variation on study findings. Using data from the Massachusetts Women's Health Study, a population-based cohort study of 2,569 middle-aged women (1982–1987), the authors evaluated interviewer variation in responses to different types of questions, and assessed the impact of interviewer variation on inferences derived from study data. Respondent sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics were similar for the four study interviewers at the first follow-up. No interviewer variation was detected for questions concerning recall of specific events, but responses to questions regarding recall of subjective or personal information or those which required further probing did differ significantly by interviewer. Adjustment for interviewer effects had no impact on the conclusions obtained from one analysis of predictors of depression, despite significant interviewer variation in the outcome and predictor variables, but it did change conclusions from an analysis of the impact of support networks on psychological symptoms, wherein the interviewer variable was strongly related to the outcome after data were controlled for predictor variables. Given these findings, examination of data for interviewer effects is advisable despite incorporation of quality control measures in a study's design.
effect modifiers (epidemiology); epidemiologic methods; interviews; quality control
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. P. Vandenbroucke, E. v. Elm, D. G. Altman, P. C. Gotzsche, C. D. Mulrow, S. J. Pocock, C. Poole, J. J. Schlesselman, M. Egger, and for the STROBE initiative Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration Ann Intern Med, October 16, 2007; 147(8): W-163 - W-194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M Delgado-Rodriguez and J Llorca Bias J Epidemiol Community Health, August 1, 2004; 58(8): 635 - 641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N Summerton, S Mann, J Sutton, A Rigby, A Theakston, J Clark, H Williams-Hardy, and A Summerton Developing clinically relevant and reproducible symptom-defined populations for cancer diagnostic research in general practice using a community survey Fam. Pract., June 1, 2003; 20(3): 340 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A.-M. N. Andersen and J. Olsen Do Interviewers' Health Beliefs and Habits Modify Responses to Sensitive Questions? A Study using Data Collected from Pregnant Women by Means of Computer-assisted Telephone Interviews Am. J. Epidemiol., January 1, 2002; 155(1): 95 - 100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|