American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access published online on September 12, 2006
American Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/aje/kwj310
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Use of random-digit dialing (RDD) for conducting health surveys is increasingly problematic because of declining participation rates and eroding frame coverage. Alternative survey modes and sampling frames may improve response rates and increase the validity of survey estimates. In a 2005 pilot study conducted in six states as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the authors administered a mail survey to selected household members sampled from addresses in a US Postal Service database. The authors compared estimates based on data from the completed mail surveys (n = 3,010) with those from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone surveys (n = 18,780). The mail survey data appeared reasonably complete, and estimates based on data from the two survey modes were largely equivalent. Differences found, such as differences in the estimated prevalences of binge drinking (mail = 20.3%, telephone = 13.1%) or behaviors linked to human immunodeficiency virus transmission (mail = 7.1%, telephone = 4.2%), were consistent with previous research showing that, for questions about sensitive behaviors, self-administered surveys generally produce higher estimates than interviewer-administered surveys. The mail survey also provided access to cell-phone-only households and households without telephones, which cannot be reached by means of standard RDD surveys.
Received February 9, 2006
Accepted April 12, 2006
PRACTICE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Address-based versus Random-Digit-Dial Surveys: Comparison of Key Health and Risk Indicators
Michael W. Link 1 *, Michael P. Battaglia 2, Martin R. Frankel 3, Larry Osborn 2, and Ali H. Mokdad 1
2 Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA
3 Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA; Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, NY
Michael W. Link, E-mail: mlink{at}cdc.gov
Abstract 
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. J. Blumberg and J. V. Luke Reevaluating the Need for Concern Regarding Noncoverage Bias in Landline Surveys Am J Public Health, October 1, 2009; 99(10): 1806 - 1810. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. P. Battaglia, M. W. Link, M. R. Frankel, L. Osborn, and A. H. Mokdad An Evaluation of Respondent Selection Methods for Household Mail Surveys Public Opin Q, September 1, 2008; 72(3): 459 - 469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. W. Link, M. P. Battaglia, M. R. Frankel, L. Osborn, and A. H. Mokdad A Comparison of Address-Based Sampling (ABS) Versus Random-Digit Dialing (RDD) for General Population Surveys Public Opin Q, March 1, 2008; 72(1): 6 - 27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|