Skip to main content
PMC home page
Injury Prevention logoLink to Injury Prevention
. 2003 Jun;9(2):180–183. doi: 10.1136/ip.9.2.180

Validation of a home safety questionnaire used in a randomised controlled trial

M Watson 1, D Kendrick 1, C Coupland 1
PMCID: PMC1730946  PMID: 12810749

Abstract

Objective: To measure the validity of self reported safety practices from a questionnaire, completed by families participating in a home safety randomised controlled trial.

Methods: The postal questionnaire was used to measure secondary outcomes in a randomised controlled trial. The answers to 26 questions that could be assessed by observation were checked by a home visit. Families were invited to take part in a "home safety check"; they were not told that the visit was part of a validation study. At the time of the visit the researcher was blind to the self reports in the questionnaires.

Results: Sixty four questionnaires were validated by visits to 64 households. Percentage agreement ranged from 58% to 100%. Sensitivity was high (68% or above) for most safety practices. The positive predictive value was also high for most safety practices (78% or above for 15 of the 16 practices).

Conclusions: This study found a fairly high degree of consistency between self reported data and actual observations. The findings from this relatively small study need confirmation from larger studies.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (122.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Barton J., Bain C., Hennekens C. H., Rosner B., Belanger C., Roth A., Speizer F. E. Characteristics of respondents and non-respondents to a mailed questionnaire. Am J Public Health. 1980 Aug;70(8):823–825. doi: 10.2105/ajph.70.8.823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boström G., Hallqvist J., Haglund B. J., Romelsjö A., Svanström L., Diderichsen F. Socioeconomic differences in smoking in an urban Swedish population. The bias introduced by non-participation in a mailed questionnaire. Scand J Soc Med. 1993 Jun;21(2):77–82. doi: 10.1177/140349489302100204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brussaard J. H., Brants H. A., Bouman M., Löwik M. R. The study population: general characteristics and potential confounding factors. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997 Nov;51 (Suppl 3):S19–S24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Clamp M., Kendrick D. A randomised controlled trial of general practitioner safety advice for families with children under 5 years. BMJ. 1998 May 23;316(7144):1576–1579. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7144.1576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Douglas M. R., Mallonee S., Istre G. R. Estimating the proportion of homes with functioning smoke alarms: a comparison of telephone survey and household survey results. Am J Public Health. 1999 Jul;89(7):1112–1114. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.7.1112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ehnfors M., Smedby B. Patient satisfaction surveys subsequent to hospital care: problems of sampling, non-response and other losses. Qual Assur Health Care. 1993 Mar;5(1):19–32. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/5.1.19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Emberton M., Black N. Impact of non-response and of late-response by patients in a multi-centre surgical outcome audit. Int J Qual Health Care. 1995 Mar;7(1):47–55. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/7.1.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Etter J. F., Perneger T. V. Analysis of non-response bias in a mailed health survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Oct;50(10):1123–1128. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00166-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hill A., Roberts J., Ewings P., Gunnell D. Non-response bias in a lifestyle survey. J Public Health Med. 1997 Jun;19(2):203–207. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kendrick D., Hapgood R., Marsh P. Do safety practices differ between responders and non-responders to a safety questionnaire? Inj Prev. 2001 Jun;7(2):100–103. doi: 10.1136/ip.7.2.100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mickalide A. Threats to measurement validity in self reported data can be overcome. Inj Prev. 1997 Mar;3(1):7–8. doi: 10.1136/ip.3.1.7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nelson D. E. Validity of self reported data on injury prevention behavior: lessons from observational and self reported surveys of safety belt use in the US. Inj Prev. 1996 Mar;2(1):67–69. doi: 10.1136/ip.2.1.67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Newcombe R. G. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med. 1998 Apr 30;17(8):857–872. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<857::aid-sim777>3.0.co;2-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. O'Neill T. W., Marsden D., Silman A. J. Differences in the characteristics of responders and non-responders in a prevalence survey of vertebral osteoporosis. European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study Group. Osteoporos Int. 1995;5(5):327–334. doi: 10.1007/BF01622254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Parada M. A., Cohn L. D., Gonzalez E., Byrd T., Cortes M. The validity of self-reported seatbelt use: Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers in El Paso. Accid Anal Prev. 2001 Jan;33(1):139–143. doi: 10.1016/s0001-4575(00)00012-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Prendergast M. J., Beal J. F., Williams S. A. An investigation of non-response bias by comparison of dental health in 5-year-old children according to parental response to a questionnaire. Community Dent Health. 1993 Sep;10(3):225–234. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Robertson L. S. The validity of self-reported behavioral risk factors: seatbelt and alcohol use. J Trauma. 1992 Jan;32(1):58–59. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199201000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Schieber R. A., Sacks J. J. Measuring community bicycle helmet use among children. Public Health Rep. 2001 Mar-Apr;116(2):113–121. doi: 10.1093/phr/116.2.113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Scott I. You can't believe all that you're told: the issue of unvalidated questionnaires. Inj Prev. 1997 Mar;3(1):5–6. doi: 10.1136/ip.3.1.5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Shults R. A., Sacks J. J., Briske L. A., Dickey P. H., Kinde M. R., Mallonee S., Douglas M. R. Evaluation of three smoke detector promotion programs. Am J Prev Med. 1998 Oct;15(3):165–171. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00071-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Tennant A., Badley E. M. Investigating non-response bias in a survey of disablement in the community: implications for survey methodology. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1991 Sep;45(3):247–250. doi: 10.1136/jech.45.3.247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Vestbo J., Rasmussen F. V. Baseline characteristics are not sufficient indicators of non-response bias follow up studies. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992 Dec;46(6):617–619. doi: 10.1136/jech.46.6.617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Injury Prevention are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES