Abstract
Objectives: To examine divergent estimates of smoking prevalence in two random digit dial surveys for the same population. Based upon internal and external reviews of survey procedures, differences in survey introductions (general health versus tobacco specific introduction) and/or differences in the use of filter questions were identified as the most likely explanations. This prompted an experiment designed to investigate these potential sources of measurement error.
Design: A randomised 2 x 2 factorial experiment.
Setting: A random digit dial telephone survey from July to September 2000.
Subjects: 3996 adult Californian respondents.
Main outcome measures: A series of smoking prevalence questions in the context of a tobacco or general health survey.
Results: Logistic regression analyses suggest that, among females, prior knowledge (from the survey introduction) that a survey is concerned with tobacco use may decrease self reported smoking prevalence (approximately 4% absolute prevalence difference). Differences in the use of filter questions resulted in almost no misclassification of respondents.
Conclusions: The tobacco specific survey introduction is causing some smokers to deny their tobacco use. The data suggest that these smokers tend to be women that smoked occasionally. A desire by the participants to minimise their personal time costs or a growing social disapproval of tobacco use in the USA may be contributing to the creation of previously undetected survey artefacts in the measurement of tobacco related behaviours.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (157.1 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Biglan A., Severson H., Ary D., Faller C., Gallison C., Thompson R., Glasgow R., Lichtenstein E. Do smoking prevention programs really work? Attrition and the internal and external validity of an evaluation of a refusal skills training program. J Behav Med. 1987 Apr;10(2):159–171. doi: 10.1007/BF00846424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Comstock G. W., Helsing K. J. Characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents to a questionnaire for estimating community mood. Am J Epidemiol. 1973 Apr;97(4):233–239. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a121504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cottler L. B., Zipp J. F., Robins L. N., Spitznagel E. L. Difficult-to-recruit respondents and their effect on prevalence estimates in an epidemiologic survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 Feb;125(2):329–339. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hansen W. B., Collins L. M., Malotte C. K., Johnson C. A., Fielding J. E. Attrition in prevention research. J Behav Med. 1985 Sep;8(3):261–275. doi: 10.1007/BF00870313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hatziandreu E. J., Pierce J. P., Fiore M. C., Grise V., Novotny T. E., Davis R. M. The reliability of self-reported cigarette consumption in the United States. Am J Public Health. 1989 Aug;79(8):1020–1023. doi: 10.2105/ajph.79.8.1020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Patrick D. L., Cheadle A., Thompson D. C., Diehr P., Koepsell T., Kinne S. The validity of self-reported smoking: a review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 1994 Jul;84(7):1086–1093. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.7.1086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Strecher V. J., Becker M. H., Clark N. M., Prasada-Rao P. Using patients' descriptions of alcohol consumption, diet, medication compliance, and cigarette smoking: the validity of self-reports in research and practice. J Gen Intern Med. 1989 Mar-Apr;4(2):160–166. doi: 10.1007/BF02602359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Velicer W. F., Prochaska J. O., Rossi J. S., Snow M. G. Assessing outcome in smoking cessation studies. Psychol Bull. 1992 Jan;111(1):23–41. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]