Dataset Information

Does modality of survey administration impact data quality: audio computer assisted self interview (ACASI) versus self-administered pen and paper?

ABSTRACT: In the context of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on HIV testing in the emergency department (ED) setting, we evaluated preferences for survey modality and data quality arising from each modality.Enrolled participants were offered the choice of answering a survey via audio computer assisted self-interview (ACASI) or pen and paper self-administered questionnaire (SAQ). We evaluated factors influencing choice of survey modality. We defined unusable data for a particular survey domain as answering fewer than 75% of the questions in the domain. We then compared ACASI and SAQ with respect to unusable data for domains that address sensitive topics.Of 758 enrolled ED patients, 218 (29%) chose ACASI, 343 chose SAQ (45%) and 197 (26%) opted not to complete either. Results of the log-binomial regression indicated that older (RR = 1.08 per decade) and less educated participants (RR = 1.25) were more likely to choose SAQ over ACASI. ACASI yielded substantially less unusable data than SAQ.In the ED setting there may be a tradeoff between increased participation with SAQ versus better data quality with ACASI. Future studies of novel approaches to maximize the use of ACASI in the ED setting are needed.

SUBMITTER: Reichmann WM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2806918 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does modality of survey administration impact data quality: audio computer assisted self interview (ACASI) versus self-administered pen and paper?

Reichmann William M WM Losina Elena E Seage George R GR Arbelaez Christian C Safren Steven A SA Katz Jeffrey N JN Hetland Adam A Walensky Rochelle P RP

PloS one 20100115 1

<h4>Background</h4>In the context of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on HIV testing in the emergency department (ED) setting, we evaluated preferences for survey modality and data quality arising from each modality.<h4>Methods</h4>Enrolled participants were offered the choice of answering a survey via audio computer assisted self-interview (ACASI) or pen and paper self-administered questionnaire (SAQ). We evaluated factors influencing choice of survey modality. We defined unusable data for a ...[more]

PMID: 20090953

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesPrior research has demonstrated that emergency department (ED) patient acceptance of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening is partially dependent on patients' self-perceived risk of infection. The primary objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI)-based feedback. The intervention aimed to increase patient's self-perceived risk of being HIV infected by providing immediate feedback on their risk behaviors.MethodsThis 1-year, randomized, controlled trial at a U.S. ED enrolled a random sample of 18- to 64-year-old subcritically ill or injured adult patients who were not known to be HIV infected. All participants completed an anonymous, ACASI-based questionnaire about their HIV risk behaviors related to injection drug use and sex, as well as their self-perceived risk for being HIV infected. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two study groups: an intervention group in which participants received immediate ACASI-based feedback in response to each of their reported risk behaviors or a no-intervention group without feedback. Participants were asked to indicate their level of HIV risk on a five-point scale before and after they answered the questions. Change in level of self-perceived HIV risk was calculated and compared by study group using Pearson's chi-square test. An HIV risk behavior score that summarized reported HIV risk behavior was devised. Because HIV risk behaviors differ by sex, scores were calculated separately for each sex. Linear regression models that adjusted for study group and same subject covariance were employed to determine if higher HIV risk behavior scores were associated with an increase in self-perceived HIV risk.ResultsOf the 566 trial participants, the median age was 29 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 22-43 years), 62.2% were females, and 66.9% had been tested previously for HIV. After answering the reported HIV risk behavior questions, 12.6% of participants had an increase, 79.9% had no change, and 7.5% had a decrease in self-perceived HIV risk. Of the 46.6% of participants who initially indicated that they were not at risk for HIV, 11.4% had an increase in self-perceived HIV risk after answering the reported HIV risk behavior questions. Change in self-perceived HIV risk did not differ by study group (p = 0.77). There were no differences in reported HIV risk scores between the intervention and no-intervention groups for females (p = 0.78) or males (p = 0.86). In the linear regression models, a greater increase in self-perceived HIV risk was associated with higher reported HIV risk behavior scores for females (beta = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.15, 1.04) but not for males (beta = 1.00, 95% CI = -0.13 to 2.14).ConclusionsSome ED patients can be moved, although modestly, to recognize their risk for being HIV infected by asking about their HIV risk behaviors. However, ACASI-based feedback messages about HIV risk behaviors do not increase subjects' self-perceived HIV risk. Female ED patients appear to increase their self-perceived HIV risk more than males when queried about their HIV risk behaviors.

Project description:BackgroundThe Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) is a prevalent face-to-face interview method for measuring quality of life by integrating respondent-generated dimensions. To apply this method in clinical trials, a paper-administered alternative would be of interest. Therefore, our study aimed to analyze the agreement between the SEIQoL-DW and a paper questionnaire version (SEIQoL-PF/G).MethodsIn a crossover design, both measures were completed in a random sequence. 104 patients at a heart surgery hospital in Germany were randomly assigned to receive either the SEIQoL-DW or the SEIQoL-PF/G as the first measurement in the sequence. Patients were approached on their earliest stable day after surgery. The average time between both measurements was 1 day (mean 1.3; SD 0.8). Agreement regarding the indices, ratings, and weightings of nominated life areas (cues) was explored using Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Agreement of the SEIQoL indices was defined as acceptable if the LoA did not exceed a threshold of 10 scale points. Data from n = 99 patients were included in the agreement analysis.ResultsBoth measures led to similarly nominated cues. The most frequently nominated cues were "physical health" and "family". In the Bland-Altman plot, the indices showed a mean of differences of 2 points (95% CI, - 1 to 6). The upper LoA showed a difference of 36 points (95% CI, 30 to 42), and the lower LoA showed a difference of - 31 points (95% CI, - 37 to - 26). Thus, the LoAs and confidence intervals exceeded the predefined threshold. The Bland-Altman plots for the cue levels and cue weights showed similar results. The SEIQoL-PF/G version showed a tendency for equal weighting of cues, while the weighting procedure of the SEIQoL-DW led to greater variability.ConclusionsFor cardiac surgery patients, use of the current version of the SEIQoL-PF/G as a substitute for the SEIQoL-DW is not recommended. The current questionnaire weighting method seems to be unable to distinguish weighting for different cues. Therefore, the further design of a weighting method without interviewer support as a paper-administered measure of individual quality of life is desirable.

Dataset Information

Does modality of survey administration impact data quality: audio computer assisted self interview (ACASI) versus self-administered pen and paper?

Publications

Does modality of survey administration impact data quality: audio computer assisted self interview (ACASI) versus self-administered pen and paper?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets