Loading…
Comparability of in-person and web screening: Does mode affect what households report?
Household screening is common when information about characteristics of household members is needed for selection of survey respondents. When key characteristics have a low prevalence, or are oversampled, this can result in a large number of sampled households screened, many of which have no persons...
Saved in:
Published in: | PloS one 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0277017-e0277017 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c618t-8d8291dd5e63821162c18c113241a06fcd6197f9e278336c5f14637d27c480193 |
container_end_page | e0277017 |
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | e0277017 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 17 |
creator | Graber, Jessica E Williams, Douglas Clark, Jason |
description | Household screening is common when information about characteristics of household members is needed for selection of survey respondents. When key characteristics have a low prevalence, or are oversampled, this can result in a large number of sampled households screened, many of which have no persons selected. For in-person surveys this can be inefficient and costly, especially in an environment of declining response. A multimode design using a mail, push-to-web approach is an attractive alternative due to lower cost and high internet penetration. However, little is known about the comparable data quality properties between in-person and web modes. While in-person screening is considered a gold standard approach, respondents may fail to report household members and interviewers may unintentionally screen out reluctant respondents. Similarly, those self-responding sometimes fail to report unrelated household members or young children. In this study we compared in-person and web screening in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Households were randomly selected to complete a self-administered web screener and subsequently be screened by an interviewer during an in-person visit. We report on the comparability of household characteristics between modes to determine if web screening provides data equivalent to in-person screening. We examine time between the web and in-person screening to see if true change can account for differences. In the presence of conflicting data, we examine selection criteria based on the screening responses to see how inaccuracies affect selection status, or if inaccuracies or person omissions are systematically related to a specific mode. Approximately 93% (80/86) of households agreed on selection status between the web and in-person modes. Household composition matched fully for 84% (72/86) of households. These results indicate that web screening is a viable option enumerating households in population surveys. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0277017 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2730624079</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A724666056</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_e713b91d282d4413b55d7dd81fec7abe</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A724666056</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c618t-8d8291dd5e63821162c18c113241a06fcd6197f9e278336c5f14637d27c480193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkluL1DAUx4souK5-A8GCIPowYy5tkvFBWcbbwMKCl30NmeR0mqFNuknqut_ejFNlK_sgecjh5Hf-55JTFE8xWmLK8eu9H4NT3XLwDpaIcI4wv1ec4BUlC0YQvX_Lflg8inGPUE0FYyfF5dr3gwpqazubbkrflNYtBgjRu1I5U17Dtow6ADjrdm_K9x5i2XsDpWoa0Km8blUqWz9GaH1nYhlg8CG9e1w8aFQX4cl0nxbfP374tv68OL_4tFmfnS80wyIthBFkhY2pgVFBMGZEY6ExpqTCCrFGG4ZXvFkB4YJSpusGV4xyQ7iuBMo9nRbPjrpD56Oc5hAl4RQxUiF-IDZHwni1l0OwvQo30isrfzt82EkVktUdSOCYbnM5RBBTVdmua8ONETh3ytUWstbbKdu47cFocCmobiY6f3G2lTv_Q64YwRU5FPNyEgj-aoSYZG-jhq5TDvIMj3VX-UtFRp__g97d3UTtVG7AusbnvPogKs84qRhjqGaZWt5B5WOgtzovTWOzfxbwahaQmQQ_006NMcrN1y__z15cztkXt9gWVJfa6LsxWe_iHKyOoA4-xgDN3yFjJA87_2ca8rDzctp5-gtPhvJS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2730624079</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparability of in-person and web screening: Does mode affect what households report?</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><creator>Graber, Jessica E ; Williams, Douglas ; Clark, Jason</creator><contributor>Harris, Keith M.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Graber, Jessica E ; Williams, Douglas ; Clark, Jason ; Harris, Keith M.</creatorcontrib><description>Household screening is common when information about characteristics of household members is needed for selection of survey respondents. When key characteristics have a low prevalence, or are oversampled, this can result in a large number of sampled households screened, many of which have no persons selected. For in-person surveys this can be inefficient and costly, especially in an environment of declining response. A multimode design using a mail, push-to-web approach is an attractive alternative due to lower cost and high internet penetration. However, little is known about the comparable data quality properties between in-person and web modes. While in-person screening is considered a gold standard approach, respondents may fail to report household members and interviewers may unintentionally screen out reluctant respondents. Similarly, those self-responding sometimes fail to report unrelated household members or young children. In this study we compared in-person and web screening in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Households were randomly selected to complete a self-administered web screener and subsequently be screened by an interviewer during an in-person visit. We report on the comparability of household characteristics between modes to determine if web screening provides data equivalent to in-person screening. We examine time between the web and in-person screening to see if true change can account for differences. In the presence of conflicting data, we examine selection criteria based on the screening responses to see how inaccuracies affect selection status, or if inaccuracies or person omissions are systematically related to a specific mode. Approximately 93% (80/86) of households agreed on selection status between the web and in-person modes. Household composition matched fully for 84% (72/86) of households. These results indicate that web screening is a viable option enumerating households in population surveys.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277017</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Age ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Consent ; Cost control ; Data collection ; Ethnicity ; Evaluation ; Households ; Information management ; Interviews ; Literacy ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methods ; Nutrition ; People and Places ; Polls & surveys ; Quality management ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Response rates ; Screening ; Surveys</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0277017-e0277017</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c618t-8d8291dd5e63821162c18c113241a06fcd6197f9e278336c5f14637d27c480193</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2023-4413</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2730624079/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2730624079?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,882,25734,27905,27906,36993,36994,44571,53772,53774,74875</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Harris, Keith M.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Graber, Jessica E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Douglas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, Jason</creatorcontrib><title>Comparability of in-person and web screening: Does mode affect what households report?</title><title>PloS one</title><description>Household screening is common when information about characteristics of household members is needed for selection of survey respondents. When key characteristics have a low prevalence, or are oversampled, this can result in a large number of sampled households screened, many of which have no persons selected. For in-person surveys this can be inefficient and costly, especially in an environment of declining response. A multimode design using a mail, push-to-web approach is an attractive alternative due to lower cost and high internet penetration. However, little is known about the comparable data quality properties between in-person and web modes. While in-person screening is considered a gold standard approach, respondents may fail to report household members and interviewers may unintentionally screen out reluctant respondents. Similarly, those self-responding sometimes fail to report unrelated household members or young children. In this study we compared in-person and web screening in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Households were randomly selected to complete a self-administered web screener and subsequently be screened by an interviewer during an in-person visit. We report on the comparability of household characteristics between modes to determine if web screening provides data equivalent to in-person screening. We examine time between the web and in-person screening to see if true change can account for differences. In the presence of conflicting data, we examine selection criteria based on the screening responses to see how inaccuracies affect selection status, or if inaccuracies or person omissions are systematically related to a specific mode. Approximately 93% (80/86) of households agreed on selection status between the web and in-person modes. Household composition matched fully for 84% (72/86) of households. These results indicate that web screening is a viable option enumerating households in population surveys.</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Consent</subject><subject>Cost control</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Ethnicity</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Households</subject><subject>Information management</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Quality management</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Screening</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkluL1DAUx4souK5-A8GCIPowYy5tkvFBWcbbwMKCl30NmeR0mqFNuknqut_ejFNlK_sgecjh5Hf-55JTFE8xWmLK8eu9H4NT3XLwDpaIcI4wv1ec4BUlC0YQvX_Lflg8inGPUE0FYyfF5dr3gwpqazubbkrflNYtBgjRu1I5U17Dtow6ADjrdm_K9x5i2XsDpWoa0Km8blUqWz9GaH1nYhlg8CG9e1w8aFQX4cl0nxbfP374tv68OL_4tFmfnS80wyIthBFkhY2pgVFBMGZEY6ExpqTCCrFGG4ZXvFkB4YJSpusGV4xyQ7iuBMo9nRbPjrpD56Oc5hAl4RQxUiF-IDZHwni1l0OwvQo30isrfzt82EkVktUdSOCYbnM5RBBTVdmua8ONETh3ytUWstbbKdu47cFocCmobiY6f3G2lTv_Q64YwRU5FPNyEgj-aoSYZG-jhq5TDvIMj3VX-UtFRp__g97d3UTtVG7AusbnvPogKs84qRhjqGaZWt5B5WOgtzovTWOzfxbwahaQmQQ_006NMcrN1y__z15cztkXt9gWVJfa6LsxWe_iHKyOoA4-xgDN3yFjJA87_2ca8rDzctp5-gtPhvJS</recordid><startdate>20221031</startdate><enddate>20221031</enddate><creator>Graber, Jessica E</creator><creator>Williams, Douglas</creator><creator>Clark, Jason</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2023-4413</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221031</creationdate><title>Comparability of in-person and web screening: Does mode affect what households report?</title><author>Graber, Jessica E ; Williams, Douglas ; Clark, Jason</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c618t-8d8291dd5e63821162c18c113241a06fcd6197f9e278336c5f14637d27c480193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Consent</topic><topic>Cost control</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Ethnicity</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Households</topic><topic>Information management</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Quality management</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Screening</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Graber, Jessica E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Douglas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, Jason</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale in Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Graber, Jessica E</au><au>Williams, Douglas</au><au>Clark, Jason</au><au>Harris, Keith M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparability of in-person and web screening: Does mode affect what households report?</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-10-31</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0277017</spage><epage>e0277017</epage><pages>e0277017-e0277017</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Household screening is common when information about characteristics of household members is needed for selection of survey respondents. When key characteristics have a low prevalence, or are oversampled, this can result in a large number of sampled households screened, many of which have no persons selected. For in-person surveys this can be inefficient and costly, especially in an environment of declining response. A multimode design using a mail, push-to-web approach is an attractive alternative due to lower cost and high internet penetration. However, little is known about the comparable data quality properties between in-person and web modes. While in-person screening is considered a gold standard approach, respondents may fail to report household members and interviewers may unintentionally screen out reluctant respondents. Similarly, those self-responding sometimes fail to report unrelated household members or young children. In this study we compared in-person and web screening in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Households were randomly selected to complete a self-administered web screener and subsequently be screened by an interviewer during an in-person visit. We report on the comparability of household characteristics between modes to determine if web screening provides data equivalent to in-person screening. We examine time between the web and in-person screening to see if true change can account for differences. In the presence of conflicting data, we examine selection criteria based on the screening responses to see how inaccuracies affect selection status, or if inaccuracies or person omissions are systematically related to a specific mode. Approximately 93% (80/86) of households agreed on selection status between the web and in-person modes. Household composition matched fully for 84% (72/86) of households. These results indicate that web screening is a viable option enumerating households in population surveys.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0277017</doi><tpages>e0277017</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2023-4413</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0277017-e0277017 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2730624079 |
source | Open Access: PubMed Central; Publicly Available Content (ProQuest) |
subjects | Age Biology and Life Sciences Consent Cost control Data collection Ethnicity Evaluation Households Information management Interviews Literacy Medicine and Health Sciences Methods Nutrition People and Places Polls & surveys Quality management Research and Analysis Methods Response rates Screening Surveys |
title | Comparability of in-person and web screening: Does mode affect what households report? |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T05%3A20%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparability%20of%20in-person%20and%20web%20screening:%20Does%20mode%20affect%20what%20households%20report?&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Graber,%20Jessica%20E&rft.date=2022-10-31&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0277017&rft.epage=e0277017&rft.pages=e0277017-e0277017&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0277017&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA724666056%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c618t-8d8291dd5e63821162c18c113241a06fcd6197f9e278336c5f14637d27c480193%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2730624079&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A724666056&rfr_iscdi=true |