4.1 Article

Electronic Versus Paper and Pencil Survey Administration Mode Comparison: 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH
Volume 92, Issue 8, Pages 804-811

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/josh.13184

Keywords

PAPI; electronic surveys; survey research methodology; survey mode; risk behavior; adolescent

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares the effects of electronic data collection and paper surveys on the results of surveys among adolescents. The results show that electronic surveys have more complete responses from students, although there are some differences in response rates between modes. There are only minor differences in adolescent risk behaviors between the two modes. Therefore, electronic data collection is acceptable.
BACKGROUND Since the inception of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System in 1991, all surveys have been conducted in schools, using paper and pencil instruments (PAPI). For the 2019 YRBSS, sites were offered the opportunity to conduct their surveys using electronic data collection. This study aimed to determine whether differences in select metrics existed between students who completed the survey electronically versus using PAPI. METHODS Thirty risk behaviors were examined in this study. Data completeness, response rates and bivariate comparisons of risk behavior prevalence between administration modes were examined. RESULTS Twenty-nine of 30 questions examined had more complete responses among students using electronic surveys. Small differences were found for student and school response rates between modes. Twenty-five of 30 adolescent risk behaviors showed no mode effect. CONCLUSIONS Seven of 44 states and DC participated electronically. Because survey data were more complete; school and student response rates were consistent; and minor differences existed in risk behaviors between modes, the acceptability of collecting data electronically was demonstrated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available