4.6 Article

Importance of Survey Design for Studying the Epidemiology of Emerging Tobacco Product Use Among Youth

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 186, Issue 4, Pages 405-410

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwx031

Keywords

electronic cigarettes; hookah pipes; measurement; survey methodology; tobacco smoking; tobacco surveillance; youth

Funding

  1. New Jersey Department of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate surveillance is critical for monitoring the epidemiology of emerging tobacco products in the United States, and survey science suggests that survey response format can impact prevalence estimates. We utilized data from the 2014 New Jersey Youth Tobacco Survey (n = 3,909) to compare estimates of the prevalence of 4 behaviors (ever hookah use, current hookah use, ever e-cigarette use, and current e-cigarette use) among New Jersey high school students, as assessed using check-all-that-apply questions, with estimates measured by means of forced-choice questions. Measurement discrepancies were apparent for all 4 outcomes, with the forced-choice questions yielding prevalence estimates approximately twice those of the check-all-that-apply questions, and agreement was fair to moderate. The sensitivity of the check-all-that-apply questions, treating the forced-choice format as the gold standard, ranged from 38.1% (current hookah use) to 58.3% (ever e-cigarette use), indicating substantial false-negative rates. These findings highlight the impact of question response format on prevalence estimates of emerging tobacco products among youth and suggest that estimates generated by means of check-all-that-apply questions may be biased downward. Alternative survey designs should be considered to avoid check-all-that-apply response formats, and researchers should use caution when interpreting tobacco use data obtained from check-all-that-apply formats.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available