4.6 Article

Agreement between web-based and paper versions of a socio-demographic questionnaire in the NutriNet-Sant, study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 56, 期 4, 页码 407-417

出版社

SPRINGER BASEL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s00038-011-0257-5

关键词

Internet; Socio-economical status; Epidemiology; Web-based questionnaire

资金

  1. French Ministry of Health (DGS)
  2. Institut de Veille Sanitaire (InVS)
  3. Institut National de Prevention et d'Education pour la Sante (INPES)
  4. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale (FRM)
  5. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (Inserm)
  6. Institut de Recherche en Sante Publique (IRESP)
  7. Institut National de la Rechereche Agronomique (Inra)
  8. Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers (CNAM)
  9. Paris 13 University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Web-based studies nowadays raise a major interest as they can improve all steps involved in observational studies. Our objective was to compare the web-based version of the NutriNet-Sant, self-administered socio-demographic and economic questionnaire with the traditional paper version. Both versions of the questionnaire were sent to 170 volunteers and filled in by 147 of them (either paper first, n = 76, or web-based first, n = 71). Agreement between versions was assessed by intraclass correlations (ICC) and kappas. Agreement between both versions was high, with ICC and kappas ranging between 0.81-1.00 and 0.76-1.00, respectively, similarly across groups of administration order, age, gender and self-estimated web knowledge in general. The web-based version was the one preferred by 93.7% of the subjects and enabled to avoid 553 missing values (2.00% of the total entries), 24 inconsistent data (0.09%), 8 aberrant data (0.03%), 472 data entry errors (0.85%) and to save 2,800 a,not sign (US $4,072) when sent to 170 subjects. The web-based socio-demographic and economic questionnaire provided information of similar-to-superior quality compared to the traditional paper version, with substantial logistic and cost advantages.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据