4.6 Article

Mode of delivery, but not questionnaire length, affected response in an epidemiological study of eating-disordered behavior

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 57, 期 11, 页码 1167-1171

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.017

关键词

postal surveys; questionnaire length; personal contact; response rates

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objectives: The effects of questionnaire length and mode of delivery on response rates were examined in an epidemiological study of eating-disordered behavior. Methods: Short (8 pages) and long (14 pages) questionnaires were posted or hand-delivered to a community sample of 802 women. Nonrespondents who received the first questionnaire by hand delivery received a reminder letter and replacement questionnaire by post; those who received the initial questionnaire by post were further randomized to receive the first reminder by hand delivery or by post, in short or long form. A second reminder letter and questionnaire (in short or long form) were posted to all remaining nonrespondents. Results: The overall response rate was 52.9%. This is a conservative estimate of true response, because in a substantial proportion of cases (12.2%) individuals were no longer resident at the listed address. There was a significant effect of mode of delivery on response, favoring hand delivery, at both the initial mailout and first reminder. There was no effect of questionnaire length on response to the initial mailout, although overall response was significantly higher for the longer form. It was estimated that an overall response of 58.0% would have been achieved had first reminders been hand-delivered to all nonrespondents who received the initial mailout by post. Conclusions: Delivery of questionnaires by hand may be an effective way to increase response rates in epidemiological research, but little is to be gained by reducing questionnaire length. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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