SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of different methods of collecting data: Mail, telephone and filter data collection issues in utility measurement

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When collecting data researchers can interview participants, conduct telephone interviews, or mailout questionnaires. Often mixed methods are used. Whether these methods produce equivalent data is under-researched in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) field. In addition, the effect of using filter questions has not been researched among HRQoL multi-attribute utility instruments. This study randomly sampled from Melbourne, Australia, and employed a test–retest design to investigate whether mail or telephone interview made any difference to Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument utility scores. A filter question AQoL version investigated the effect of filters on scores. There was no significant difference in standard AQoL scores between mail self-completion and telephone interview, regardless of which was administered first. Inclusion of filter questions encouraged respondents to select the best response category thereby screening out minor health conditions. The effect was to increase utility scores by 0.06 or 7%. This effect has not been previously reported in utility instruments and has profound implications for economic evaluations using cost-utility analysis; there are implications for researchers using filter questions in general. In conclusion, researchers should feel confident that utility scores elicited from the standard AQoL through self-completion mail and telephone interview administrations are directly comparable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brambilla DJ, McKinlay SM. A comparison of responses to mailed questionnaires and telephone interviews in a mixed mode health survey. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 126: 962–971.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Groves R. Response effects of the mode of data collection. In: Groves R (ed), Survey Errors and Survey Costs, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989; 501–579.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Groves RM, Biemer PP, Lyberg LE, Massey JJ, Nicholls WL, Waksberg J (eds), Telephone Survey Methodology, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Samsa GP, Landsman PB. Are health-related quality-of-life measures affected by the mode of administration? J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 135–140.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Neuman WL. Social Research Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Siemiatycki J. A comparison of mail, telephone, and home interview strategies for household health surveys. Am J Public Health 1979; 69: 238–245.

    Google Scholar 

  7. O'Toole Bl, Battistutta D, Long A, Crouch K. A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: Mail, telephone and personal home interview. Am J Epidemiol 1986; 124: 317–328.

    Google Scholar 

  8. de Vaus DA. Surveys in Social Research. 4th edn. London: Allen & Unwin, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hoinville G, Jowell R, Airey C, et al. Survey Research Practice. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Greiner DL, Addy SN. Sumatriptan use in a large group-model health maintenance organization. Am J Health-syst Pharm 1996; 53: 633–638.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dillman DA, Sangster RL, Tarnai J, Rockwood TH. Understanding differences in people's answers to telephone and mail surveys. New Dir Prog Eval 1996; 70: 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hill A, Roberts J, Ewings P, Gunnell D. Non-response bias in a lifestyle survey. J Public Health Med 1997; 19: 203–207.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brogger J, Bakke P, Eide G, Gulsvik A. Comparison of telephone and postal survey modes on respiratory symptoms and risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 2002; 155: 572–576.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Day NA, Dunt DR, Day S. Maximizing response to surveys in health program evaluation at minimum cost using multiple methods: Mail, telephone and visit. Eval Rev 1995; 19: 436–450.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wu AW, Jacobson DL, Berzon RA, et al. The effect of mode of administration on medical outcomes study health ratings and EuroQol scores in AIDS. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Weinberger M, Nagle B, Hanlon JT, et al. Assessing health-related quality of life in elderly outpatients: Telephone versus face-to-face administration. J Am Geriatr Soc 1994; 42: 1295–1299.

    Google Scholar 

  17. McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE. Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: Results from a national survey. Med Care 1994; 32: 551–567.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Galobardes B, Sunyer J, Anto JM, Castellsague J, Soriano JB, Tobias A. Effect of the method of administration, mail or telephone, on the validity and reliability of a respiratory health questionnaire. The Spanish centers of the European Asthma Study. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 875–881.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hox JJ, de Leeuw ED. A comparison of nonresponse in mail, telephone, and face-to-face surveys: Applying multi-level modeling to meta-analysis. Qual Quantity 1994; 28: 329–344.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Oppenheim AN. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London: Pinter Publishers, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bishop GF, Oldendick RW, Tuchfarber AJ. Effects of filter questions in public opinion surveys. Public Opin Q 1983; 47: 528–546.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Foddy W. Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Knauper B. Filter questions and question interpretation: Presuppositions at work. Public Opin Q 1998; 62: 70–78.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sterngold A, Warland RH, Herrmann RO. Do surveys overstate public concerns? Public Opin Q 1994; 58: 255–263.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hawthorne G, Osborne R, McNeil H, Richardson J. The Australian Multi-attribute Utility (AMAU): Construction and Initial Evaluation. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation. 1996. Working Paper 56.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Instrument: A psychometric measure of health related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 209–224.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day N, Osborne R, McNeil H. Construction and Utility Scaling of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Instrument. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation, 2000. Working Paper 101.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2nd edn. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fowler F, Gallagher P, Stringfellow V, Zaslavsky A, Thompson J, Cleary P. Using telephone interviews to reduce nonresponse bias to mail surveys of health plan members. Med Care 2002; 40: 190–200.

    Google Scholar 

  30. SPSS. SPSS for Windows. Chicago: SPSS Inc., 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day N, McNeil H. Using the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument. Melbourne: CHPE, 2000. Technical Report 12.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hawe P, Degeling D, Hall J. Evaluating Health Promotion: A Health Worker's Guide. Sydney: MacLennan & Petty, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kormendi E. The quality of income information in telephone and face to face surveys. In: Groves RM, Biemer PP, Lyberg LE, Massey JJ, Nicholls WL, Waksberg J (eds), Telephone Survey Methodology, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988: 341–356.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Boyle MH, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Hatcher J. Reliability of the Health Utilities Index-Mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian General Social Survey Health Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 249–257.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dorman P, Slattery J, Farrell B, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke 1998; 29: 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Stavem K. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Groves R. On the mode of administering a questionnaire and responses to open-ended items. Soc Sci Res 1978; 7: 257–271.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Osborne R, Hawthorne G, Papanicolaou M, Wegmuller Y. Measurement of rapid changes in health outcomes in people with influenza symptoms. J Outcomes Res 2000; 4: 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQol) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001; 33: 358–370.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hawthorne G, Richardson J. Measuring the value of program outcomes: A review of utility measures. Exp Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2001; 1: 215–228.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Drummond M. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 2001; 33: 344–349.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Richardson J. Cost utility analysis: What should be measured? Soc Sci Med 1994; 39: 7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Burdine JN, Felix MRJ, Abel AL, Wiltraut CJ, Muselman YJ. The SF-12 as a population health measure: An exploratory examination of potential for application. Health Serv Res 2000; 35: 885–904.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Graeme Hawthorne

Authors
  1. Graeme Hawthorne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hawthorne, G. The effect of different methods of collecting data: Mail, telephone and filter data collection issues in utility measurement. Qual Life Res 12, 1081–1088 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026103511161

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026103511161

Search

Navigation