The Relative Costs and Benefits of Telephone Interviews Versus Self-Administered Diaries for Daily Data Collection

Marilyn J. Hoppe, Mary Rogers Gillmore, Danny L. Valadez, Diane Civic, Jane Hartway and Diane M. Morrison
Additional contact information
Marilyn J. Hoppe: University of Washington
Mary Rogers Gillmore: University of Washington
Danny L. Valadez: University of Washington
Diane Civic: University of Washington
Jane Hartway: University of Washington
Diane M. Morrison: University of Washington

Evaluation Review, 2000, vol. 24, issue 1, 102-116

Abstract: This article compares two methods of collecting daily data: self-administered diaries and telephone interviews. Study participants included 44 men and 56 women between the ages of 16 and 35 who participated in a larger study of drinking, drug use, and sexual activity. Participants were randomly assigned to either the written diary or the telephone interview conditions; question wording and format were identical in both conditions. Daily data were collected for a period of 8 weeks. Results indicate that although telephone interviews resulted in slightly more missed days of data collection, they generally yielded less item-level missing data, produced cleaner data and therefore were less costly to process, and were as palatable to participants as self-administered diaries. Except for reports of drinking and vegetable consumption, telephone and diary conditions did not differ in the amount of behavior reported; more drinking and vegetable consumption were reported with telephone interviews, however. Telephone interviews also imposed considerably higher overall personnel costs.

Date: 2000
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X0002400105 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:evarev:v:24:y:2000:i:1:p:102-116

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X0002400105

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().