Comparison of two formats of the weekly recall and quantity-frequency alcohol measures

V.M.H.C.J. Lahaut, H.A.M. Jansen, D. van de Mheen, H.F.L. Garretsen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Aim
To compare data quality of two formats of the weekly recall measure (WR1 vs WR2) and the weekly quantity–frequency alcohol measure (QF1 vs QF2).
Design
Participants were randomly allocated to one of the four formats of alcohol measure.On aggregate level, formats were compared for mean number of alcohol units/drinking days and for item nonresponse. Respondents’ problems with completing the questionnaire were assessed by cognitive interviewing.
Findings
No differences in alcohol consumption were found between WR1 and WR2, and
item nonresponse was higher on WR2 than on WR1. QF2 yielded a higher mean number of drinking days/week than QF1 but no differences in number of units/week; QF2 had a higher item nonresponse rate than QF1. Most problems occurred in averaging and in reporting consumption according to the given instructions.
Conclusions
On an aggregate level, there were no differences in alcohol consumption
between WR1 and WR2, but WR2 had a higher likelihood of item nonresponse. According to the ‘more is better’ principle, QF2 is preferred, but also has a higher item nonresponse than QF1. Interviewing uncovered problems and misreporting that could not be revealed by comparing aggregate scores.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)164-169
JournalJournal of Substance Use
Volume8
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2003

Fingerprint

response behavior
alcohol
Alcohols
Alcohol Drinking
Drinking
data quality
alcohol consumption
instruction
questionnaire
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

@article{de48dd8120e1462096e3437070cb8485,
title = "Comparison of two formats of the weekly recall and quantity-frequency alcohol measures",
abstract = "Aim To compare data quality of two formats of the weekly recall measure (WR1 vs WR2) and the weekly quantity–frequency alcohol measure (QF1 vs QF2).Design Participants were randomly allocated to one of the four formats of alcohol measure.On aggregate level, formats were compared for mean number of alcohol units/drinking days and for item nonresponse. Respondents’ problems with completing the questionnaire were assessed by cognitive interviewing. Findings No differences in alcohol consumption were found between WR1 and WR2, anditem nonresponse was higher on WR2 than on WR1. QF2 yielded a higher mean number of drinking days/week than QF1 but no differences in number of units/week; QF2 had a higher item nonresponse rate than QF1. Most problems occurred in averaging and in reporting consumption according to the given instructions.Conclusions On an aggregate level, there were no differences in alcohol consumptionbetween WR1 and WR2, but WR2 had a higher likelihood of item nonresponse. According to the ‘more is better’ principle, QF2 is preferred, but also has a higher item nonresponse than QF1. Interviewing uncovered problems and misreporting that could not be revealed by comparing aggregate scores.",
author = "V.M.H.C.J. Lahaut and H.A.M. Jansen and {van de Mheen}, D. and H.F.L. Garretsen",
year = "2003",
doi = "10.1080/14659890310001600179",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "164--169",
journal = "Journal of Substance Use",
issn = "1465-9891",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "3",

}

Comparison of two formats of the weekly recall and quantity-frequency alcohol measures. / Lahaut, V.M.H.C.J.; Jansen, H.A.M.; van de Mheen, D.; Garretsen, H.F.L.

In: Journal of Substance Use, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2003, p. 164-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of two formats of the weekly recall and quantity-frequency alcohol measures

AU - Lahaut, V.M.H.C.J.

AU - Jansen, H.A.M.

AU - van de Mheen, D.

AU - Garretsen, H.F.L.

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - Aim To compare data quality of two formats of the weekly recall measure (WR1 vs WR2) and the weekly quantity–frequency alcohol measure (QF1 vs QF2).Design Participants were randomly allocated to one of the four formats of alcohol measure.On aggregate level, formats were compared for mean number of alcohol units/drinking days and for item nonresponse. Respondents’ problems with completing the questionnaire were assessed by cognitive interviewing. Findings No differences in alcohol consumption were found between WR1 and WR2, anditem nonresponse was higher on WR2 than on WR1. QF2 yielded a higher mean number of drinking days/week than QF1 but no differences in number of units/week; QF2 had a higher item nonresponse rate than QF1. Most problems occurred in averaging and in reporting consumption according to the given instructions.Conclusions On an aggregate level, there were no differences in alcohol consumptionbetween WR1 and WR2, but WR2 had a higher likelihood of item nonresponse. According to the ‘more is better’ principle, QF2 is preferred, but also has a higher item nonresponse than QF1. Interviewing uncovered problems and misreporting that could not be revealed by comparing aggregate scores.

AB - Aim To compare data quality of two formats of the weekly recall measure (WR1 vs WR2) and the weekly quantity–frequency alcohol measure (QF1 vs QF2).Design Participants were randomly allocated to one of the four formats of alcohol measure.On aggregate level, formats were compared for mean number of alcohol units/drinking days and for item nonresponse. Respondents’ problems with completing the questionnaire were assessed by cognitive interviewing. Findings No differences in alcohol consumption were found between WR1 and WR2, anditem nonresponse was higher on WR2 than on WR1. QF2 yielded a higher mean number of drinking days/week than QF1 but no differences in number of units/week; QF2 had a higher item nonresponse rate than QF1. Most problems occurred in averaging and in reporting consumption according to the given instructions.Conclusions On an aggregate level, there were no differences in alcohol consumptionbetween WR1 and WR2, but WR2 had a higher likelihood of item nonresponse. According to the ‘more is better’ principle, QF2 is preferred, but also has a higher item nonresponse than QF1. Interviewing uncovered problems and misreporting that could not be revealed by comparing aggregate scores.

U2 - 10.1080/14659890310001600179

DO - 10.1080/14659890310001600179

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 164

EP - 169

JO - Journal of Substance Use

JF - Journal of Substance Use

SN - 1465-9891

IS - 3

ER -