Effects of phone versus mail survey methods on the measurement of health-related quality of life and emotional and behavioural problems in adolescents.
BACKGROUND
Telephone interviews have become established as an alternative to traditional mail surveys for collecting epidemiological data in public health research. However, the use of telephone and mail surveys raises the question of to what extent the results of different data collection methods deviate from one another. We therefore set out to study possible differences in using telephone and mail survey methods to measure health-related quality of life and emotional and behavioural problems in children and adolescents.


METHODS
A total of 1700 German children aged 8-18 years and their parents were interviewed randomly either by telephone or by mail. Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and mental health problems (MHP) were assessed using the KINDL-R Quality of Life instrument and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) children's self-report and parent proxy report versions. Mean Differences ("d" effect size) and differences in Cronbach alpha were examined across modes of administration. Pearson correlation between children's and parents' scores was calculated within a multi-trait-multi-method (MTMM) analysis and compared across survey modes using Fisher-Z transformation.


RESULTS
Telephone and mail survey methods resulted in similar completion rates and similar socio-demographic and socio-economic makeups of the samples. Telephone methods resulted in more positive self- and parent proxy reports of children's HRQoL (SMD < or = 0.27) and MHP (SMD < or = 0.32) on many scales. For the phone administered KINDL, lower Cronbach alpha values (self/proxy Total: 0.79/0.84) were observed (mail survey self/proxy Total: 0.84/0.87). KINDL MTMM results were weaker for the phone surveys: mono-trait-multi-method mean r = 0.31 (mail: r = 0.45); multi-trait-mono-method mean (self/parents) r = 0.29/0.36 (mail: r = 0.34/0.40); multi-trait-multi-method mean r = 0.14 (mail: r = 0.21). Weaker MTMM results were also observed for the phone administered SDQ: mono-trait-multi-method mean r = 0.32 (mail: r = 0.40); multi-trait-mono-method mean (self/parents) r = 0.24/0.30 (mail: r = 0.20/0.32); multi-trait-multi-method mean r = 0.14 (mail = 0.14). The SDQ classification into borderline and abnormal for some scales was affected by the method (OR = 0.36-1.55).


CONCLUSIONS
The observed differences between phone and mail surveys are small but should be regarded as relevant in certain settings. Therefore, while both methods are valid, some changes are necessary. The weaker reliability and MTMM validity associated with phone methods necessitates improved phone adaptations of paper and pencil questionnaires. The effects of phone versus mail survey modes are partly different across constructs/measures.
Erhart
Michael
M
Department of Psychosomatics in Children, Center for Obstetrics and Pediatrics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Building W 29, Martinistr 52, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany. m.erhart@uke.de
Wetzel
Ralf M
RM
Krügel
André
A
Ravens-Sieberer
Ulrike
U
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D003625:Data Collection / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000453:epidemiology*; D010290:Parents; D011177:Postal Service; D019727:Proxy / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011594:Psychometrics; D011788:Quality of Life; D012647:Self-Assessment; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013689:Telephone