IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v24y2000i1p102-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Marilyn J. Hoppe & Mary Rogers Gillmore & Danny L. Valadez & Diane Civic & Jane Hartway & Diane M. Morrison, 2000. "The Relative Costs and Benefits of Telephone Interviews Versus Self-Administered Diaries for Daily Data Collection," Evaluation Review, , vol. 24(1), pages 102-116, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:24:y:2000:i:1:p:102-116
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X0002400105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X0002400105
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X0002400105?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:24:y:2000:i:1:p:102-116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.