Literature DB >> 11207159

Is shorter always better? Relative importance of questionnaire length and cognitive ease on response rates and data quality for two dietary questionnaires.

A F Subar1, R G Ziegler, F E Thompson, C C Johnson, J L Weissfeld, D Reding, K H Kavounis, R B Hayes.   

Abstract

In this study, the authors sought to determine the effects of length and clarity on response rates and data quality for two food frequency questionnaires (FFQs): the newly developed 36-page Diet History Questionnaire (DHQ), designed to be cognitively easier for respondents, and a 16-page FFQ developed earlier for the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The PLCO Trial is a 23-year randomized controlled clinical trial begun in 1992. The sample for this substudy, which was conducted from January to April of 1998, consisted of 900 control and 450 screened PLCO participants aged 55-74 years. Controls received either the DHQ or the PLCO FFQ by mail. Screenees, who had previously completed the PLCO FFQ at baseline, were administered the DHQ. Among controls, the response rate for both FFQs was 82%. Average amounts of time needed by controls to complete the DHQ and the PLCO FFQ were 68 minutes and 39 minutes, respectively. Percentages of missing or uninterpretable responses were similar between instruments for questions on frequency of intake but were approximately 3 and 9 percentage points lower (p < or = 0.001) in the DHQ for questions on portion size and use of vitamin/mineral supplements, respectively. Among screenees, response rates for the DHQ and the PLCO FFQ were 84% and 89%, respectively, and analyses of questions on portion size and supplement use showed few differences. These data indicated that the shorter FFQ was not better from the perspective of response rate and data quality, and that clarity and ease of administration may compensate for questionnaire length.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11207159     DOI: 10.1093/aje/153.4.404

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  43 in total

1.  Non-response and related factors in a nation-wide health survey.

Authors:  K Korkeila; S Suominen; J Ahvenainen; A Ojanlatva; P Rautava; H Helenius; M Koskenvuo
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Evaluation of a Brief Survey Instrument for Assessing Subtle Differences in Cognitive Function Among Older Adults.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Philip Schumm; David W Kern; Martha K McClintock; Linda J Waite; Joseph W Shega; Megan J Huisingh-Scheetz; William Dale
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.703

3.  Multiple measures of physical activity, dietary habits and weight status in African American and Hispanic or Latina women.

Authors:  Rebecca E Lee; Scherezade K Mama; Ashley V Medina; Jacqueline Y Reese-Smith; Jorge A Banda; Charles S Layne; Meggin Baxter; Daniel P O'Connor; Lorna McNeill; Paul A Estabrooks
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2011-12

4.  Association of Coffee Consumption With Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality in a Large US Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Erikka Loftfield; Neal D Freedman; Barry I Graubard; Kristin A Guertin; Amanda Black; Wen-Yi Huang; Fatma M Shebl; Susan T Mayne; Rashmi Sinha
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Alcohol and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: an analysis of etiological heterogeneity by multiple tumor characteristics.

Authors:  Roni T Falk; Paige Maas; Catherine Schairer; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Jerome E Mabie; Christopher Cunningham; Saundra S Buys; Claudine Isaacs; Regina G Ziegler
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Dietary fatty acids and pancreatic cancer in the NIH-AARP diet and health study.

Authors:  Anne C M Thiébaut; Li Jiao; Debra T Silverman; Amanda J Cross; Frances E Thompson; Amy F Subar; Albert R Hollenbeck; Arthur Schatzkin; Rachael Z Stolzenberg-Solomon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-06-26       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Considerations on an approach for establishing a framework for bioactive food components.

Authors:  Kathleen Ellwood; Douglas A Balentine; Johanna T Dwyer; John W Erdman; P Courtney Gaine; Catherine L Kwik-Uribe
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 8.701

8.  Nutritional metabolomics and breast cancer risk in a prospective study.

Authors:  Mary C Playdon; Regina G Ziegler; Joshua N Sampson; Rachael Stolzenberg-Solomon; Henry J Thompson; Melinda L Irwin; Susan T Mayne; Robert N Hoover; Steven C Moore
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 7.045

9.  Shortening a survey and using alternative forms of prenotification: impact on response rate and quality.

Authors:  Timothy J Beebe; Enrique Rey; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah Jenkins; Kandace Lackore; Nicholas J Talley; Richard G Locke
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Associations between food patterns defined by cluster analysis and colorectal cancer incidence in the NIH-AARP diet and health study.

Authors:  E Wirfält; D Midthune; J Reedy; P Mitrou; A Flood; A F Subar; M Leitzmann; T Mouw; A R Hollenbeck; A Schatzkin; V Kipnis
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2008-08-06       Impact factor: 4.016

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.