BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The effects of questionnaire length and mode of delivery on response rates were examined in an epidemiological study of eating-disordered behavior. METHODS: Short (8 pages) and long (14 pages) questionnaires were posted or hand-delivered to a community sample of 802 women. Nonrespondents who received the first questionnaire by hand delivery received a reminder letter and replacement questionnaire by post; those who received the initial questionnaire by post were further randomized to receive the first reminder by hand delivery or by post, in short or long form. A second reminder letter and questionnaire (in short or long form) were posted to all remaining nonrespondents. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 52.9%. This is a conservative estimate of true response, because in a substantial proportion of cases (12.2%) individuals were no longer resident at the listed address. There was a significant effect of mode of delivery on response, favoring hand delivery, at both the initial mailout and first reminder. There was no effect of questionnaire length on response to the initial mailout, although overall response was significantly higher for the longer form. It was estimated that an overall response of 58.0% would have been achieved had first reminders been hand-delivered to all nonrespondents who received the initial mailout by post. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of questionnaires by hand may be an effective way to increase response rates in epidemiological research, but little is to be gained by reducing questionnaire length.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The effects of questionnaire length and mode of delivery on response rates were examined in an epidemiological study of eating-disordered behavior. METHODS: Short (8 pages) and long (14 pages) questionnaires were posted or hand-delivered to a community sample of 802 women. Nonrespondents who received the first questionnaire by hand delivery received a reminder letter and replacement questionnaire by post; those who received the initial questionnaire by post were further randomized to receive the first reminder by hand delivery or by post, in short or long form. A second reminder letter and questionnaire (in short or long form) were posted to all remaining nonrespondents. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 52.9%. This is a conservative estimate of true response, because in a substantial proportion of cases (12.2%) individuals were no longer resident at the listed address. There was a significant effect of mode of delivery on response, favoring hand delivery, at both the initial mailout and first reminder. There was no effect of questionnaire length on response to the initial mailout, although overall response was significantly higher for the longer form. It was estimated that an overall response of 58.0% would have been achieved had first reminders been hand-delivered to all nonrespondents who received the initial mailout by post. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of questionnaires by hand may be an effective way to increase response rates in epidemiological research, but little is to be gained by reducing questionnaire length.
Authors: Sylvie D Lambert; Patrick McElduff; Afaf Girgis; Janelle V Levesque; Tim W Regan; Jane Turner; Hayley Candler; Cathrine Mihalopoulos; Sophy T F Shih; Karen Kayser; Peter Chong Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kelly Stolzmann; Mark Meterko; Christopher J Miller; Lindsay Belanger; Marjorie Nealon Seibert; Mark S Bauer Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Jennifer L Martin; C Amanda Schweizer; Jaime M Hughes; Constance H Fung; Joseph M Dzierzewski; Donna L Washington; B Josea Kramer; Stella Jouldjian; Michael N Mitchell; Karen R Josephson; Cathy A Alessi Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2017-01-17
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
Authors: Shannon Sahlqvist; Yena Song; Fiona Bull; Emma Adams; John Preston; David Ogilvie Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Philip James Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike J Clarke; Carolyn Diguiseppi; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan; Rachel Cooper; Lambert M Felix; Sarah Pratap Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Enza Gucciardi; Jill I Cameron; Chen Di Liao; Alison Palmer; Donna E Stewart Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2007-11-09 Impact factor: 4.615