BACKGROUND: Audio computer-assisted self-interviews (ACASI) are increasingly used in health research to improve the accuracy of data on sensitive behaviors. However, evidence is limited on its use among low-income populations in countries like India and for measurement of sensitive issues such as domestic violence. METHOD: We compared reports of domestic violence and three less sensitive behaviors related to household decision making and spousal communication in ACASI and face-to-face interviews (FTFI) among 464 young married women enrolled in a longitudinal study of gender-based power and adverse health outcomes in low-income communities in Bangalore, India. We used a test-retest design. At the 12-month study visit, we elicited responses from each participant through FTFI first, followed by ACASI. At the 24-month visit, we reversed the order, implementing ACASI first, followed by FTFI. Univariable log-linear regression models and kappa statistics were used to examine ACASI's effects on self-reports. RESULTS: Regression results showed significantly lower reporting in ACASI relative to FTFI at both visits, including for domestic violence (12-month risk ratio [RR] = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.52, 0.73; 24-month RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.62, 0.89). Response agreement between interview modes, calculated by kappa scores, was universally low, though highest for domestic violence (12-month κ = 0.45; 24-month κ = 0.48). Older age and greater educational attainment appeared associated with higher response agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Greater reporting in FTFI may be due to social desirability bias for the less sensitive questions and perceptions of therapeutic benefit for domestic violence. These results cast doubt on the appropriateness of using ACASI for measurement of sensitive behaviors in India.
BACKGROUND: Audio computer-assisted self-interviews (ACASI) are increasingly used in health research to improve the accuracy of data on sensitive behaviors. However, evidence is limited on its use among low-income populations in countries like India and for measurement of sensitive issues such as domestic violence. METHOD: We compared reports of domestic violence and three less sensitive behaviors related to household decision making and spousal communication in ACASI and face-to-face interviews (FTFI) among 464 young married women enrolled in a longitudinal study of gender-based power and adverse health outcomes in low-income communities in Bangalore, India. We used a test-retest design. At the 12-month study visit, we elicited responses from each participant through FTFI first, followed by ACASI. At the 24-month visit, we reversed the order, implementing ACASI first, followed by FTFI. Univariable log-linear regression models and kappa statistics were used to examine ACASI's effects on self-reports. RESULTS: Regression results showed significantly lower reporting in ACASI relative to FTFI at both visits, including for domestic violence (12-month risk ratio [RR] = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.52, 0.73; 24-month RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.62, 0.89). Response agreement between interview modes, calculated by kappa scores, was universally low, though highest for domestic violence (12-month κ = 0.45; 24-month κ = 0.48). Older age and greater educational attainment appeared associated with higher response agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Greater reporting in FTFI may be due to social desirability bias for the less sensitive questions and perceptions of therapeutic benefit for domestic violence. These results cast doubt on the appropriateness of using ACASI for measurement of sensitive behaviors in India.
Authors: Heather B Jaspan; Alan J Flisher; Landon Myer; Catherine Mathews; Chris Seebregts; Jessica R Berwick; Robin Wood; Linda-Gail Bekker Journal: J Adolesc Date: 2006-12-21
Authors: Sandra L Edwards; Martha L Slattery; Maureen A Murtaugh; Roger L Edwards; James Bryner; Mindy Pearson; Amy Rogers; Alison M Edwards; Lillian Tom-Orme Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-03-22 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Harriet L MacMillan; C Nadine Wathen; Ellen Jamieson; Michael Boyle; Louise-Anne McNutt; Andrew Worster; Barbara Lent; Michelle Webb Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-08-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anna Azevedo Simoes; Francisco Inacio Bastos; Ronaldo Ismerio Moreira; Kevin G Lynch; David S Metzger Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2006-04
Authors: Wayne T Steward; Veena A Satyanarayana; Elsa Heylen; Aylur K Srikrishnan; Canjeevaram K Vasudevan; Gopal Krishnan; Davidson Solomon; Maria L Ekstrand Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2017-10-30
Authors: Michele R Decker; Beth Dail Marshall; Mark Emerson; Amanda Kalamar; Laura Covarrubias; Nan Astone; Ziliang Wang; Ersheng Gao; Lawrence Mashimbye; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Rajib Acharya; Adesola Olumide; Oladosu Ojengbede; Robert W Blum; Freya L Sonenstein Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Steven A Safren; Beena E Thomas; Kenneth H Mayer; Katie B Biello; Jamuna Mani; Vijaylakshmi Rajagandhi; Murugesan Periyasamy; Soumya Swaminathan; Matthew J Mimiaga Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2014-10
Authors: Ameeta Kalokhe; Carlos Del Rio; Kristin Dunkle; Rob Stephenson; Nicholas Metheny; Anuradha Paranjape; Seema Sahay Journal: Glob Public Health Date: 2016-02-17
Authors: Ameeta S Kalokhe; Rob Stephenson; Mary E Kelley; Kristin L Dunkle; Anuradha Paranjape; Vikram Solas; Latika Karve; Carlos del Rio; Seema Sahay Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 3.240