Teresa L Hagan1, Sarah M Belcher2, Heidi S Donovan2. 1. Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Electronic address: thagan@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Researchers administering surveys seek to balance data quality, sources of error, and practical concerns when selecting an administration mode. Rarely are decisions about survey administration based on the background of study participants, although socio-demographic characteristics like age, education, and race may contribute to participants' (non)responses. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we describe differences in paper- and web-based surveys administered in a national cancer survivor study of women with a history of cancer to compare the ability of each survey administrative mode to provide quality, generalizable data. METHODS: We compared paper- and web-based survey data by socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, missing data rates, scores on primary outcome measure, and administrative costs and time using descriptive statistics, tests of mean group differences, and linear regression. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that more potentially vulnerable patients preferred paper questionnaires and that data quality, responses, and costs significantly varied by mode and participants' demographic information. We provide targeted suggestions for researchers conducting survey research to reduce survey error and increase generalizability of study results to the patient population of interest. CONCLUSION: Researchers must carefully weigh the pros and cons of survey administration modes to ensure a representative sample and high-quality data.
CONTEXT: Researchers administering surveys seek to balance data quality, sources of error, and practical concerns when selecting an administration mode. Rarely are decisions about survey administration based on the background of study participants, although socio-demographic characteristics like age, education, and race may contribute to participants' (non)responses. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we describe differences in paper- and web-based surveys administered in a national cancer survivor study of women with a history of cancer to compare the ability of each survey administrative mode to provide quality, generalizable data. METHODS: We compared paper- and web-based survey data by socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, missing data rates, scores on primary outcome measure, and administrative costs and time using descriptive statistics, tests of mean group differences, and linear regression. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that more potentially vulnerable patients preferred paper questionnaires and that data quality, responses, and costs significantly varied by mode and participants' demographic information. We provide targeted suggestions for researchers conducting survey research to reduce survey error and increase generalizability of study results to the patient population of interest. CONCLUSION: Researchers must carefully weigh the pros and cons of survey administration modes to ensure a representative sample and high-quality data.
Authors: Marloes Zuidgeest; Michelle Hendriks; Laura Koopman; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Jany Rademakers Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Antonia V Bennett; Amylou C Dueck; Sandra A Mitchell; Tito R Mendoza; Bryce B Reeve; Thomas M Atkinson; Kathleen M Castro; Andrea Denicoff; Lauren J Rogak; Jay K Harness; James D Bearden; Donna Bryant; Robert D Siegel; Deborah Schrag; Ethan Basch Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-02-19 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Fay J Hlubocky; Christopher K Daugherty; Jeffery Peppercorn; Karen Young; Kristen E Wroblewski; Seiko Diane Yamada; Nita K Lee Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-08
Authors: Morgan M Millar; Joanne W Elena; Lisa Gallicchio; Sandra L Edwards; Marjorie E Carter; Kimberly A Herget; Carol Sweeney Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Kade S Lyman; Shaminie J Athinarayanan; Amy L McKenzie; Camy L Pearson; Rebecca N Adams; Sarah J Hallberg; James P McCarter; Jeff S Volek; Stephen D Phinney; John P Andrawis Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 2.362