Reports of alcohol-related harm: Telephone versus face-to-face interviews

Objective: To assess the effect of mode of administration in alcohol survey s (telephone vs face-to-face interviews), prevalence rates of self-reported harms due to alcohol were compared for two datasets with equivalent measur es. Method: Two national alcohol surveys were used: the 1990 Warning Labels Survey, in which random digit dialing was used to generate a sample of 2,0 00 adults interviewed by telephone, and the 1990 National Alcohol Survey (f ace-to-face interviews), a probability sample of U.S. adults living in hous eholds (N = 2,058). Both surveys included identical items on five areas of alcohol-related harm, yielding one composite index of any harm reported in the last 12 months that was compared between the two surveys for current dr inkers. Results. After controlling for demographic characteristics and alco hol use, the telephone survey yielded significantly higher rates of alcohol -related health harm, work harm and "any harm" as compared to the in-person survey. The interaction between heavier drinking (five or more drinks duri ng 1 day, weekly or more often) and method of data collection was significa nt for health harm and any harm. Respondents in the telephone survey who dr ank 5+ less than weekly were more likely than those interviewed in person t o report health harm due to alcohol use; those in the telephone survey who drank 5+ weekly or more often were more likely to report any harm. Conclusi ons: Possible explanations for differences between the surveys include anon ymity and fewer social desirability issues associated with telephone survey s, as well as potentially differing cognitive requirements in telephone ver sus face-to-face interviews.