Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2007 Apr;42(2):890-907.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00618.x.

Survey conditioning in self-reported mental health service use: randomized comparison of alternative instrument formats

Naihua Duan  1 , Margarita Alegria, Glorisa Canino, Thomas G McGuire, David Takeuchi
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Survey conditioning in self-reported mental health service use: randomized comparison of alternative instrument formats

Naihua Duan et al. Health Serv Res. 2007 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: To test the effect of survey conditioning (whether observed survey responses are affected by previous experience in the same survey or similar surveys) in a survey instrument used to assess mental health service use.

Data sources: Primary data collected in the National Latino and Asian American Study, a cross-sectional household survey of Latinos and Asian Americans residing in the United States.

Study design: Study participants are randomly assigned to a Traditional Instrument with an interleafed format placing service use questions after detailed questions on disorders, or a Modified Instrument with an ensemble format screening for service use near the beginning of the survey. We hypothesize the ensemble format to be less susceptible to survey conditioning than the interleafed format. We compare self-reported mental health services use measures (overall, aggregate categories, and specific categories) between recipients of the two instruments, using 2x2 chi(2) tests and logistic regressions that control for key covariates.

Data collection: In-person computer-assisted interviews, conducted in respondent's preferred language (English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Tagalog, or Vietnamese).

Principal findings: Higher service use rates are reported with the Modified Instrument than with the Traditional Instrument for all service use measures; odds ratios range from 1.41 to 3.10, all p-values <.001. Results are similar across ethnic groups and insensitive to model specification.

Conclusions: Survey conditioning biases downward reported mental health service use when the instrument follows an interleafed format. An ensemble format should be used when it is feasible for measures that are susceptible to survey conditioning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic Diagram for NLAAS Instruments. *Additional questions were only administered if respondent endorsed stem questions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Alegria M, Takeuchi D, Canino G, Duan N, Shrout P, Meng XL, Vega W, Zane N, Vila D, Woo M, Vera M, Guarnaccia P, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Sue S, Escobar J, Lin KM, Gong F. Considering Context, Place and Culture: The National Latino and Asian American Study. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2004;13(4):208–20. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Armknecht PA, Lane WF, Stewart KJ. New Products and the US Consumer Price Index. In: Bresnahan TF, Gordon RJ, editors. The Economics of New Goods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1997. pp. 375–96.
    1. Bailar BA. The Effects of Rotation Group Bias on Estimates from Panel Surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1975;70(349):23–30.
    1. Bailar BA. Information Needs, Surveys, and Measurement Errors. In: Kasprzyk D, Duncan G, Kalton G, Singh MP, editors. Panel Surveys. New York: John Wiley; 1989. pp. 1–25.
    1. Cantor D. Substantive Implications of Longitudinal Design Features: The National Crime Survey as a Case Study. In: Kasprzyk D, Duncan G, Kalton G, Singh MP, editors. Panel Surveys. New York: John Wiley; 1989. pp. 25–51.

Publication types