Improving Gambling Survey Research Using Dual-Frame Sampling of Landline and Mobile Phone Numbers
- 404 Downloads
Gambling prevalence studies are typically conducted within a single (landline) telephone sampling frame. This practice continues, despite emerging evidence that significant differences exist between landline and mobile (cell) phone only households. This study utilised a dual-frame (landline and mobile) telephone sampling methodology to cast light on the extent of differences across groups of respondents in respect to demographic, health, and gambling characteristics. A total of 2,014 participants from across Australian states and territories ranging in age from 18 to 96 years participated. Interviews were conducted using computer assisted telephone interviewing technology where 1,012 respondents from the landline sampling frame and 1,002 from the mobile phone sampling frame completed a questionnaire about gambling and other health behaviours. Responses across the landline sampling frame, the mobile phone sampling frame, and the subset of the mobile phone sampling frame that possessed a mobile phone only (MPO) were contrasted. The findings revealed that although respondents in the landline sample (62.7 %) did not significantly differ from respondents in the mobile phone sample (59.2 %) in gambling participation in the previous 12 months, they were significantly more likely to have gambled in the previous 12 months than the MPO sample (56.4 %). There were no significant differences in internet gambling participation over the previous 12 months in the landline sample (4.7 %), mobile phone sample (4.7 %) and the MPO sample (5.0 %). However, endorsement of lifetime problem gambling on the NODS-CLiP was significantly higher within the mobile sample (10.7 %) and the MPO sample (14.8 %) than the landline sample (6.6 %). Our research supports previous findings that reliance on a traditional landline telephone sampling approach effectively excludes distinct subgroups of the population from being represented in research findings. Consequently, we suggest that research best practice necessitates the use of a dual-frame sampling methodology. Despite inherent logistical and cost issues, this approach needs to become the norm in gambling survey research.
KeywordsMobile phones Cell phones Surveys Sampling Problem gambling Gambling participation
- Allen Consulting Group, Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre, and the Social Research Centre. (2011). Social and economic impact study of gambling in Tasmania, Volume 2: Gambling survey. Prepared for the Tasmanian Government Department of Treasury and Finance. http://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/LookupFiles/Volume2secondgamblingSEIS.PDF/$file/Volume2secondgamblingSEIS.PDF. Accessed March 30, 2012.
- American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th edn.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
- Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2011). Communications Report, 2010–11 series. Report 2—Converging communications channels: Preferences and behaviours of Australian communications users. Melbourne: Author. http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib410148/report2-convergent_comms.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2012.
- Blumberg, S. J., & Luke J. V. (2009). Wireless substitution: Early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, (Center for Disease Control) July–December, 2009.Google Scholar
- Bradley, K. A., Bush, K. R., Epler, A. J., Dobie, D. J., Davis, T. M., Sporleder, J. L., et al. (2003). Two brief alcohol—screening tests from the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): Validation in a female veterans affairs patient population. Archives of Internal Medicine, 163, 821–829.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brick, J. M., Cervantes, I. M., Lee, S., & Norman, G. (2011). Nonsampling errors in dual frame telephone surveys. Survey Methodology, 37(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
- Bush, K., Kivlahan, D. R., McDonell, M. B., Fihn, S. D., & Bradley, K. A. (1998). The AUDIT Alcohol Consumption Questions (AUDIT - C): An effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(16), 1789–1795. doi:10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Campbell, H., Rivero-Arias, O., Johnston, K., Gray, A., Fairbank, J., & Frost, H. (2006). Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: An assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients. Spine, 31, 815–822.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Davidson, T., & Rodgers, B. (2010). 2009 Survey of the nature and extent of gambling, and problem gambling, in the Australian Capital Territory. Canberra: Australian National University & Australian Capital Territory Gambling and Racing Commission.Google Scholar
- Gambling Commission. (2008). Survey data on remote gambling participation. Birmingham: Gambling Commission.Google Scholar
- Gerstein, D. R., Murphy, S. A., Toce, M. T., Hoffmann, J., Palmer, A., Johnson, R. A., Larison, C., Chuchro, L., Buie T., Engelman, L., Volberg, R., Harwood, A., Tucker, A., Christiansen, E., Cummings, W., & Sinclair, S. (1999). Gambling impact and behavior study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
- Grant, B. F., Harford, T. C., Dawson, D. A., Chou, P. S., & Pickering, R. P. (1995). The alcohol use disorders and associated disabilities interview schedule (AUDADIS): Reliability of alcohol and drug modules in a general population sample. Drug Alcohol Dependence, 39, 37–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ipsos-Reid Public Affairs and Gemini Research. (2008). British Columbia problem gambling prevalence study: Final report. British Columbia: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.Google Scholar
- Jacques, C., & Ladouceur, R. (2006). A prospective study of the impact of opening a casino on gambling behaviours: 2- and 4-year follow-ups. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51(12), 764–773.Google Scholar
- Lemaire, J., MacKay, T., & Patton, D. (2008). Manitoba gambling and problem gambling 2006. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.Google Scholar
- Market Quest Research. (2009). 2009 Newfoundland and Labrador gambling prevalence study. Prepared for the Department of Health and Community Services. St. John’s: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.Google Scholar
- Mason, K. (2006). Problem gambling geography of New Zealand 2005: Public Health Intelligence Monitoring Report Number 7. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Community Development. (2005). Report of survey on participation in gambling activities among Singapore residents. Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports: Government of Singapore.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Health. (2009). A focus on problem gambling: Results of the 2006/07 New Zealand health survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
- Morgan, K., McGee, H., Watson, D., Perry, I., Barry, M., Shelley, E., Harrington, J., Molcho, M., Layte, R., Tully, N., van Lente E., Ward M., Lutomski J., Conroy R., & Brugha R. (2008). SLAN 2007: Survey of lifestyles, attitudes and nutrition in Ireland: Main report. Dublin: Department of Health and Children. http://www.slan06.ie/SLAN2007MainReport.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.
- Ofcom (Independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries). (2012). Facts and figures. Author. http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/. Accessed April 19, 2012.
- Pennay, D. W. (2010). Profiling the ‘mobile phone only’ population. Results from a dual-frame telephone survey using a landline and mobile phone sample frame. In Presented at the ACSPRI social science methodology conference, Sydney, December.Google Scholar
- Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling, Report no. 50, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
- Queensland Gambling Policy Directorate & Office of the Government Statistician. (2008). Queensland Gambling Household Survey 2006–7. AuthorGoogle Scholar
- Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., De La Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M. (1993). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption—II. Addiction, 88(6), 791–804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schrans, T., & Schellinck, T. (2004). 2003 Nova Scotia gambling prevalence study. Halifax: Nova Scotia Office of Health Promotion.Google Scholar
- South Australian Centre for Economic Studies. (2008). Social and economic impact study into gambling in Tasmania. Adelaide: Author.Google Scholar
- South Australian Department for Families and Communities. (2006). Gambling prevalence in South Australia: October to December 2005. Adelaide: Author.Google Scholar
- Storer, J., Abbott, M., & Stubbs, J. (2009). Access or adaptation? A meta-analysis of surveys of problem gambling prevalence in Australia and New Zealand with respect to concentration of electronic gaming machines. International Gambling Studies, 9(3), 225–244. doi:10.1080/14459790903257981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Toce-Gerstein, M., Gerstein, D. R., & Volberg, R. A. (2009). The NODS-CLiP: A rapid screen for adult pathological and problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 541–555.Google Scholar
- Victorian Department of Justice. (2009). A study of gambling in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer.Google Scholar
- Vincente, P., & Reis, E. (2009). The mobile—only population in Portugal and its impact in a dual frame telephone survey. Survey Research Methods, 3(2), 105–111.Google Scholar
- Wardle, H., Moody, A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R. A., Jotangia, D., et al. (2010). British gambling prevalence survey 2010. London: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
- Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M., Constantine, R., et al. (2007). British gambling prevalence survey 2007. London: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
- Wood, R. T. & Williams, R. J. (2009). Internet gambling: Prevalence, patterns, problems, and policy options. Final Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre, Guelph, Ontario, CANADA. January 5, 2009.Google Scholar