AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 674–687 | Cite as

The Effect of Interview Method on Self-Reported Sexual Behavior and Perceptions of Community Norms in Botswana

  • Philip Anglewicz
  • Diana Gourvenec
  • Iris Halldorsdottir
  • Cate O’Kane
  • Obakeng Koketso
  • Marelize Gorgens
  • Toby Kasper
Original Paper

Abstract

Since self-reports of sensitive behaviors play an important role in HIV/AIDS research, the accuracy of these measures has often been examined. In this paper we (1) examine the effect of three survey interview methods on self-reported sexual behavior and perceptions of community sexual norms in Botswana, and (2) introduce an interview method to research on self-reported sexual behavior in sub-Saharan Africa. Comparing across these three survey methods (face-to-face, ballot box, and randomized response), we find that ballot box and randomized response surveys both provide higher reports of sensitive behaviors; the results for randomized response are particularly strong. Within these overall patterns, however, there is variation by question type; additionally the effect of interview method differs by sex. We also examine interviewer effects to gain insight into the effectiveness of these interview methods, and our results suggest that caution be used when interpreting the differences between survey methods.

Keywords

HIV/AIDS Sexual behavior Survey methodology Reporting biases Multiple concurrent partnerships Sub-Saharan Africa 

Resumen

Dado que los auto informes de conductas sensibles juegan un papel importante en la investigación de VIH/SIDA, la precisión de estas medidas se examinan a menudo. En este artículo nosotros (1) examinamos el efecto de tres métodos de entrevista en el auto informe de comportamiento sexual y las percepciones de las normas comunitarias sexuales en Botswana, y (2) se introduce un método de entrevista a la investigación del uso de auto informe en la conducta sexual en el Africa, Sur del Sahara. Después de comparar los tres métodos (cara a cara, urna electoral, y la respuesta aleatorizada), se encuentra que las urnas y la respuesta aleatorizada producen reportes más altos de comportamientos sensibles. Los resultados de la respuesta aleatorizada son particularmente fuerte. Entre esto resultados, se encuentra que hay variación por pregunta y que el efecto de cada método varia por genero. Finalmente, usamos el análisis del efecto del entrevistador para aprender más sobre la eficacia de estos métodos de entrevista y se sugiere cuidado cuando se interpreta las diferencias entre estos métodos de entrevista.

References

  1. 1.
    de Zoysa I, Sweat MD, Denison JA. Faithful but fearful: reducing HIV transmission in stable relationships. AIDS 1995; 10 Suppl A:S197–S203.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heise LL, Elias C. Prevention to meet women’s needs. A focus on developing countries. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40(7):931–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McKenna SL, Muyinda GK, Roth D, et al. Rapid HIV testing and counseling for voluntary testing centers in Africa. AIDS. 1997;11(Suppl 1):S103–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gallo MF, Behets FM, Steiner MJ, et al. Prostate-specific antigen to ascertain reliability of self-reported coital exposure to semen. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33:476–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mensch BS, Hewett PC, Gregory R, Helleringer S. Sexual behavior and STI/HIV status among adolescents in rural Malawi: an evaluation of the effect of interview mode on reporting. Stud Fam Plan. 2008;39(4):321–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Minnis AM, Steiner M, Gallo M, et al. Biomarker validation of reports of recent sexual activity: results of a randomized controlled study in Zimbabwe. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170:918–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eggleston E, Leitch J, Jackson J. Consistency of self-reports of sexual activity among young adolescents in Jamaica. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2000;26(2):79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curtis SL, Sutherland EG. Measuring sexual behaviour in the era of HIV/AIDS: the experience of demographic and health surveys and similar enquiries. Sex Transm Infect. 2004; 80 Suppl II:ii22–ii27.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bignami-Van Assche S. Are we measuring what we want to measure? Individual consistency in survey response in rural Malawi. Demogr Res. 2003;S1(3):77–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palen L, Smith E, Caldwell L, Flisher A, Wegner L, Vergnani T. Inconsistent reports of sexual intercourse among South African high school students. J Adolesc Health. 2009;42:221–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nnko S, Boerma JT, Urassa M, Mwaluko G, Zaba B. Secretive females or swaggering males? An assessment of the quality of sexual partnership reporting in rural Tanzania. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(2):299–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luke N, Clark S, Zulu EM. The relationship history calendar: improving the scope and quality of data on youth sexual behavior. Demography. 2011;48(3):1151–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langhaug LF, Cheung YB, Pascoe S, Chirawu P, Woelk G, Hayes R, Cowan FM. How you ask really matters: randomised comparison of four sexual behaviour questionnaire delivery modes in Zimbabwean youth. Sex Transm Infect. 2011;87:165–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Plummer ML, Ross DA, Wight D, et al. A bit more truthful: the validity of adolescent sexual behaviour data collected in rural northern Tanzania using five methods. Sex Transm Infect. 2004; 80 Suppl II:ii49–ii56.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gregson S, Zhuwau T, Ndlovu J, Nyamukapa C. Methods to reduce social desirability bias in sex surveys in low-development settings. Sex Transm Dis. 2002;29(10):568–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson AM, Copas AJ, Erens B, et al. Effect of computer-assisted self interviews on reporting of sexual HIV risk behaviours in a general population sample: a methodological experiment. AIDS. 2001;15:111–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hewett PC, Mensch BS, de A Ribeiro M, Jones HE, Lippman S, Montgomery M, van de Wijgert J. Using sexually transmitted infection biomarkers to validate reporting of sexual behavior within a randomized experimental evaluation of interviewing methods. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(2):202–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mensch BS, Hewett PC, Erulkar AS. The reporting of sensitive behavior by adolescents: a methodological experiment in Kenya. Demography. 2003;40(2):247–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Potdar R, Koenig M. Does audio-CASI improve reports of risky behavior? Evidence from a randomized field trial among young urban men in India. Stud Fam Plan. 2005;36(2):107–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, Lindberg LD, Pleck JH, Sonenstein FL. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science. 1998;280:867–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Phillips A, Gomez GB, Boily MC, Garnett G. A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative interviewing tools to investigate self-reported HIV and STI associated behaviours in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(6):1541–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jaccard J, McDonald R, Wan CK, Dittus PJ, Quinlan S. The accuracy of self-reports of condom use and sexual behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32:1863–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nyitray AG, Kim J, Hsu CH, et al. Test-retest reliability of a sexual behavior interview for men residing in Brazil, Mexico, and the United States: the HPV in men (HIM) study. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170:965–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vanable PA, Carey MP, Brown JL, et al. Test-retest reliability of self-reported HIV/STD-related measures among African-American adolescents in four U.S. cities. J Adolesc Health. 2009;44(3):214–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carey MP, Carey KB, Maisto SA, Gordon CM, Weinhardt LS. Assessing sexual risk behaviour with the timeline followback (TLFB) approach: continued development and psychometric evaluation with psychiatric outpatients. Int J STD AIDS. 2001;12:365–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Needle R, Fisher DG, Weatherby N, Chitwood D, Brown B, Cesari H, et al. Reliability of self-reported HIV risk behaviors of drug users. Psychol Addict Behav. 1995;9:242–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McElrath K, Chitwood DD, Griffin DK, Comerford M. The consistency of self-reported HIV risk behavior among injection drug users. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1965–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wringe A, Cremin I, McGrath N, et al. Comparative assessment of the quality of age-at-event reporting in three HIV cohort studies in sub-Saharan Africa. Sex Transm Infect. 2009; 85 Suppl 1:i56–i63.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clark S, Kabiru C, Zulu E. Do men and women report their sexual partnerships differently? Evidence from Kisumu, Kenya. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011;37(4):181–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Helleringer S, Kohler HP, Kalilani-Phiri L, Mkandawire J, Armbruster B. The reliability of sexual partnership histories: implications for the measurement of partnership concurrency during surveys. AIDS. 2011;25:503–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lurie MN, Rosenthal S. Concurrent partnerships as a driver of the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa? The evidence is limited. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:17–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    UNAIDS Reference Group on Estimates Modelling and Projections. Working Group on measuring concurrent sexual partnerships. Consultation on concurrent sexual partnerships: recommendations from a meeting of the UNAIDS Reference Group on estimates, Modelling and Projections held in Nairobi, Kenya, 20–21 April 2009.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Glynn JR, Kayuni N, Banda E, Parrott F, Floyd S, Francis-Chizororo M, et al. Assessing the validity of sexual behavior reports in a whole population survey in rural Malawi. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(7):e22840.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maughan-Brown B, Venkataramani AS. Measuring concurrent partnerships: potential for underestimation in UNAIDS recommended method. AIDS. 2011;25:1549–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mensch B, Soler-Hampejsek E, Kelly C, Hewett P, Grant M. Transitions to adulthood in rural Malawi: estimating the sequencing of sexual initiation, school leaving, and marriage. Paper presented at annual meeting of the population association of America, Washington DC, 1 April 2011.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nelson SJ, Manhart LE, Gorbach PM, Martin DH, Stoner BP, Aral SO, Holmes KK. Measuring sex partner concurrency: it’s what’s missing that counts. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34:801–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fisher M, Kupferman LB, Lesser M. Substance use in a school-based clinic population: use of the randomised response technique to estimate prevalence. J Adolesc Health. 1992;13:281–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ostapczuk M, Musch J, Moshagen M. A randomized-response investigation of the education effect in attitudes towards foreigners. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2009;39:920–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ostapczuk M, Moshagen M, Zhao Z, Musch J. Assessing sensitive attributes using the randomized response technique: evidence for the importance of response symmetry. J Educ Behav Stat. 2009;34(2):267–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Scheers NJ, Mitchell DC. Improved estimation of academic cheating behaviour using the randomized response technique. Res High Educ. 1987;26(1):61–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weissman AN, Steer RA, Lipton DS. Estimating illicit drug use through telephone interviews and the randomised response technique. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1986;18:225–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lensvelt-Mulders G, Joop J, van der Heijden P, Maas C. Meta-analysis of randomized response research: Thirty-five years of validation. Sociological Methods Res. 2005;33:319–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McBurney P. On transferring statistical techniques across cultures: the kish grid. Curr Anthropol. 1988;29(2):323–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Haneman U. Literacy in Botswana. UNESCO Institute for Education. Paper commissioned for the EFA global monitoring report 2006, Literacy for Life, UNESCO Institute for Education (UIE), Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boruch RF. Assuring confidentiality of responses in social research: a note on strategies. Am Sociol. 1971;6(4):308–11.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Warner S. Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J Am Stat Assoc. 1965;60(309):63–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fox JA, Tracy PR. Randomized response: a method for sensitive surveys. London: Sage Publications; 1986.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lensvelt-Mulders G, Hox JJ, van der Heijden PG. How to improve the efficiency of randomised response designs. Qual Quant. 2005;39:253–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fowler FJ, Mangione TW. Standardized survey interviewing: minimizing interviewer-related error. California: Sage Publications; 1990.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lagarde E, Enel C, Pison G. Reliability of reports of sexual behavior: a study of married couples in rural West Africa. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141(12):1194–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Biraro S, Shafer LA, Kleinschmidt I, et al. Is sexual risk taking behaviour changing in rural south-west Uganda? Behaviour trends in a rural population cohort. Sex Transm Infect. 2009; 85 Suppl 1:i3–i11.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wellings K, Collumbien M, Slaymaker E, et al. Sexual behaviour in context: a global perspective. Lancet. 2006;368:1706–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Glynn JR, Dube A, Kayuni N, Floyd S, Molesworth A, Parrott F, French N, Crampin A. Measuring concurrency: an empirical study of different methods in a large population-based survey in northern Malawi and evaluation of the UNAIDS guidelines. AIDS 2012; post acceptance, 9 January 2012.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Boeije H, Gerty JL, Lensvelt-Mulders M. Honest by chance: a qualitative interview study to clarify respondents’ (non-)compliance with computer-assisted randomized response. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique. 2002;75:24–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Coutts S, Jann B. Sensitive questions in online surveys: experimental results from a randomized response technique and unmatched count technique. Soc Methods Res. 2011;40(1):169–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    van der Heijden P, Ger van Gils G. Some logistic regression models for randomized response data. In: Forcina A, Marchetti GM, Hatzinger R, Galmatti G, editors. Statistical modelling: proceedings of the 11th international workshop on statistical modelling. Orvieto: Graphos; 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Anglewicz
    • 1
  • Diana Gourvenec
    • 2
  • Iris Halldorsdottir
    • 2
  • Cate O’Kane
    • 2
  • Obakeng Koketso
    • 2
  • Marelize Gorgens
    • 3
  • Toby Kasper
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Global Health Systems and DevelopmentTulane University School of Public Health and Tropical MedicineNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Population Services InternationalGaboroneBotswana
  3. 3.The World Bank Global HIV/AIDS ProgramWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations