Skip to main content

What Survey Modes are Most Effective in Eliciting Self-Reports of Criminal or Delinquent Behavior?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences

Abstract

This chapter reviews the experimental research on survey modes, in which respondents are randomly exposed to different modes of delivering questions and obtaining responses, to determine which modes yield the highest rates of admission of illegal behaviors. The results indicate that telephone interviewing and face-to-face interviewing are the least effective modes in getting people to admit to illegal acts, while Web, mail, and telephone audio computer-assisted interviewing are the most effective modes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aquilino, W. (1994). Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: A field experiment. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 210–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bason, J. J. (2000). Comparison of telephone, mail, web, and IVR surveys of drug and alcohol use among University of Georgia students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research, Portland, OR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beebe, T. J., Harrison, P. A., McRae, J. A. Jr., Anderson, R. E., & Fulkerson, J. A. (1998). An evaluation of computer-assisted self-interviews in a school setting. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 623–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenek, N. D., Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Grunbaum, J. A., Gross, L. A., Kyle, T. M., et al. (2006). The association of survey setting and mode with self-reported health risk behaviors among high school students. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 354–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. P., & Tifft, L. L. (1966). Polygraph and interview validation of self-reported deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 34, 516–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corkrey, R., & Parkinson, L. (2002). A comparison of four computer-based telephone interviewing methods: Getting answers to sensitive questions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 354–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couper, M. P., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2003). Understanding the effects of Audio-CASI on self-reports of sensitive behavior. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 385–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, D. K., Brener, N. D., Kann, L., Denniston, M. M., McManus, T., Kyle, T. M., et al. (2010). Comparison of paper-and-pencil versus web administration of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YEARBS): Risk behavior prevalence estimates. Evaluation Review, 34, 137–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gribble, J. N., Miller, H. G., Cooley, P. C., Catania, J. A., Pollack, L., & Turner, C. F. (2000). The impact of T-ACASI interviewing on reported drug use among men who have sex with men. Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 869–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamby, S., Sugarman, D. B., & Boney-McCoy, S. (2006). Does questionnaire format impact reported partner violence rates? An experimental study. Violence and Victims, 21, 507–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, L. (1995). The validity of self-reported data on drug use. Journal of Drug, 25, 91–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T. P., Hougland, J. G., & Clayton, R. R. (1989). Obtaining reports of sensitive behavior: A comparison of substance use reports from telephone and face-to-face interviews. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 174–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleck, G., Tark, J., & Bellows, J. J. (2006). What methods are most frequently used in research in criminology and criminal justice? Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(2), 147–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, H., & Kirk, S. A. (2003). Using pencil and paper, Internet and touch-tone phones for self-administered surveys: Does methodology matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 117–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S.-M., Yu, Rwei-Ling, S., Hu, H.-C., & Huang, J.-S. (2003). Areca quid chewing by Taiwanese adolescents: Application of the Attitudes Social Influence Self-efficacy (ASE) model. Addiction, 98, 1723–1729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucia, S., Herrmann, L., & Killias, M. (2007). How important are interview methods and questionnaire designs in research on self-reported juvenile delinquency? An experimental comparison of Internet vs paper-and-pencil questionnaires and different definitions of the reference period. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 39–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, S. E. (2004). Comparison of Web and mail surveys in collecting illicit drug use data: A randomized experiment. Journal of Drug Education, 34, 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, S. E., Boyd, C. J., Couper, M. P., Crawford, S., & D’Arcy, H. (2002). Mode effects for collecting alcohol and other drug use data: Web and U.S. mail. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 755–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. C., Des Jarlais, D. C., Turner, C. F., Gribble. J., Cooley, P., & Paone, D. (2002). The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 294–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, J. M., Hubbard, M. L., Lessler, J. T., Biemer, P. P., & Turner, C. F. (1994). Audio and video computer-assisted self-interviewing: Preliminary tests of new technologies for data collection. Journal of Official Statistics, 10, 197–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, S. M., Miller, H. G., & Turner, C. F. (1998). Effects of interview mode on bias in survey measurements of drug use: Do respondent characteristics make a difference? Substance Use and Misuse, 3, 2179–2200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schober, S., Caces, M. F., Pergamit, M., & Branden, L. (1992). Effect of mode of administration on reporting of drug use in the National Longitudinal Survey. In C. F. Turner, J. T. Lessler & J. C. Gfroerer (Eds.), Survey measurement of drug use: Methodological studies (pp. 267–276). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse

    Google Scholar 

  • Supple, A. J., Aquilino, W. S., & Wright, D. L. (1999). Collecting sensitive self-report data with laptop computers: Impact on the response tendencies of adolescents in a home interview. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 467–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In Criminal justice 2000: Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (Vol. 4, pp. 33–83). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Jared, B. J., William, F. P., & Kenneth, R. (1997). Design and results of the women’s health study. In Harrison, L., & Hughes, A. (Eds.), The validity of self-reported drug use: Improving the accuracy of survey estimates (pp. 344–365). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Ting, Y. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, C. F., Lessler, J. T., & Devore, J. W. (1992). Effects of mode of administration and wording on reporting of drug use. In C. F. Turner, J. T. Lessler & J. C. Gfroerer (Eds.), Survey measurement of drug use: Methodological studies. Washington, D.C.: DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)92-1929.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., & Sonenstein, F. L. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science, 280, 867–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, C. F., Villarroel, M. A., Rogers, S. M., Eggleston, E., Ganapathi, L., Roman, A. M., et al. (2005). Reducing bias in telephone survey estimates of the prevalence of drug use: A randomized trial of Telephone Audio-CASI. Addiction, 100, 1432–1444.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Looij-Jansen, P. M., & de Wilde, E. J. (2008). Comparison of Web-based versus paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaire: Effects on health indicators in Dutch adolescents. Health Services Research, 43, 1708–1721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y.-C., Lee, C.-M., Lew-Ting, C.-Y., Hsiao, C. K., Chen, D.-R., & Chen, W. J. (2005). Survey of substance use among high school students in Taipei: Web-based questionnaire versus paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 289–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D. L., Aquilino, W. S., & Supple, A. J. (1998). A comparison of computer-assisted and paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaires in a survey on smoking, alcohol, and drug use. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 331–353.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary Kleck .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix Table A Individual findings of experimental studies of the effect of survey mode on the reporting of illegal behaviors (in chronological order)

Study

Sample description

Sample size

Modes compared

Illegal behavior

Better Mode, significance

Johnson et al. (1989)

P

780

FTF/Tel

Marijuana use, L

FTF, >.05

 

U of Kentucky students, 1987

 

FTF/Tel

Cocaine use, L

FTF, <.01

   

FTF/Tel

Tranquilizer use, L

FTF, <.001

   

FTF/Tel

Amphetamine use, L

FTF, <.05

   

FTF/Tel

Downer use, L

FTF, <.001

   

FTF/Tel

Other pill use, L

FTF, <.001

   

FTF/Tel

Hallucinogen use, L

FTF, <.01

   

FTF/Tel

Heroin use, L

FTF, <.01

Schober et al. (1992)

P

9,308

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, R

F-P, <.001

 

NLSY, 1988

 

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, past year

F-P, <.001

   

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, L

F-P, <.001

   

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, R

F-P, <.001

   

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, past year

F-P, <.001

   

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, L

F-P, > .10

Turner et al. (1992)

P

3,284

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, R

F-P, .039

 

NHSDA, 1990(HH residents in 33 US metro areas)

 

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, past year

F-P, .18

   

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, L

F-P, >.20

   

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, R

F-P, .081

   

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, past year

F-P, .185

   

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, L

F-P, >.20

Aquilino (1994)

P

1,508

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, L

F-P, >.10

 

HH residents in 37 Largest US SMSAs, 1991

 

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, past year

F-P, <.05

   

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, R

F-P, >.10

   

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use,L

F-P, <.10

   

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, past year

F-P, >.10

   

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, R

()

   

F-P/FTF

Crack use, L

F-P, >.10

  

1,499

F-P/Tel

Marijuana use, L

F-P, >.10

   

F-P/Tel

Marijuana use, past year

F-P, <.001

   

F-P/Tel

Marijuana use, R

F-P, <.05

   

F-P/Tel

Cocaine use, L

F-P, <.01

   

F-P/Tel

Cocaine use, past year

()

   

F-P/Tel

Cocaine use, R

()

   

F-P/Tel

Crack use, L

F-P, <.05

  

1,489

FTF/Tel

Marijuana use, L

FTF, >.10

   

FTF/Tel

Marijuana use, past year

FTF, <.10

   

FTF/Tel

Marijuana use, R

FTF, >.10

   

FTF/Tel

Cocaine use, L

FTF, <.10

   

FTF/Tel

Cocaine use, past year

Tel, >.10

   

FTF/Tel

Cocaine use, R

()

   

FTF/Tel

Crack use, L

FTF, >.10

O’Reilly et al. (1994)

NP

26

ACASI/CASI

Marijuana use, R

ACASI, .58

 

Volunteers

 

ACASI/CASI

Marijuana use, past year

CASI, .24

   

ACASI/CASI

Marijuana use, L

CASI, .26

   

ACASI/CASI

Cocaine use, R

()

   

ACASI/CASI

Cocaine use, past year

CASI, .72

   

ACASI/CASI

Cocaine use, L

CASI, .56

   

ACASI/CASI

Crack use, R

()

   

ACASI/CASI

Crack use, past year

CASI, .44

   

ACASI/CASI

Crack use, L

ACASI, .58

  

27

ACASI/PAP

Marijuana use, R

ACASI, .12

   

ACASI/PAP

Marijuana use, past year

ACASI, .19

   

ACASI/PAP

Marijuana use, L

ACASI, .29

   

ACASI/PAP

Cocaine use, R

()

   

ACASI/PAP

Cocaine use, past year

ACASI, .52

   

ACASI/PAP

Cocaine use, L

ACASI, .06

   

ACASI/PAP

Crack use, R

()

   

ACASI/PAP

Crack use, past year

ACASI, .52

   

ACASI/PAP

Crack use, L

ACASI, .12

  

25

CASI/PAP

Marijuana use, R

CASI, .22

   

CASI/PAP

Marijuana use, past year

CASI, .03

   

CASI/PAP

Marijuana use, L

CASI, .06

   

CASI/PAP

Cocaine use, R

()

   

CASI/PAP

Cocaine use, past year

CASI, .48

   

CASI/PAP

Cocaine use, L

CASI, .04

   

CASI/PAP

Crack use, R

()

   

CASI/PAP

Crack use, past year

CASI, .22

   

CASI/PAP

Crack use, L

CASI, .22

Tourangeau and Smith (1996)

P

197

ACASI/FTF

Marijuana use, L

ACASI, <.01

 

HH residents in Cook County, Illinois, 1994

 

ACASI/FTF

Marijuana use, past year

ACASI, <.05

   

ACASI/FTF

Marijuana use, R

ACASI, <.10

   

ACASI/FTF

Cocaine use,L

ACASI, <.05

   

ACASI/FTF

Cocaine use, past year

ACASI, >.10

   

ACASI/FTF

Cocaine use, R

ACASI, >.10

  

205

ACASI/CASI

Marijuana use, L

ACASI, >.10

   

ACASI/CASI

Marijuana use, past year

ACASI, <.05

   

ACASI/CASI

Marijuana use, R

ACASI, >.10

   

ACASI/CASI

Cocaine use,L

ACASI, <.05

   

ACASI/CASI

Cocaine use, past year

ACASI, >.10

   

ACASI/CASI

Cocaine use, R

ACASI, >.10

  

219

CASI/FTF

Marijuana use, L

CASI, <.05

   

CASI/FTF

Marijuana use, past year

FTF, >.10

   

CASI/FTF

Marijuana use, R

CASI, >.10

   

CASI/FTF

Cocaine use, L

CASI, >.10

   

CASI/FTF

Cocaine use, past year

CASI, >.10

   

CASI/FTF

Cocaine use, R

FTF, >.10

Tourangeau et al. (1997)

P & NP

1,100

F-P/FTF

Any illegal drug use, L

?, >.05

 

Chicago & sample of women who had an abortion, 1993

 

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, L

?, >.05

   

F-P/FTF

Amphetamine use, L

?, >.05

   

F-P/FTF

Barbiturates use, L

?, >.05

   

F-P/FTF

Tranquilizer use, L

?, >.05

   

F-P/FTF

Psychedelics use, L

?, >.05

   

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, L

?, >.05

   

F-P/FTF

Crack use, L

?, >.05

   

F-P/FTF

Heroin use, L

?, >.05

   

F-P/FTF

Injectable drugs use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/F-P

Any illegal drug use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/F-P

Marijuana use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/F-P

Amphetamine use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/F-P

Barbiturates use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/F-P

Tranquilizer use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/F-P

Psychedelics use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/F-P

Cocaine use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/F-P

Crack use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/F-P

Heroin use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/F-P

Injectable drugs use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/F-P

Any illegal drug use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/F-P

Marijuana use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/F-P

Amphetamine use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/F-P

Barbiturates use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/F-P

Tranquilizer use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/F-P

Psychedelics use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/F-P

Cocaine use,L

?, >.05

   

CASI/F-P

Crack use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/F-P

Heroin use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/F-P

Injectable drugs use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/FTF

Any illegal drug use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/FTF

Marijuana use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/FTF

Amphetamine use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/FTF

Barbiturates use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/FTF

Tranquilizer use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/FTF

Psychedelics use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/FTF

Cocaine use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/FTF

Crack use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/FTF

Heroin use, L

?, >.05

   

PAP/FTF

Injectable drugs use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/FTF

Any illegal drug use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/FTF

Marijuana use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/FTF

Amphetamine use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/FTF

Barbiturates use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/FTF

Tranquilizer use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/FTF

Psychedelics use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/FTF

Crack use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/FTF

Cocaine use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/FTF

Heroin use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/FTF

Injectable drugs use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Any illegal drug use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Marijuana use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Amphetamine use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Barbiturates use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Tranquilizer use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Psychedelics use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Cocaine use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Crack use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Heroin use, L

?, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Injectable drugs use, L

?, >.05

Beebe et al. (1998)

NP

368

CASI/PAP

Marijuana use, past year

PAP, <.05

 

US students, 1996

 

CASI/PAP

LSD/psychedelic use, past year

PAP, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Amphetamine use, past year

PAP, <.05

   

CASI/PAP

Cocaine use, past year

CASI, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Damaged property, past year

PAP, <.001

   

CASI/PAP

Beat person up, past year

PAP, <.05

   

CASI/PAP

Stolen something, past year

PAP, >.05

Rogers et al. (1998)

P

1,877

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, R

F-P, .01

 

NHSDA, 1990

 

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, past year

F-P, .025

   

F-P/FTF

Cocaine use, L

F-P, .33

   

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, R

F-P, .005

   

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, past year

F-P, .04

   

F-P/FTF

Marijuana use, L

F-P, .37

Turner et al. (1998)

P

1,672

ACASI/PAP

Sex with prostitute

ACASI, <.01

 

Male residents of US HHs, 1995

 

ACASI/PAP

Paid for sex

ACASI, <.10

   

ACASI/PAP

Street drugs w/needle

ACASI, <10

   

ACASI/PAP

Injected drugs, past year

ACASI, .13

   

ACASI/PAP

Daily marijuana use, past year

ACASI, <.10

   

ACASI/PAP

Cocaine/crack use, past year

ACASI, >.10

   

ACASI/PAP

Marijuana use, L

ACASI, <.10

   

ACASI/PAP

Threaten someone, past year

ACASI, <.01

   

ACASI/PAP

Physical fight, past year

ACASI, >.10

   

ACASI/PAP

Pulled knife/gun, past year

ACASI, <.05

Wright et al. (1998)

P

3,169

CASI/PAP

Illicit drug use

CASI, >.05

 

US urban & suburban residents, 1995–1996

    

Supple et al. (1999)

P

1,072

CASI/F-P

Marijuana use, L

CASI, >.05

 

US urban & suburban residents, 1995-1996

 

CASI/F-P

Marijuana use, R

CASI, <.05

   

CASI/F-P

Marijuana use, >12x ever

CASI, >.05

   

CASI/F-P

Illicit drug use, L

CASI, <.05

   

CASI/F-P

Illicit drug use, R

CASI, <.05

Bason (2000)

P

365

Mail/Tel

Marijuana use, R

Tel, >.05

 

US college students, 2000

 

Mail/Tel

Cocaine use, R

Mail, >.05

   

Mail/Tel

Hallucinogens

Tel, >.05

   

Mail/Tel

Designer drugs

Tel, >.05

  

276

Web/Tel

Marijuana use, R

Tel, >.05

   

Web/Tel

Cocaine use, R

Web, >.05

   

Web/Tel

Hallucinogens

Tel, <.005

   

Web/Tel

Designer drugs

Tel, >.05

  

289

TACASI/Tel

Marijuana use, R

Tel, <.05

   

TACASI/Tel

Cocaine use, R

TACASI, >.05

   

TACASI/Tel

Hallucinogens

()

   

TACASI/Tel

Designer drugs

Tel, >.05

  

319

Web/Mail

Marijuana use, R

Web, >.05

   

Web/Mail

Cocaine use, R

Web, >.05

   

Web/Mail

Hallucinogens

Web, >.05

   

Web/Mail

Designer drugs

Mail, >.05

  

332

Mail/TACASI

Marijuana use, R

Mail, >.05

   

Mail/TACASI

Cocaine use, R

Mail, >.05

   

Mail/TACASI

Hallucinogens

TACASI, >.05

   

Mail/TACASI

Designer drugs

TACASI, >.05

  

243

Web/TACASI

Marijuana use, R

Web, >.05

   

Web/TACASI

Cocaine use, R

Web, >.05

   

Web/TACASI

Hallucinogens

TACASI, >.05

   

Web/TACASI

Designer drugs

TACASI, >.05

Gribble et al. (2000)

P

2,343

TACASI/Tel

Crack, past 6 months

TACASI, .026

 

Men who have sex w/men in 4 US cities, 1996–1998

 

TACASI/Tel

Inhalants, past 6 months

TACASI, .004

   

TACASI/Tel

Downers, past 6 months

TACASI, .001

   

TACASI/Tel

Opiates, past 6 months

TACASI, .039

   

TACASI/Tel

Marijuana, past 6 months

Tel, >.10

   

TACASI/Tel

Psychedelics, past 6 months

Tel, >.10

   

TACASI/Tel

Meth, past 6 months

TACASI, >.10

   

TACASI/Tel

Other amphet, past 6 months

Tel, >.10

   

TACASI/Tel

Ecstasy, past 6 months

Tel, >.10

   

TACASI/Tel

Cocaine, past 6 months

TACASI, >.10

   

TACASI/Tel

Party drugs, past 6 months

TACASI, .17

   

TACASI/Tel

Rcvd drugs/money for sex, R

TACASI, .009

   

TACASI/Tel

Gave drugs/money for sex, R

TACASI, .018

Corkrey & Parkinson (2002)

P

406

TACASI/Tel

Marijuana use, L

TACASI, >.10

 

Australia

 

TACASI/Tel

Marijuana use, past year

TACASI, >.10

 

residents, 2000

 

TACASI/Tel

Monthly marijuana use

TACASI, >.10

   

TACASI/Tel

Amphetamine use, L

Tel, >.10

   

TACASI/Tel

Amphetamine use, past year

TACASI, <.05

   

TACASI/Tel

Monthly amphetamine use

TACASI, <.05

   

TACASI/Tel

Heroin use, L

TACASI, >.10

   

TACASI/Tel

Heroin use, past year

TACASI, >.10

   

TACASI/Tel

Monthly heroin use

TACASI, >.10

McCabe et al. (2002)

P

3,567

Web/Mail

Marijuana use, R

Mail, <.0005

 

US college students, 2001

    

Newman et al. (2002)

NP

1,417

ACASI/FTF

Marijuana use, R

ACASI, .731

 

Syearinge prog participants in 4 U.S. cities, 1997–1998

 

ACASI/FTF

Non-Rx methadone use, R

ACASI, .004

Couper et al. (2003)

NP

195

ACASI/CASI

Drive under infl, past year

CASI, >.05

 

Convenience sample (newspaper ads, flyers)

 

ACASI/CASI

Marijuana use, L

CASI, >.05

   

ACASI/CASI

Cocaine use,L

CASI, >.05

Knapp & Kirk (2003)

NP

231

Web/Mail

Marijuana use, L

Web, >.10

 

US college students, 1999

 

Web/Mail

Been in jail, L

Mail, .07

   

Web/Mail

Used CC w/o permission

Web, >.10

   

Web/Mail

Accepted money for sex

Mail, >.10

  

295

Mail/TACASI

Marijuana use, L

Mail, >.10

   

Mail/TACASI

Been in jail, L

Mail, .10

   

Mail/TACASI

Used CC w/o permission

Mail, >.10

   

Mail/TACASI

Accepted money for sex

Mail, >.10

  

178

Web/TACASI

Marijuana use, L

Web, >.10

   

Web/TACASI

Been in jail, L

TACASI, .46

   

Web/TACASI

Used CC w/o permission

Web, >.10

   

Web/TACASI

Accepted money for sex

TACASI, >.10

McCabe (2004)

P

3,606

Web/Mail

Marijuana use, L

Mail, <.05

 

US college students, 2001

 

Web/Mail

Marijuana use, past year

Mail, >.10

   

Web/Mail

Ecstasy use, L

Web, <.05

   

Web/Mail

Ecstasy use, past year

Web, >.10

   

Web/Mail

Narcotics use, L

Mail, >.10

   

Web/Mail

Narcotics use, past year

Mail, >.10

   

Web/Mail

LSD use, L

Mail, >.10

   

Web/Mail

LSD use, past year

Mail, >.10

   

Web/Mail

Psychedelics, L

Web, >.10

   

Web/Mail

Psychedelics, past year

Mail, >.10

   

Web/Mail

Inhalant use, L

Web, >.10

   

Web/Mail

Inhalant use, past year

Mail, >.10

   

Web/Mail

Cocaine use, L

Web, <.001

   

Web/Mail

Cocaine use, past year

Web, >.10

   

Web/Mail

Amphetamines, L

Mail, <.05

   

Web/Mail

Amphetamines, past year

Mail, <.10

Turner et al. (2005)

P

2,228

TACASI/Tel

Marijuana use, R

TACASI, <.001

 

USA & Baltimore, 1999–2000

 

TACASI/Tel

Marijuana use, past year

TACASI, <.001

   

TACASI/Tel

Marijuana use, past 3 years

TACASI, <.001

   

TACASI/Tel

Marijuana use, L

TACASI, <.05

   

TACASI/Tel

Cocaine use, R

TACASI, <.05

   

TACASI/Tel

Cocaine use, past year

TACASI, <.05

   

TACASI/Tel

Cocaine use, past 3 years

TACASI, <.001

   

TACASI/Tel

Cocaine use, L

TACASI, <.05

   

TACASI/Tel

Drug injection use, past year

TACASI, <.01

   

TACASI/Tel

Drug injection use, past 5 years

TACASI, <.01

   

TACASI/Tel

Drug injection use, L

TACASI, <.05

Wang et al. (2005)

P

1,918

Web/PAP

Ecstasy use

Web, >.05

 

Students in Taipei, 2003

 

Web/PAP

Ketamine use

Web, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Marijuana use

Web, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Amphetamine use

Web, <.05

   

Web/PAP

Illicit drug use, L

Web, >.05

Brenek et al. (2006)

NP

4,506

CASI/PAP

Drunk driving, R

CASI, <.05

 

High school students in 8 states, 2004

 

CASI/PAP

Carried a gun, R

CASI, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Weapon carrying, R

CASI, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Marijuana use, L

CASI, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Marijuana use, before 13

CASI, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Marijuana use, R

CASI, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Cocaine use, L

CASI, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Inhalant use, L

CASI, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Meth use, L

CASI, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Ecstacy use, L

CASI, >.05

   

CASI/PAP

Steroid use, L

PAP, >.05

Hamby et al. (2006)

NP

160

CASI/PAP

Physical assault perp.

CASI, <.05

 

US college students

 

CASI/PAP

Sexual coercion perp.

PAP, <.01

   

CASI/PAP

Injury perp.

CASI, <.10

Lucia et al. (2007)

NP

1,203

Web/PAP

Marijuana use, L

PAP, >.05

 

Students in Lausanne, Switzerland, 2004

 

Web/PAP

Heroin, L

Web, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Cocaine, L

PAP, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Ecstasy, L

PAP, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Hallucinogens

PAP, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Amphetamines

Web, >05

   

Web/PAP

Driving w/o license

Web, <.01

   

Web/PAP

Shoplifting

Web, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Breaking into car

Web, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Theft at school

Web, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Theft at home

Web, <.05

   

Web/PAP

Vehicle theft

PAP, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Assault

PAP, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Threat w/weapon

PAP, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Racket

PAP, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Robbery

()

   

Web/PAP

Arson

PAP, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Selling soft drugs

PAP, <.05

   

Web/PAP

Selling hard drugs

PAP, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Graffiti

PAP, >.05

   

Web/PAP

Vandalism

PAP, <.01

   

Web/PAP

Theft from person

PAP, >.05

van de Looij-Jansen and de Wilde (2008)

NP

531

Web/PAP

Vandal & steal, past year

?, >.05

 

Schools in Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2005

 

Web/PAP

Carrying a weapon

W, <.05

   

Web/PAP

Marijuana use, R

?, >.05

Eaton et al. (2010)

NP

5,227

Web/PAP

Drunk driving

Web, .01

 

85 schools in 15 states, 2008

 

Web/PAP

Carried a gun

Web, .02

   

Web/PAP

Weapon carrying

Web, .01

   

Web/PAP

Weapon carrying @ school

Web, .005

   

Web/PAP

Marijuana use, L

Web, .12

   

Web/PAP

Marijuana use, before 13

Web, .07

   

Web/PAP

Marijuana use, R

Web, .02

   

Web/PAP

Marijuana use @ school

Web, .005

   

Web/PAP

Cocaine use, L

Web, .145

   

Web/PAP

Cocaine use, R

Web, .0175

   

Web/PAP

Inhalant use, L

Web, .085

   

Web/PAP

Heroin use, L

Web, .145

   

Web/PAP

Meth use, L

Web, .12

   

Web/PAP

Ecstacy use, L

Web, .02

   

Web/PAP

Steroid use, L

Web, .155

   

Web/PAP

Injection drug use, L

Web, .125

  1. Abbreviations
  2. FTF Face-to-face interview (includes CAPI)—interviewer speaks questions, respondent speaks responses
  3. F-P Face-to-face interview—interviewer speaks questions, respondent records responses on paper or Computer
  4. PAP Paper and pencil self-administered questionnaire
  5. Mail Respondent receives and returns survey by mail
  6. Tel Telephone interview (e.g. CATI)
  7. CASI Computer-assisted self-interviewing
  8. ACASI Audio computer-assisted self-interviewing
  9. TACASI Telephone audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (includes IVR—interactive voice response)
  10. W Web or Internet mode
  11. L Lifetime use
  12. R Use in past month (recent)
  13. () = No difference between modes
  14. ? = Not clear which mode elicited more responses
  15. P Probability sample
  16. NP Nonprobability sample
  17. HH Household
  18. NHSDA National Household Survey of Drug Abuse
  19. NLSY National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kleck, G., Roberts, K. (2012). What Survey Modes are Most Effective in Eliciting Self-Reports of Criminal or Delinquent Behavior?. In: Gideon, L. (eds) Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_24

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics