Advertisement

Cell Phone Survey

  • Lilian A. Ghandour
  • Ghinwa Y. El Hayek
  • Abla Mehio Sibai
Reference work entry

Abstract

The global rise in cell phones usage has undermined traditional data collection modes, notably landline surveys, and has elicited the development of novel survey methods and designs. Adopting a single landline frame survey is no longer viable, owing to its undesirable implications on response rate, coverage, as well as data representativeness and validity. Subsequently, researchers have developed methods to integrate the cell phone and landline frames, and conduct “dual frame” surveys using either overlapping or nonoverlapping modes of integration. Dual frame surveys have gained popularity as they were shown to enhance the quality of the collected data and improve the validity of national estimates. Of course, cell phone surveys, be it single frame or dual frame, are not void of methodological challenges relevant to sampling frames, participant selection, respondent burden, and collection of reliable and valid data. The evidence concerning the proper implementation of cell phone surveys, as well as the feasibility of a single frame cell phone survey is relatively recent especially when youth are the targeted population. Given their proliferation worldwide and the diminishing existing barriers, cell phones are expected to become an inevitable mode for collecting health survey data. Yet, the need remains for contextualizing their feasibility as per each country’s settings and circumstances.

Keywords

Cell phones Telephone Bias epidemiology Validity Feasibility 

References

  1. Anie KA, Jones PW, Hilton SR, Anderson HR. A computer-assisted telephone interview technique for assessment of asthma morbidity and drug use in adult asthma. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(6): 653–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aziz MA, Kenford S. Comparability of telephone and face-to-face interviews in assessing patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. J Psychiatr Pract. 2004;10(5):307–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babor TF, Brown J, Delboca FK. Validity of self-reports in applied-research on addictive behaviors – fact or fiction. Behav Assess. 1990;12(1):5–31.Google Scholar
  4. Baffour B, Haynes M, Dinsdale S, Western M, Pennay D. Profiling the mobile-only population in Australia: insights from the Australian National Health Survey. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;40(5):443–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barr ML. Predicting when declining landline frame coverage will impact on the overall health estimates for the NSW Population Health Survey. 2008. Retrieved from http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/surveys/other/Documents/predicting-when-mobile-only-impacts-2008.pdf.
  6. Barr ML, Van Ritten JJ, Steel DG, Thackway SV. Inclusion of mobile phone numbers into an ongoing population health survey in new South Wales, Australia: design, methods, call outcomes, costs and sample representativeness. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:177.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barr ML, Ferguson RA, Hughes PJ, Steel DG. Developing a weighting strategy to include mobile phone numbers into an ongoing population health survey using an overlapping dual-frame design with limited benchmark information2. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014a;14:102.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barr ML, Ferguson RA, Steel DG. Inclusion of mobile telephone numbers into an ongoing population health survey in New South Wales, Australia, using an overlapping dual-frame design: impact on the time series. BMC Res Notes. 2014b;7:517.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Best J. First-stage weights for overlapping dual frame telephone surveys. In: Paper presented at the 65th annual conference of the American Association of Public Opinion Research. Chicago; 2010.Google Scholar
  10. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV. Coverage bias in traditional telephone surveys of low-income and young adults. Public Opin Q. 2007;71(5):734–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV. Reevaluating the need for concern regarding noncoverage bias in landline surveys. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(10):1806–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV. Wireless substitution: early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, Jan–June 2010. National Center for Health Statistics, 201(3). 2010. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201005.pdf.
  13. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV. Wireless substitution: early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July–Dec 2013. 2014. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Wireless-Substitution-Early-Release-of-Estimates-Blumberg-Luke/1cb29f663f0419d8ef7a4e742ee8e1bad1e3f7eb/pdf.
  14. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV, Davidson G, Davern ME, Yu TC, Soderberg K. Wireless substitution: state-level estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January-December 2007. Natl Health Stat Rep. 2009;14:1–13.Google Scholar
  15. Brick JM, Brick PD, Dipko S, Presser S, Tucker C, Yuan Y. Cell phone survey feasibility in the US: sampling and calling cell numbers versus landline numbers. Public Opin Q. 2007a;71(1):23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brick JM, Edwards WS, Lee S. Sampling telephone numbers and adults, interview length, and weighting in the California health interview survey cell phone pilot study. Public Opin Q. 2007b;71(5):793–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Busse B, Fuchs M. Prevalence of cell phone sharing. Survey Methods: Insights from the Field (SMIF); 2013. http://surveyinsights.org/?p=1019.
  18. Call KT, Davern M, Boudreaux M, Johnson PJ, Nelson J. Bias in telephone surveys that do not sample cell phones: uses and limits of poststratification adjustments. Med Care. 2011;49(4): 355–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carley-Baxter LR, Peytchev A, Black MC. Comparison of cell phone and landline surveys: a design perspective. Field Methods. 2010;22(1):3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opin Q. 2005;69(1):87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dal Grande E, Taylor AW. Sampling and coverage issues of telephone surveys used for collecting health information in Australia: results from a face-to-face survey from 1999 to 2008. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:77.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Leeuw ED. Choosing the method of data collection. In: de Leeuw D, Hox JJ, Dillman DA, editors. International handbook of survey methodology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008. p. 113–35.Google Scholar
  23. Delnevo CD, Gundersen DA, Hagman BT. Declining estimated prevalence of alcohol drinking and smoking among young adults nationally: artifacts of sample undercoverage? Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(1):15–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ehlen J, Ehlen P. Cellular-only substitution in the United States as lifestyle adoption – implications for telephone survey coverage. Public Opin Q. 2007;71(5):717–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ekman A, Litton JE. New times, new needs: E-epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22(5):285–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Groves RM, Kahn RL. Surveys by telephone: a national comparison with personal interviews. New York: Academic; 1979.Google Scholar
  27. Gundersen DA, ZuWallack RS, Dayton J, Echeverria SE, Delnevo CD. Assessing the feasibility and sample quality of a national random-digit dialing cellular phone survey of young adults. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(1):39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guterbock T, Peytchev A, Rexrode D. Cell-phone costs revisited: understanding cost and productivity ratios in dual-frame telephone surveys. In: Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research Conference. Boston; 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Herzog AR, Rodgers WL. Interviewing older adults: mode comparison using data from a face-to-face survey and a telephone resurvey. Public Opin Q. 1988;52(1):84.  https://doi.org/10.1086/269083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herzog AR, Rodgers WL, Kulka RA. Interviewing older adults: a comparison of telephone and face-to-face modalities. Public Opin Q. 1983;47(3):405.  https://doi.org/10.1086/268798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hu SS, Balluz L, Battaglia MP, Frankel MR. The impact of cell phones on public health surveillance. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(11):799.  https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.10.082669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hu SS, Balluz L, Battaglia MP, Frankel MR. Improving public health surveillance using a dual-frame survey of landline and cell phone numbers. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(6):703–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jackson AC, Pennay D, Dowling NA, Coles-Janess B, Christensen DR. Improving gambling survey research using dual-frame sampling of landline and mobile phone numbers. J Gambl Stud. 2014;30(2):291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keeter S, Kennedy C, Clark A, Tompson T, Mokrzycki M. What’s missing from national landline RDD surveys? The impact of the growing cell-only population. Public Opin Q. 2007;71(5): 772–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keeter S, Dimock M, Christian L. Calling cell phones in’08 pre-election polls. The Pew Research Center for the people & the Press. 2008. Retrieved 18 Dec 2008.Google Scholar
  36. Kempf AM, Remington PL. New challenges for telephone survey research in the twenty-first century. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:113–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuusela V, Callegaro M, Vehovar V. The influence of mobile telephones on telephone surveys. In: Lepkowski JM, Tucker C, Brick JM, et al., editors. Advances in telephone survey methodology. New York: Wiley; 2008. p. 87–112.Google Scholar
  38. Lavrakas PJ, Shuttles CD, Steeh C, Fienberg H. The state of surveying cell phone numbers in the United States 2007 and beyond. Public Opin Q. 2007;71(5):840–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee S, Brick JM, Brown ER, Grant D. Growing cell-phone population and noncoverage bias in traditional random digit dial telephone health surveys. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(4):1121–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee S, Elkasabi M, Streja L. Increasing cell phone usage among Hispanics: implications for telephone surveys. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(6):e19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lesser VM, Kalsbeek WD. Non-sampling error in surveys. New York: Wiley; 1992.Google Scholar
  42. Link MW, Battaglia MP, Frankel MR, Osborn L, Mokdad AH. Reaching the US cell phone generation comparison of cell phone survey results with an ongoing landline telephone survey. Public Opin Q. 2007;71(5):814–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu B, Brotherton JM, Shellard D, Donovan B, Saville M, Kaldor JM. Mobile phones are a viable option for surveying young Australian women: a comparison of two telephone survey methods. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:159.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Livingston M, Dietze P, Ferris J, Pennay D, Hayes L, Lenton S. Surveying alcohol and other drug use through telephone sampling: a comparison of landline and mobile phone samples. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:41.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lugtig PJ, Lensvelt-Mulders GJL, Frerichs R, Greven A. Estimating nonresponse bias and mode effects in a mixed mode survey. Int J Mark Res. 2011;53(5):669–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mahfoud Z, Ghandour L, Ghandour B, Mokdad AH, Sibai AM. Cell phone and face-to-face interview responses in population-based surveys: how do they compare? Field Methods. 2015;27:39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Massey JT, O’Connor D, Krotki K. Response rates in random digit dialing (RDD) telephone surveys. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods; 1997.Google Scholar
  48. McBride O, Morgan K, McGee H. Recruitment using mobile telephones in an Irish general population sexual health survey: challenges and practical solutions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:45.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moura EC, Claro RM, Bernal R, Ribeiro J, Malta DC, Morais Neto O. A feasibility study of cell phone and landline phone interviews for monitoring of risk and protection factors for chronic diseases in Brazil. Cad Saude Publica. 2011;27(2):277–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nelson DE, Powell-Griner E, Town M, Kovar MG. A comparison of national estimates from the National Health Interview Survey and the behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(8):1335–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schofield M, Forrester-Knauss C. Surveys and questionnaires in health research. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Research methods in health: foundations for evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 235–56.Google Scholar
  52. Schwarz N, Strack F, Hippler HJ, Bishop G. The impact of administration mode on response effects in survey measurement. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1991;5(3):193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sibai AM, Ghandour LA, Chaaban R, Mokdad AH. Potential use of telephone surveys for non-communicable disease surveillance in developing countries: evidence from a national household survey in Lebanon. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):64.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0160-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steeh C. A new era for telephone surveys. In: Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Phoenix; 2004.Google Scholar
  55. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. New considerations for survey researchers when planning and conducting RDD telephone surveys in the US with respondents reached via cell phone numbers. Deerfield: American Association for Public Opinion Research; 2010.Google Scholar
  56. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions. Final dispositions of case Codes and outcome rates for surveys. 2011. Retrieved: https://www.esomar.org/uploads/public/knowledge-and-standards/codes-and-guidelines/ESOMAR_Standard-Definitions-Final-Dispositions-of-Case-Codes-and-Outcome-Rates-for-Surveys.pdf.
  57. Vehovar V, Berzelak N, Manfreda KL. Mobile phones in an environment of competing survey modes: applying metric for evaluation of costs and errors. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2010;28(3): 303–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. World Bank. World development indicators. 2013. Retrieved from: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/WDI-2013-ebook.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lilian A. Ghandour
    • 1
  • Ghinwa Y. El Hayek
    • 1
  • Abla Mehio Sibai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Faculty of Health SciencesAmerican University of BeirutBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations