The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes

Area of Science:

• Social Sciences
• Public Health
• Psychology

Background:

• Self-report data collection methods significantly influence participant responses.
• Understanding the impact of different interview modes on sensitive topics is crucial for accurate data.
• Previous research has not fully explored the differential effects of face-to-face versus audio-CASI on specific question categories.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effectiveness of face-to-face interviews and audio-computer assisted self-interviewing (audio-CASI) in eliciting responses across different question types.
• To investigate how interview modality affects reporting of stigmatized behaviors, neutral behaviors, and psychological distress.
• To inform best practices in survey methodology for sensitive populations.

Main Methods:

• A study involving 1417 participants from syringe exchange programs.
• Participants completed questionnaires using either face-to-face interviews or audio-CASI.
• Questionnaire items were categorized into "stigmatized behaviors," "neutral behaviors," and "psychological distress" for comparative analysis.

Main Results:

• Audio-CASI resulted in higher reporting rates for "stigmatized behaviors" compared to face-to-face interviews.
• Face-to-face interviews led to more frequent reporting of "psychological distress" than audio-CASI.
• No significant difference was observed for "neutral behaviors" between the two interview modes.

Conclusions:

• The choice of interview mode critically impacts the reporting of sensitive information.
• Participant motivations for responding, such as social respect and altruism, influence data accuracy.
• Future research and data collection protocols should consider these complex motivations to optimize self-report data quality.