Cited by 78Survey Methodology and NonresponseAdolescent Health and BehaviorsHealth Education and Validation

Comparison of a computer-administered and paper-and-pencil-administered questionnaire on health and lifestyle behaviors

Vereecken, Carine A., Maes, Lea·2006·Journal of Adolescent Health

Abstract

Purpose The Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) study is a cross-national survey examining health and lifestyle behaviors of adolescents, traditionally administered by paper and pencil in a school setting. The purpose of the present study was to investigate if a computer format of the questionnaire would affect the responses of the adolescents in comparison with the paper and pencil format.Methods In 2000, the Belgian (Flemish) HBSC survey was administered in 81 secondary schools by paper and pencil (n = 4083) and in 19 schools by computer (n = 1008). Eight hundred four computer participants (aged 12-20 years) were matched with paper and pencil participants on the basis of gender, age, educational level, socioeconomic status, and type of school authority. The questionnaire included items on lifestyle behaviors (e.g., nutrition, substance use, physical inactivity, sexual behavior), psychosomatic health, and social relations.Results For the majority of lifestyle behaviors, we found that mode of administration had no significant effect on adolescents' responses, whereas for several questions about feelings/affective states, more socially desirable responses were found in the paper and pencil format than in the computer format.Conclusion The present findings suggest a need for further exploration of potential mode effects on questions about feelings and affective states before transition from the paper and pencil HBSC-survey to the computer format.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.10.010

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vereecken, C. A., & Maes, L.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Vereecken, Carine A.
Venue
Journal of Adolescent Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-04
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
426-432
ISSN
1054-139X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2170972515
Cited by
77
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
8.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Adolescent Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
World Health Organization
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Adolescent Health and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
mode of administration, paper-and-pencil questionnaires, adolescent health behavior, lifestyle habits, social desirability bias, affective states
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Adult, Child, Data Collection, Female, Health Status, Health Surveys, Humans, Life Style, Male, Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sexual Behavior, Social Behavior, User-Computer Interface, Reproducibility of Results, Health Behavior, Exercise, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review