The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of telephone versus face‐to‐face interview modes on reports of alcohol consumption
Abstract
Aims and design: In order to assess the effects of survey modality on alcohol consumption estimates, data from two surveys using different interview modes (face‐to‐face and telephone) were compared on several alcohol measures. Setting and participants: Face‐to‐face survey data were drawn from the 1990 National Alcohol Survey, while the telephone data came from the 1990 Warning Labels Survey. Both surveys used a probability sampling of the US adult general population in the 48 contiguous states. Measurements: Measures of alcohol use derived from an identical graduated frequencies series included estimates of any drinking in the past 12 months, overall volume, and heavy (5+) drinking days. Findings: Abstention rates did not differ by survey mode, nor did distributions of alcohol consumption by volume and reported frequency of drinking five or more drinks in a day. Multiple regression models including demographic‐mode interaction terms were used to examine how mode effects might differ across demographic subgroups. Lower income respondents were under‐represented in the telephone sample, and were associated with lower reports of volume and (5+) days, compared to respondents in the face‐to‐face mode. Conclusions: The results suggest that although there are few differences in alcohol consumption estimates by interview mode, telephone samples may need to be supplemented or estimates adjusted by income level in order to attain equivalent results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires
Holbrook, A. L., Green, M. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/346010 · Cited by 916
Szolnoki, G., & Hoffmann, D. (2013) · Wine Economics and Policy · doi:10.1016/j.wep.2013.10.001 · Cited by 419
Alcohol measurement methodology in epidemiology: recent advances and opportunities
Greenfield, T. K., & Kerr, W. C. (2008) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02197.x · Cited by 339
Self-citationAssessing what to address in science communication
Bruine de Bruin, W., & Bostrom, A. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1212729110 · Cited by 290
Losada, A., Robinson Shurgot, G., Knight, B. G., Márquez, M., Montorio, I., Izal, M., & Ruiz, M. A. (2006) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607860500307647 · Cited by 146
Metadata
- Authors
- Greenfield, T. K., Midanik, L. T., & Rogers, J. D.
- Venue
- Addiction
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-02
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 277-284
- ISSN
- 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
- 1360-0443
- OpenAlex
- W1988841000
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of telephone versus face‐to‐face interview modes on reports of alcohol consumption. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.95227714.x
- The paper
- Greenfield, T. K., Midanik, L. T., & Rogers, J. D. (2000). Effects of telephone versus face‐to‐face interview modes on reports of alcohol consumption. Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.95227714.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.