Cited by 35Survey Methodology and NonresponseReliability and Agreement in MeasurementStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Interviewer Effects in a Cohort Study: Results from the Massachusetts Women's Health Study

Johannes, C. B., Crawford, S. L., McKinlay, J. B.·1997·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Although interviewer error is widely recognized as an important source of variation in epidemiologic investigations, scant published information exists documenting the impact of interviewer variation on study findings. Using data from the Massachusetts Women's Health Study, a population-based cohort study of 2,569 middle-aged women (1982-1987), the authors evaluated interviewer variation in responses to different types of questions, and assessed the impact of interviewer variation on inferences derived from study data. Respondent sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics were similar for the four study interviewers at the first follow-up. No interviewer variation was detected for questions concerning recall of specific events, but responses to questions regarding recall of subjective or personal information or those which required further probing did differ significantly by interviewer. Adjustment for interviewer effects had no impact on the conclusions obtained from one analysis of predictors of depression, despite significant interviewer variation in the outcome and predictor variables, but it did change conclusions from an analysis of the impact of support networks on psychological symptoms, wherein the interviewer variable was strongly related to the outcome after data were controlled for predictor variables. Given these findings, examination of data for interviewer effects is advisable despite incorporation of quality control measures in a study's design.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009296

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johannes, C. B., Crawford, S. L., & McKinlay, J. B.
Affiliations
New England Research Institutes (US)
Corresponding author
Johannes, C. B.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
1997-09-01
Volume
146
Issue
5
Pages
429-438
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W1964894088
Cited by
34
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (2r01ag003111-09a1)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG 03111)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
interviewer effects, middle-aged women, depression, social support networks, psychological symptoms
MeSH terms
Depression, Female, Humans, Massachusetts, Menopause, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Telephone, Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio, Women's Health

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