IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0074977.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘How Poor Are You?’ – A Comparison of Four Questionnaire Delivery Modes for Assessing Socio-Economic Position in Rural Zimbabwe

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie J S Pascoe
  • James R Hargreaves
  • Lisa F Langhaug
  • Richard J Hayes
  • Frances M Cowan

Abstract

Background: Assessing socio-economic position can be difficult, particularly in developing countries. Collection of socio-economic data usually relies on interviewer-administered questionnaires, but there is little research exploring how questionnaire delivery mode (QDM) influences reporting of these indicators. This paper reports on results of a trial of four QDMs, and the effect of mode on poverty reporting. Methods: This trial was nested within a community-randomised trial of an adolescent reproductive health intervention conducted in rural Zimbabwe. Participants were randomly allocated to one of four QDMs (three different self-administered modes and one interviewer-administered mode); a subset was randomly selected to complete the questionnaire twice. Questions covered three socio-economic domains: i) ownership of sellable and fixed assets; ii) ability to afford essential items; and iii) food sufficiency. Statistical analyses assessed the association between QDM and reporting of poverty, and compared the extent of response agreement between questionnaire rounds. Results: 96% (n = 1483) of those eligible took part; 395 completed the questionnaire twice. Reported levels of poverty were high. Respondents using self-administered modes were more likely to report being unable to afford essential items and having insufficient food. Among those completing the questionnaire twice using different modes, higher levels of poverty and food insufficiency were reported when they completed the questionnaire using a self-administered mode. Conclusion: These data suggest that QDM plays a significant role in how different socio-economic indicators are reported, and reminds us to consider the mode of collection when identifying indicators to determine socio-economic position.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie J S Pascoe & James R Hargreaves & Lisa F Langhaug & Richard J Hayes & Frances M Cowan, 2013. "‘How Poor Are You?’ – A Comparison of Four Questionnaire Delivery Modes for Assessing Socio-Economic Position in Rural Zimbabwe," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-9, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0074977
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0074977
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0074977&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0074977?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Newman, J.C. & Des Jarlais, D.C. & Turner, C.F. & Gribble, J. & Cooley, P. & Paone, D., 2002. "The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(2), pages 294-297.
    2. Torbjørn Moum, 1998. "Mode of administration and interviewer effects in self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 279-318, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Muñoz-Rios, Luis Alejandro & Vargas-Villegas, Jair & Suarez, Andres, 2020. "Local perceptions about rural abandonment drivers in the Colombian coffee region: Insights from the city of Manizales," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. P. Couper, Mick & Cernat, Alexandru & Beth Ofstedal, Mary, 2015. "Estimation of mode effects in the Health and Retirement Study using measurement models," ISER Working Paper Series 2015-19, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    2. Adeline Delavande & Dana Goldman & Neeraj Sood, 2010. "Criminal Prosecution and Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Related Risky Behavior," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(4), pages 741-782.
    3. Pridemore, William Alex & Damphousse, Kelly R. & Moore, Rebecca K., 2005. "Obtaining sensitive information from a wary population: A comparison of telephone and face-to-face surveys of welfare recipients in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 976-984, September.
    4. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Lila Rabinovich & Kate Weber & Marianna Babboni & Monica Dean & Lance Ignon, 2021. "Public understanding of climate change terminology," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Söderlund, Magnus, 2020. "Employee encouragement of self-disclosure in the service encounter and its impact on customer satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    6. Anastario, Mike & FireMoon, Paula & Rink, Elizabeth, 2020. "Sexual risk behaviors and the legacy of colonial violence among Northern plains American Indian youth: A mixed methods exploratory study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    7. María Dolores Sánchez Fernández, 2012. "Blended Teamwork: The Facebook Experience," Business Education and Accreditation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 4(1), pages 33-48.
    8. Michelle Poulin, 2010. "Reporting on first sexual experience," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 22(11), pages 237-288.
    9. Kar, Abhishek & Brauer, Michael & Bailis, Rob & Zerriffi, Hisham, 2020. "The risk of survey bias in self-reports vs. actual consumption of clean cooking fuels," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    10. Yan Wang & Sarah D Lynne & Dawn Witherspoon & Maureen M Black, 2020. "Longitudinal bidirectional relations between body dissatisfaction and depressive symptoms among Black adolescents: A cross-lagged panel analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Deniz Akgul & Vildan Gunes, 2023. "Minority Stress of Workers as Internal Customers: A Case Study in Turkey," Athens Journal of Business & Economics, Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER), vol. 9(1), pages 109-130, January.
    12. Francisco Muñoz-Leiva & Juan Sánchez-Fernández & Francisco Montoro-Ríos & José Ibáñez-Zapata, 2010. "Improving the response rate and quality in Web-based surveys through the personalization and frequency of reminder mailings," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1037-1052, August.
    13. Chaoyang Li & Earl Ford & Guixiang Zhao & James Tsai & Lina Balluz, 2012. "A comparison of depression prevalence estimates measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire with two administration modes: computer-assisted telephone interviewing versus computer-assisted personal i," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 57(1), pages 225-233, February.
    14. Anna Levinsson & Diana Miconi & Zhiyin Li & Rochelle L. Frounfelker & Cécile Rousseau, 2021. "Conspiracy Theories, Psychological Distress, and Sympathy for Violent Radicalization in Young Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-12, July.
    15. Lenandlar Singh, 2011. "Accuracy of Web Survey Data: The State Of Research on Factual Questions in Surveys," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 3(2), pages 48-56.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0074977. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.