Abstract
AbstractIt is critically important to correctly identify persons with a lifetime history (LTH) of suicide attempts (SA) from both a clinical and research perspective. Face-to-face interviews are often the best available method for researchers to collect data about a complex phenomenon like a LTH of SA. However, extensive survey methodology research has shown that probing sensitive topics like a LTH of SA are sensitive for interviewer-related errors or interviewer effects. Studies investigating these interviewer effects are scarce in the field of suicide studies. This study presents a possible roadmap for study of interviewerrelated measurement error and an exploration of role-dependent behaviour of interviewers by assessing the LTH of SA through an epidemiological design. Data from the baseline assessment of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (N = 2981) was used to illustrate the proposed roadmap to study interviewer effects. Results show: : (1) that it was possible to identify the existence of interviewer effects in assessing a LTH of SA; (2) that interviewer effects occurred by probing and clarification activities of the interviewer but not with inadequate formulation of the original question and so give a possible explanation for these effects; and (3) that it was possible to study the impact of these effects on the association between a well-known risk factor and LTH of SA. Applying the Measurement Error framework for systematically examining errors in data collection on suicidality seems a promising method.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Statistics and Probability
Reference53 articles.
1. Beck, A.T., Brown, G.K., Steer, B.A.: Psychometric characteristics of the scale for suicide Ideation with psychiatric outpatients. Behav. Res.Ther. 35(11), 1039–1046 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00073-9
2. Bell, K., Fahmi, E., Gordon, D.: Quantitative conversations: The importance of developing rapport In standardized interviewing. Qual. Quant. 50(1), 193–212 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0144-2
3. Biemer, P., Stokes, S.: Approaches to the modelling of measurements error in surveys. In: Biemer, P., Groves, R.M., Lyberg, L.E., Mathiowetz, NA., Sudman, S. (eds.) Measurements Errors in Surveys, pp 485–516. John Wiley and Sons, New York ISBN: 0-471-53405-6 (1991)
4. Biemer, P.: Total Survey Error: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Public. Opin. Q. 74(5), 817–848 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq058
5. Billiet, J., Loosveldt, G.: Improvement of the quality of responses to factual survey questions by interviewer training. Public. Opin. Q. 52(2), 190–211 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1086/269094