4.6 Article

Assessing the Feasibility and Sample Quality of a National Random-digit Dialing Cellular Phone Survey of Young Adults

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 179, Issue 1, Pages 39-47

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwt226

Keywords

cellular phone; random-digit dialing; sample quality; sampling; single-frame sampling design; surveillance; survey methodology; young adults

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01CA149705]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA149705] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The majority of adults aged 1834 years have only cellular phones, making random-digit dialing of landline telephones an obsolete methodology for surveillance of this population. However, 95 of this group has cellular phones. This article reports on the 2011 National Young Adult Health Survey (NYAHS), a pilot study conducted in the 50 US states and Washington, DC, that used random-digit dialing of cellular phones and benchmarked this methodology against that of the 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Comparisons of the demographic distributions of subjects in the NYAHS and BRFSS (aged 1834 years) with US Census data revealed adequate reach for all demographic subgroups. After adjustment for design factors, the mean absolute deviations across demographic groups were 3 percentage points for the NYAHS and 2.8 percentage points for the BRFSS, nationally, and were comparable for each census region. Two-sided z tests comparing cigarette smoking prevalence revealed no significant differences between NYAHS and BRFSS participants overall or by subgroups. The design effects of the sampling weight were 2.09 for the NYAHS and 3.26 for the BRFSS. Response rates for the NYAHS and BRFSS cellular phone sampling frames were comparable. Our assessment of the NYAHS methodology found that random-digit dialing of cellular phones is a feasible methodology for surveillance of young adults.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available