Web Survey Bibliography
Title Formative Evaluation and Three-Month Follow-Up of an Online Personalized Assessment Feedback Intervention for Problem Drinkers
Author Cunningham, J. A., Humphreys, K., Kypri, K., van Mierlo, T.
Source Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8, 1
Year 2006
Access date 07.05.2006
Abstract Background: In recent years, online services for problem drinkers have been developed. This paper describes ongoing efforts to improve one of these services, the Alcohol Help Center.
Objective: This report summarizes new modules added to the Check Your Drinking (CYD) screener, a component of the Alcohol Help Center, to make the CYD screener more useful to periodic heavy drinkers, as well as to regular alcohol consumers. Participants’ initial reactions to the CYD screener and the changes in their drinking habits at a three-month follow-up are presented.
Methods: The CYD screener provides a free personalized Final Report that compares the user’s drinking to that of others in the general population of the same age, gender, and country of origin. Current alcohol consumption and demographic characteristics are collected as part of the CYD screening process. After users were presented with a customized Final Report, they were hot-linked to a volunteer feedback survey. The voluntary feedback survey asked about impressions of the CYD Final Report. Respondents agreeing to participate were sent a follow-up survey after three months.
Results: We recruited 388 volunteers (69% female) who were registered users of another free-to-consumer online eHealth service. Of the 343 respondents agreeing to participate in the three-month follow-up, 138 accessed the survey, and 97 provided complete data (participation rate = 40%; completion rate = 70%). Compared to moderate drinkers, current problem drinkers judged the Final Report to be more useful (34% vs. 69%, χ21 = 41.5, P < .001) and accurate (43% vs. 76%, χ21 = 36.0, P < .001). Respondents who participated in the three-month follow-up displayed reductions in drinking compared to baseline (F4,76 = 12.2, P = .001).
Conclusions: Improvements can still be made to make the CYD screener more relevant to specific populations, particularly periodic heavy drinkers. There is a need to further tailor algorithms that can present questions only relevant to specific populations. There also appears to be a need to further customize the Final Report for respondents who identify themselves as infrequent heavy drinkers. These improvements will be made, and a randomized controlled trial is planned to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the CYD screener as an intervention to help problem drinkers.
Objective: This report summarizes new modules added to the Check Your Drinking (CYD) screener, a component of the Alcohol Help Center, to make the CYD screener more useful to periodic heavy drinkers, as well as to regular alcohol consumers. Participants’ initial reactions to the CYD screener and the changes in their drinking habits at a three-month follow-up are presented.
Methods: The CYD screener provides a free personalized Final Report that compares the user’s drinking to that of others in the general population of the same age, gender, and country of origin. Current alcohol consumption and demographic characteristics are collected as part of the CYD screening process. After users were presented with a customized Final Report, they were hot-linked to a volunteer feedback survey. The voluntary feedback survey asked about impressions of the CYD Final Report. Respondents agreeing to participate were sent a follow-up survey after three months.
Results: We recruited 388 volunteers (69% female) who were registered users of another free-to-consumer online eHealth service. Of the 343 respondents agreeing to participate in the three-month follow-up, 138 accessed the survey, and 97 provided complete data (participation rate = 40%; completion rate = 70%). Compared to moderate drinkers, current problem drinkers judged the Final Report to be more useful (34% vs. 69%, χ21 = 41.5, P < .001) and accurate (43% vs. 76%, χ21 = 36.0, P < .001). Respondents who participated in the three-month follow-up displayed reductions in drinking compared to baseline (F4,76 = 12.2, P = .001).
Conclusions: Improvements can still be made to make the CYD screener more relevant to specific populations, particularly periodic heavy drinkers. There is a need to further tailor algorithms that can present questions only relevant to specific populations. There also appears to be a need to further customize the Final Report for respondents who identify themselves as infrequent heavy drinkers. These improvements will be made, and a randomized controlled trial is planned to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the CYD screener as an intervention to help problem drinkers.
Access/Direct link Journal homepage (full text)
Year of publication2006
Bibliographic typeJournal article
Full text availabilityFurther details
Web survey bibliography - 2006 (98)
- Adult gadget ownership over time (2006-2012); 2012
- Dutch Online Panel Comparison Study (NOPVO); 2006; R. van Ossenbruggen; T. Vonk; P. Willems
- Migration Watch: an Internet survey to monitor spring migration in Britain and Ireland; 2006; Baillie, S. R., Balmer, D. E., Downie, I. S., Wright, K. H. M.
- Substance use and sexual behaviours of Japanese men who have sex with men: A nationwide internet survey...; 2006; Hidaka, Y., Ichikawa, S., Koyano, J., Urao, M., Yasuo, T., Kimura, H., Kihara, M., Ono-Kihara, M.
- Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing: Mode Effects on Data Quality and Likely Causes. Report...; 2006; Jaeckle, A., Lynn, P., Roberts, C.,
- DADOS-Survey: an open-source application for CHERRIES-compliant Web surveys; 2006; Shah, A., Jacobs, D. O., Martins, H., Harker, M., Menezes, A., Harker, M., McCready, M., Pietrobon,...
- Snowball Sampling ; 2006; Berg, S.
- Introduction nonresponse bias in household surveys ; 2006; Singer, E.
- Essential Steps for Web Surveys: A Guide to Designing, Administering and Utilizing Web Surveys for University...; 2006; Cheskis-Gold, R., Loescher, R., Shepard-Rabadam, E., Carroll, B.
- Don't make me think: a common sense approach to web usability; 2006; Krug, S.
- The use of an Internet-based Ask the Doctor Service involving family physicians: evaluation by a web...; 2006; Umefjord, G., Hamberg, K., Malker, H., Petersson, G.
- A short introduction to usability in online surveys; 2006; Kaczmirek, L.
- Measuring task-specific perceptions of the world wide web ; 2006; Page-Thomas, K.
- Oversurveying: Causes, Consequences, and Cures; 2006; Weiner, S. P., Dalessio, A. T.
- Online Reporting: Real Time, Real Impact, Real Opportunities ; 2006; Barbera, K. M., Young, S.
- Online Surveys: Critical Issues in Using the Web to Conduct Surveys; 2006; Fenlason, K., Suckow-Zimberg, K.
- Getting Action from Organizational Surveys: New Concepts, Technologies, and Applications; 2006; Kraut, A. I.
- Survey Methodology; 2006; Nusser, S. M.
- Web-based survey techniques. A synthesis of Transit practice; 2006
- Web 2.0 & panels. The shift from lectures to conversations; 2006; Cook, M., Buckley, N.
- Understanding people. Sample matching; 2006; Rivers, D.
- The power of the visible: Visual design for Web surveys; 2006; Couper, M. P.
- The internet response method: Impact on the Canadian Census of population data; 2006; Roy, L., Laroche, D.
- The effect of conditioning when re-interviewing; 2006; Cartwright, T., Nancarrow, C.
- The anonymous elect. Market research through online access panels; 2006; Postoaca, A.
- Statistics for real-life sample surveys: non-simple-random samples and weighted data; 2006; Dorofeev, S., Grant, P.
- Sample matching. Representative sampling from Internet panels; 2006; Rivers, D.
- Research quality: The next MR industry challenge; 2006; Dedeker, K.
- Optimizing quality in the use of web-based and computer based testing for personnel selection; 2006; Hornke, L. F., Kersting, M.
- Online marketing research; 2006; Miller, J.
- Need for high quality auxiliary data service for improving the quality of editing and imputation...; 2006; Laaksonen, S.
- Microsoft sues testing material vendors; 2006; Johnston, S. J.
- Introduction to the Special Issue on the ITC - Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing...; 2006; Coyne, I., Bartram, D.
- International Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing; 2006
- How successful I am depends on what number I get: The effects of numerical scale labels and need for...; 2006; Yan, T.
- Greenfield unveils real-time sampling; 2006
- Global market research 2006; 2006
- F-Shaped pattern for reading web content; 2006; Nielsen, J.
- Blocked versus randomized format of questionnaires. A confirmatory multigroup analysis; 2006; Sparfeldt, J. R., Schilling, S. R., Rost, D. H., Rost, D. H., Thiel, A.
- Benefits and challenges of multi-sourcing. Understanding differences between sample sources; 2006; de Gaudemar, O.
- Behavioral self-report measures. International extensions; 2006; Thomas, R. K., Klein, J. D.
- Attitudinal differences. Comparing people who belong to multiple versus single panels; 2006; Casdas, D., Fine, B., Menictas, C.
- Assessing individual respondents' quality. An innovative scoring system; 2006; Loeb, C.,Hartmann, A.
- Assessing Panel Bias in the Knowledge Networks Panel: Updated Results from 2005 Research ; 2006; Pineau, V., Nukulkij, P., Tang, X.
- A Critical Assessment of Online Survey Tools; 2006; Marra, R. M., Bogue, B.
- A dynamic technique for conducting online survey-based research; 2006; Bonometti, R. J., Tang, J.
- The 2006 Confirmit Annual MR Software Survey; 2006; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- Online community survey: an effectiveness measure for revealing citizen preferences in their role as...; 2006; Martin Juanil, D., Ismail, M.
- Blaise – Alive and kicking for 20 years; 2006; Bethlehem, J., Hofman, L.
- Physical or Virtual Presence of the Experimenter: Psychological Online-Experiments in Different Settings...; 2006; Ollesch, H., Heineken, E., Schulte, F. P.