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 (4086)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer; 2017; Hagan, T. L.; Belcher, S. M.; Donovan, H. S.
- Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys; 2017; Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
- Ideal and maximum length for a web survey; 2017; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey; 2017; Caputo, A.
- Web-Based Survey Methodology; 2017; Wright, K. B.
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Lessons from recruitment to an internet based survey for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: merits of...; 2017; Davies, B.; Kotter, M. R.
- Web Survey Gamification - Increasing Data Quality in Web Surveys by Using Game Design Elements; 2017; Schacht, S.; Keusch, F.; Bergmann, N.; Morana, S.
- Effects of sampling procedure on data quality in a web survey; 2017; Rimac, I.; Ogresta, J.
- Comparability of web and telephone surveys for the measurement of subjective well-being; 2017; Sarracino, F.; Riillo, C. F. A.; Mikucka, M.
- Achieving Strong Privacy in Online Survey; 2017; Zhou, Yo.; Zhou, Yi.; Chen, S.; Wu, S. S.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Ratesin Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate...; 2017; Saleh, A.; Bista, K.
- Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2017; Geisen, E.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Paradata as an aide to questionnaire design: Improving quality and reducing burden; 2017; Timm, E.; Stewart, J.; Sidney, I.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Interviewer Gender and Survey Responses: The Effects of Humanizing Cues Variations; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Krzewinska, A.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Nonresponses as context-sensitive response behaviour of participants in online-surveys and their relevance...; 2017; Wetzlehuetter, D.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- Predicting Breakoffs in Web Surveys; 2017; Mittereder, F.; West, B. T.
- Measuring Subjective Health and Life Satisfaction with U.S. Hispanics; 2017; Lee, S.; Davis, R.
- Humanizing Cues in Internet Surveys: Investigating Respondent Cognitive Processes; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.; Krzewinska, A.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in Two Online Surveys; 2017; Cibelli Hibben, K.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- The 2016 Canadian Census: An Innovative Wave Collection Methodology to Maximize Self-Response and Internet...; 2017; Mathieu, P.
- Push2web or less is more? Experimental evidence from a mixed-mode population survey at the community...; 2017; Neumann, R.; Haeder, M.; Brust, O.; Dittrich, E.; von Hermanni, H.
- In search of best practices; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; Steijn, S.
- Redirected Inbound Call Sampling (RICS); A New Methodology ; 2017; Krotki, K.; Bobashev, G.; Levine, B.; Richards, S.
- An Empirical Process for Using Non-probability Survey for Inference; 2017; Tortora, R.; Iachan, R.
- The perils of non-probability sampling; 2017; Bethlehem, J.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners’ Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based...; 2017; Sebo, P.; Maisonneuve, H.; Cerutti, B.; Pascal Fournier, J.; Haller, D. M.
- Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary...; 2017; Meitinger, K.
- Nonresponse in Organizational Surveying: Attitudinal Distribution Form and Conditional Response Probabilities...; 2017; Kulas, J. T.; Robinson, D. H.; Kellar, D. Z.; Smith, J. A.
- Theory and Practice in Nonprobability Surveys: Parallels between Causal Inference and Survey Inference...; 2017; Mercer, A. W.; Kreuter, F.; Keeter, S.; Stuart, E. A.
- Is There a Future for Surveys; 2017; Miller, P. V.
- Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback; 2017; Conrad, F.; Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- A Working Example of How to Use Artificial Intelligence To Automate and Transform Surveys Into Customer...; 2017; Neve, S.
- A Case Study on Evaluating the Relevance of Some Rules for Writing Requirements through an Online Survey...; 2017; Warnier, M.; Condamines, A.
- Estimating the Impact of Measurement Differences Introduced by Efforts to Reach a Balanced Response...; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.