Comparison of three data collection methodologies for the study of young illicit drug users.

Australian journal of public health Pub Date : 1993-09-01
C Spooner, B Flaherty
{"title":"Comparison of three data collection methodologies for the study of young illicit drug users.","authors":"C Spooner,&nbsp;B Flaherty","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Three data collection methods (street-intercept, telephone ring-in and focus-group discussions) were compared for their feasibility, reliability, validity and cost. The subjects of investigation were drug-related behaviours, attitudes and knowledge among current illicit drug users aged 16 to 21 years in Sydney. All three methods were found to be feasible and to produce reliable and valid information. Few differences in the demographic make-up and drug-use profiles of the samples were evident. The main differences between the data collections related to cost and the type of information obtained. The street-intercept method was the cheapest per completed interview and the focus-group method was the most expensive. Focus-group discussions were considered a valuable adjunct to the surveys because they facilitated an understanding of the quantitative survey results. It was concluded that the street-intercept method is the preferred survey method because of its lower cost and lower susceptibility to volunteer bias compared to the telephone ring-in. For repeated data collection to monitor changes in drug use patterns, street-intercept surveys in combination with focus-group discussions are recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":77023,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of public health","volume":"17 3","pages":"195-202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian journal of public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Three data collection methods (street-intercept, telephone ring-in and focus-group discussions) were compared for their feasibility, reliability, validity and cost. The subjects of investigation were drug-related behaviours, attitudes and knowledge among current illicit drug users aged 16 to 21 years in Sydney. All three methods were found to be feasible and to produce reliable and valid information. Few differences in the demographic make-up and drug-use profiles of the samples were evident. The main differences between the data collections related to cost and the type of information obtained. The street-intercept method was the cheapest per completed interview and the focus-group method was the most expensive. Focus-group discussions were considered a valuable adjunct to the surveys because they facilitated an understanding of the quantitative survey results. It was concluded that the street-intercept method is the preferred survey method because of its lower cost and lower susceptibility to volunteer bias compared to the telephone ring-in. For repeated data collection to monitor changes in drug use patterns, street-intercept surveys in combination with focus-group discussions are recommended.

研究青少年非法药物使用者的三种数据收集方法的比较。
对三种数据收集方法(街头拦截、电话质询和焦点小组讨论)的可行性、信度、效度和成本进行了比较。调查对象是悉尼目前16至21岁的非法吸毒者与毒品有关的行为、态度和知识。所有三种方法都是可行的,并产生了可靠和有效的信息。这些样本的人口构成和吸毒情况差别不大。数据收集的主要区别在于成本和获得的信息类型。每个完成的访谈中,街头拦截法是最便宜的,焦点小组法是最昂贵的。焦点小组讨论被认为是对调查的宝贵补充,因为它们有助于了解定量调查的结果。结果表明,与电话插播相比,街道拦截法成本更低,对志愿者偏见的敏感性更低,是首选的调查方法。为了反复收集数据以监测药物使用模式的变化,建议将街头拦截调查与焦点小组讨论相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信