CAIRN-INT.INFO : International Edition

1Thanks to the diversity of data collection methodologies, survey designers can choose the approach best adapted to the questions asked in their research. This choice is all the more decisive if the survey concerns a sensitive topic on which little quantitative information exists, such as illicit drug use.

2A survey, need it be said, is not just a neutral data-collecting procedure: the process always involves interaction between interviewer and respondent. This interaction has in itself been the object of sociological investigation (de Singly, 1983). Very often, a respondent will try to give the “right answers”, those that are the most “socially desirable”, in particular when dealing with sensitive topics—topics for which the respondent may feel that the answer will elicit a negative moral judgment. As happens in all interactions, the respondent will then try to make the most favourable impression. This involves dividing life into separate compartments. We all play different roles in specific situations and for particular audiences, and we do not necessarily wish any connection to be made between them (Goffman, 1959). A survey often explores several topics. By removing the boundaries between “compartments” that had been kept separate and by connecting contradictory facets of an individual’s identity, it may be perceived as threatening the image that a person is seeking to present [1].

3This threat is probably felt differently, depending on the method used. A self-administered questionnaire may seem less threatening than a face-to-face or telephone interview. Some American studies have shown that self-administered questionnaires are better adapted for reporting behaviour that is perceived as compromising by the respondents, since they do not have to give their answers directly to an interviewer (Hochstim, 1967; Wiseman, 1972; Siemiatycki et al., 1984; Smart, 1985; Turner et al., 1992; Aquilino, 1994; Rogers et al., 1999). Gmel (2000) obtains the same results in a double survey on alcohol consumption, conducted in Switzerland by telephone or by mail. Other studies suggest on the contrary that the telephone works better for collecting information on sensitive subjects, such as menstruation (Mooney et al., 1968), perceptions of what is “moral” behaviour (Pless and Miller, 1979), and trophoblastic disease (Czaja, 1987), while some studies detect differences that are not significant (Greenfield et al., 2000). In France, comparisons between methods have dealt mainly with surveys on sensitive behaviour among adult respondents in telephone or face-to-face sample surveys (ACSF, 1992; Guilbert et al., 1999).

4The influence of context, collection method and sampling frame on the results certainly deserves to be studied, but sufficiently comparable data are rarely available. To perform such a comparison under appropriate conditions without setting up a costly ad hoc test [2], two surveys based on large samples with similar characteristics, conducted at approximately the same dates and asking at least several identical questions must be available. Such an opportunity was provided by the Baromètre Santé jeunes 97/ 98 (Youth Health Barometer survey) of the Comité français d’éducation pour la santé (French Committee for Health Education – CFES), based on information collected by phone, and the 1997 survey on deviant behaviour among secondary school students commissioned by the French Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (Observatoire français des drogues et des toxicomanies – OFDT) and executed by the Centre d’analyse et d’intervention sociologiques (Centre for Sociological Analysis and Intervention – CADIS), which was conducted in schools through a self-administered questionnaire. Since both surveys investigated the reported use of psychoactive drugs among 15-19 year-olds, the differences observed provide valuable indications as to the impact of data collection methods.

5After presenting the two surveys, we will compare their results. The prevalence of illicit drug use during the last year is higher in the self-administered questionnaire, regardless of drug type. We will analyse this difference for use of cannabis, since this is the most commonly used psychoactive substance. We will first examine possible selection biases in order to ensure that the two samples are indeed comparable, and end by investigating the impact of the data collection method on the results.

I – Systematic differences between the two types of surveys

1 – The surveys

6French surveys devoted, at least partly, to illicit drug consumption among young people generally use one of three data collection methods: telephone interviews (Baudier et al., 1998), face-to-face interviews (Lagrange et al., 1997) or self-administered questionnaires (Choquet and Ledoux, 1994; de Peretti and Lesellbaum, 1995; de Peretti, 1996; Baudier et al., 1997; de Peretti and Lesellbaum, 1999; Ballion, 1999; Navarro et al., 1999). The accuracy of reporting on illicit behaviour is difficult to measure, particularly among adolescents, even if the interviewers have been specially trained and the respondents have been told that their answers are confidential and anonymous. When the questions touch upon “sensitive” topics, adults appear to answer more easily by telephone than in face-to-face interviews. This has been shown in France with respect to surveys on lifetime drug use among persons aged 18-75 (Guilbert et al., 1999). For other sensitive subjects, however, such as sexual behaviour, the comparison of these two methods did not show such a clear-cut difference (ACSF, 1992; Riandey and Firdion, 1996; Le Vaillant, 1993) [3]. In fact, other factors such as the personal characteristics of the respondents and of the interviewers also play a role: the interviewer effect has often been demonstrated (Deville, 1994; Berthier et al., 1996), particularly in surveys on sensitive topics (Firdion and Laurent, 1998). As concerns adolescents, they seem to find it easier to talk face-to-face to young interviewers (Lagrange et al., 1997). The surveys used here are based on the other two methods of data collection.

7The Baromètre Santé jeunes 97/98 is a telephone survey (Baudier et al., 1998). The data were collected through a computer-assisted telephone interview system (CATI) that optimizes the quality of the survey by allowing data entry checks and saves interviewer’s time through computerized management of telephone calls, appointments, filtering, etc. The fieldwork took place in November and December 1997, with a sample of 4,115 young people representative of the population aged 12-19 living in metropolitan France. The sample was established on the basis of 39,300 phone numbers randomly selected from the national telephone directory. Among these, 1,598 did not correspond to the target (wrong or professional numbers), 27,983 did not correspond to the survey universe (71 non French-speaking households and 27,891 households with no persons aged 12-19), 4,101 were impossible to reach despite ten attempts on different days and at different times. If the contacted household had more than one person belonging to the targeted age group, the respondent was selected according to the next birthday method. Among the 5,639 eligible households, 983 refused to participate, 325 persons were impossible to reach or unable to respond, 144 persons personally refused to respond and 37 gave up in mid-interview. The survey had been announced by mail, before the first telephone call. The representative quality of the sample was ensured through statistical adjustment taking into account age, sex, region of residence and type of housing. The Baromètre Santé jeunes surveys collect information concerning behaviour, knowledge and attitudes of adolescents in matters of health. Only adolescents aged 15-19, that is 2,675 persons, were asked about illicit drug consumption. This precautionary measure was taken after a pilot survey conducted in October 1997 showed that younger adolescents were frequently embarrassed to talk about drugs. The research team also believed that approaching such a topic outside the framework of a prevention campaign and without offering any possibility for fuller discussion could easily be troubling for an ill-informed person, as is usually the case of young adolescents.

8In the CADIS survey on deviant behaviour among secondary school students, the data were collected using the self-administered questionnaire method. The survey was conducted in schools in two stages (April-May 1997 and November-December 1997) on 10,004 public secondary school students (Ballion, 1999). Six school districts (Amiens, Bordeaux, Créteil, Grenoble, Poitiers, Rennes) were chosen on the basis of their size and geographical location, and 85 schools were randomly selected according to size, type (general and technical on one hand, vocational on the other) and success rate in the baccalauréat (the secondary school graduation diploma) in 1996 within their respective school districts. In each selected school, four to six classes were chosen on the basis of grade. These classes were sampled exhaustively (all the students of the class were interviewed). The sampling was thus a multi-stage cluster sampling [4]. The students completed the questionnaires themselves, under the supervision of a member of the school’s medical staff, or if not of a main school counsellor or a social worker. Five schools refused to take part in the survey, and in each case the reason given by the principal was that the school had a “drug problem”. These five schools were not replaced and no adjustment was made to the sample. The truancy rate noted by the person responsible for supervising the filling-in of the questionnaire averaged 3% in general and technical schools and 5% in vocational schools. In addition, 85 questionnaires were considered unusable, which reduced the sample to 9,919 students. This survey covers deviant behaviour among secondary school students (risky behaviour, transgressions, victimization, consumption of psychoactive substances, etc.). It was presented to the students as a “survey on the schooling conditions of secondary school students”.

9This article is devoted mainly to the comparison between these two surveys. However, we will also from time to time refer to a third source: a survey that the OFDT commissioned the National Institute of Pedagogical research (INRP) and the University of Paris X to take on Parisian secondary school students and psychoactive drugs (de Peretti and Lesellbaum, 1999) [5].

2 – Systematic differences

10On the issue of illicit psychoactive substances, these three studies often ask rather similar questions, even if differences in formulation can sometimes hamper comparison. Nonetheless, the three surveys raise the question of the use of illicit substances during the last twelve months in very similar terms [6] and at the same stage in the questionnaire (towards the end, after a question concerning alcohol and tobacco consumption). It is thus possible to compare the results obtained for these declared uses. The question about past-year use is more “sensitive” than that pertaining to lifetime use, since the latter can sometimes be perceived as an initiation entitling the respondent to answer questions of opinion on drugs. This hypothesis is supported by American research which compares estimates on drug use obtained through self-administered questionnaires and in face-to-face interviews. The estimates are always higher with the self-administered questionnaire, and the differences are largest when the question touches upon a recent period. This is particularly true for questions concerning the use of cocaine during the month preceding the survey, since reported use is 2.4 times higher when the information is collected through a self-administered questionnaire. In comparison, the lifetime consumption of cannabis is only 1.6 times higher and that of alcohol during the last month is only 1.06 times higher; in the latter case, the difference between the two collection methods is not significant (Turner et al., 1992).

11Table 1 summarizes the prevalence of the use of different substances during the year obtained in the three surveys (i.e. the proportion of respondents having used a given substance at least once during the last twelve months). The differences between the Baromètre Santé jeunes survey and the CADIS-OFDT self-administered survey are relatively large, and what is more, systematic. Regardless of the substance under consideration, the observed prevalence is higher for the in-school self-administered survey. Even if one sums the items “hallucinogens” and “ecstasy” of the Baromètre survey for comparison with the items “ecstasy + LSD” of the CADIS-OFDT survey, the declared prevalence is lower in the Baromètre Santé jeunes survey. Similarly, the prevalence is higher in the INRP-Paris X-OFDT survey than in the Baromètre. These results must nevertheless be read with caution, since they concern only the Paris school district. The differences between the two in-school surveys (higher prevalence in Paris for cannabis and lower for other illicit substances) are probably linked to regional differences.

Table 1

Prevalence of use of different illicit psychoactive drugs during the last year, by source

Table 1
Substance Baromètre Santé jeunes n =2,675 CADIS-OFDT survey n =9,919 INRP-Paris X-OFDT survey n =875 Cannabis 22.8% 29.8% 34.4% Cocaine 0.1% 1.9% 0.8% Heroin 0.0% 1.7% 0.2% Ecstasy(1) 0.5% 3.4% 1.5% Hallucinogens 0.7% item absent item absent Inhalants(2) 0.3% 5.7% 1.0% Other drugs 0.1% 4.1% item absent All substances(3) 22.8% 33.5% 35.3% (1) Ecstasy +LSD for the CADIS-OFDT survey. (2) Glue, solvents for the INRP-Paris X-OFDT survey. (3) The prevalence for all substances is lower or equal to the sum of prevalences in the column, since the dif ferent substances are not mutually exclusive. Sampled population: young people aged 15-19 (whether or not they attend school) for the Baromètre Santé, public secondary school students for the CADIS-OFDT survey, Parisian secondary school students (from both public and private schools) for the INRP-Paris X-OFDT survey. Sources: CFES, Baromètre Santé jeunes, 1997; CADIS-OFDT survey on deviant behaviour among secon dary school students, 1997; INRP-Paris X-OFDT survey on Parisian secondary school students and psy choactive drugs, 1998.

Prevalence of use of different illicit psychoactive drugs during the last year, by source

12As concerns reported use of illicit drugs during the year, we observe a systematic difference between the telephone survey and the self-administered questionnaire survey. In order to understand the reasons behind this difference, it is important to note that the two surveys do not target the same population: each collection method creates its own specific selection biases.

II – Are the differences due to selection biases?

1 – Comparability of the two samples

13The populations surveyed by the Baromètre Santé jeunes and the CADIS survey match only partially. The Baromètre survey interviewed young people aged 15-19, who were either in secondary school (lycée), middle school (collège), higher education or not in school, while the CADIS-OFDT survey interviewed only secondary school students, among whom a small number were aged under 15 or over 19. To be valid, the comparison must be limited to the persons covered by both surveys, that is secondary school students aged 15-19. The comparison will thus be limited to this sub-group and to cannabis use during the previous year, because it is the only substance whose prevalence is sufficiently high to allow detailed statistical analysis. Once these adjustments are performed on the two samples, we are left with 1,681 observations for the Baromètre and 9,280 for the CADIS-OFDT survey; the respective prevalence of cannabis use is 21.3% and 29.7%. Contrary to what might have been expected, the exclusion of non-students from the Baromètre Santé jeunes survey leads to only a slight decrease of prevalence (which reached 22.8% before the samples were made comparable). If young people not attending school are more likely to use cannabis than those who are, this is because their average age is higher (Langemeijer, 1997); the age effect is limited by the sample being restricted to ages 15-19.

14For an even stricter comparison, we should have also excluded from the Baromètre sample the students of agricultural and private secondary schools, but this information was not available. However, a separate study conducted by CADIS in agricultural secondary schools shows that the prevalence of illicit drug use in these schools is close to that observed in other schools (Ballion, 1998). In addition, we would have had to exclude from the school survey the young people who were not reachable by phone—and thus not covered by the Baromètre survey—either because their household does not have one (this is true of about 4% of French households) (Beck et al., 2000), or because their phone numbers are unlisted (one in five households) (Ambroise and Mauris, 1999).

15It must be noted that refusals are much more frequent in phone surveys. A few absent students and a few unanswered questions (never in excess of 4%) affect the in-school survey, whereas in telephone interviews, several obstacles have to be overcome before the interviewer can start collecting information. Thus, even though the respondents themselves rarely refuse to answer (3.3% of individual refusals and 0.9% dropping out in mid-survey), refusals on the part of the household (i.e. by the parents) are much more frequent (17.4%), though not excessive for a survey of this type. For comparative purposes, the corresponding rates were respectively 14%, 1% and 8% in the survey on knowledge, attitude, beliefs and practices in matters pertaining to AIDS in France (Grémy et al., 1999) and 8%, 5% and 15% in the 95/96 Baromètre Santé survey for adults (Baudier and Arènes, 1997). Nevertheless, the major problem is that we know nothing of the young people who could not be reached by phone.

16We must also say a word about those who remain excluded from both types of surveys (because they are not in school and are difficult to reach by phone) and who represent a rather specific group in terms of psychoactive substance use. These can be young people who are hospitalized for relatively long periods, homeless youth or students who skip classes and spend most of their time outside their home. The survey conducted in 1997 and 1998 by Unit 472 of the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) among young people who are in the care of the Protection judiciaire de la jeunesse (PJJ – Court protection of youth) as a result of either their own behaviour or that of their kin, provides some clues despite the very low response rate (17%). Young people interviewed in this context began to use illicit drugs, and particularly cannabis, at an earlier age than average (Choquet et al., 1998).

2 – The differences remain after controlling for age and sex

17All the available data confirm that consumption of illicit drugs in general and of cannabis in particular is strongly linked to sex and age. Boys use illicit drugs more than girls, and use tends to increase with age, at least until 18 (Beck et al., 2000). If the CADIS sample were older and/ or more female than that of the Baromètre, this could explain the differences observed between the two surveys. In fact, the teenagers interviewed in school are slightly older than those interviewed by phone: 16.8 years against 16.6, this difference being significant at the usual level of 5%. On the other hand, there are slightly fewer boys in the CADIS sample (45.5% against 47.4%), but in this case the difference is not significant. In order to take into account the specific structure of each sample, it is better to compare the surveys at the same age and for the same sex. Figures 1 and 2 show the evolution by sex of cannabis use during the year between ages 15 and 19. The random sample of the Baromètre Santé jeunes was designed to allow the computation of a confidence interval (of 95%) for this prevalence, at each age and for each sex. For the in-school survey, we were unable to calculate the confidence interval due to lack of information on the clusters. Figure 1 shows that according to the two surveys, the prevalence among boys undergoes similar variations between ages 15 and 19. The curve corresponding to the CADIS data is always above the other, and is usually outside of the confidence interval of the Baromètre curve, whose limits are marked by the two thin lines.

Figure 1

Past-year use of cannabis among male secondary school students aged 15-19, by data source (%)

Figure 1

Past-year use of cannabis among male secondary school students aged 15-19, by data source (%)

Sources: CFES, Baromètre Santé jeunes, 1997; CADIS-OFDT survey on deviant behaviour among secondary school students, 1997.

18The same result can be observed among girls (Figure 2). The two prevalence curves have the same general shape, those of the CADIS data being higher and outside the confidence interval of the Baromètre curve (except at age 19, when this interval becomes wider, reflecting the small number of female secondary school students aged 19 in the Baromètre Santé jeunes survey).

Figure 2

Past-year use of cannabis among female secondary school students aged 15-19, by data source (%)

Figure 2

Past-year use of cannabis among female secondary school students aged 15-19, by data source (%)

Sources: CFES, Baromètre Santé jeunes, 1997; CADIS-OFDT survey on deviant behaviour among secondary school students, 1997.

19Thus, for the same age and the same sex, there remains a difference between the two surveys. Moreover, other factors linked to the consumption of illicit drugs must be controlled as well. Previous analyses have shown that this consumption is more frequent among teenagers who have repeated a school year, among those attending vocational schools, those who often miss school for no valid reason, and also among those living in a household whose head is a manager or an executive (Choquet and Ledoux, 1994, 1999; de Peretti and Lesellbaum, 1999).

20The higher prevalence of cannabis use observed in the school survey could be due to the overrepresentation of these particular characteristics. In fact, the students of vocational secondary schools are a little more numerous in the CADIS-OFDT survey (21.7% as against 19.8%), and those who have repeated a year at least once are a little more numerous in the Baromètre survey (50.7% as against 49.0%), but in neither case are these differences significant. On the other hand, truancy is more frequently reported in the CADIS-OFDT survey, even if the questions are not asked in the same way. In the latter survey, 40.8% of those aged 15-19 reported having already missed school “with no valid excuse”, whereas only 21.6% of the Baromètre survey declare having already “skipped class”; the difference in this case is highly significant.

21As concerns family background, the social characteristics of the parents are very different in the two surveys. For example, the proportion of blue-collar workers is much higher in the Baromètre survey (34.8% as against 21.1% in the CADIS-OFDT survey), and the opposite is true for lower-level white-collar workers (14.6% against 22.9%). This difference is probably due to the data collection method. Over the phone, the respondent reports the exact occupation of the household’s person of reference, and the interviewer then attributes a code number to the occupation using a detailed coding scheme, asking the respondent for additional information if necessary. In contrast, on paper, respondents mark what they think is the correct socio-occupational category, with a much greater risk of error. The differences in the opposite direction observed for blue-collar and lower level white-collar workers may reflect the difficulty that adolescents have in distinguishing between these two categories [7]. On the other hand, as concerns the category “managerial and higher intellectual occupations”, the proportions are almost identical in both samples (18.5% for the CADIS-OFDT survey, and 17.8% for the Baromètre survey). If we suppose that adolescents have less trouble identifying the socio-occupational category of the head of household if the latter is a senior executive or a university professor, this category then has the same weight in both samples. Under this hypothesis, the difference observed in the prevalence of cannabis use during the last year is not related to differences in the occupational status of the parents [8].

22How then are we to account for this difference? Within the limits of what is comparable, the samples are quite similar, and for this reason the difference cannot be attributed to a selection bias or to chance [9]. The only thing we can pinpoint is the greater frequency of truancy reported in the in-school self-administered survey. This finding is rather surprising, inasmuch as there is a strong correlation between truancy and sex or the fact of having repeated a year, and these two factors are distributed similarly in both samples. Thus, instead of explaining the difference in cannabis use by the difference in truancy rates, it might be more appropriate to look for a common explanation for both phenomena, by analysing the impact of the data collection method.

III – The impact of the data collection method

1 – Survey context or data collection method?

23Before investigating the impact of the data collection method, we must look at the context of each survey. The CADIS and CFES surveys do not use the same questionnaires and do not investigate exactly the same issues, even though most are quite similar. The topics dealt with just prior to the questions concerning illicit drug consumption may well influence reported use. Thus, in the CADIS-OFDT survey, the presence of questions about deviant behaviour in the wide sense of the term, including actions which are particularly hard to disclose such as theft, violence, racket, as either victim or perpetrator, may make the questions pertaining to drug use appear less “sensitive” to the respondents. This seems all the more probable since these questions appear towards the end of the questionnaire. The survey conducted by the INRP in Parisian secondary schools does not deal specifically with deviant behaviour, but in that survey, the prevalence of cannabis use during the year is even higher than that of the CADIS survey. Although the specificity of the Parisian population should make us cautious when drawing conclusions, the INRP-Paris X-OFDT survey suggests that the impact of context is not enough to explain the disparity.

24Another aspect linked to methodology must be considered to explain the differences in observed prevalence: the CADIS school survey asks about cannabis use during the past twelve months, but not about lifetime use. Some persons who have tried drugs may wish to have the fact “acknowledged” even if the event took place more than a year before, or may consider that since it could have happened more recently, it should be recorded as such, a reaction they would not have had if, as in the Baromètre survey, an earlier question had asked about lifetime drug use. The tendency of respondents to “collapse dates” and include earlier events among recent ones (that the questionnaire is asking about) (Auriat, 1996) may also decrease if it is possible to report the same event as having happened within a longer span of time. However, this hypothesis also is seriously undermined by the INRP–Paris X–OFDT survey, which included both questions and still yielded the highest prevalence of the three surveys.

25That leaves the possible impact of the data collection method. The consumption of cannabis may be easier to admit by ticking a box in an anonymous questionnaire than by saying the answer over the telephone, especially if the respondent is a teenager and the interviewer an adult. In the Baromètre Santé survey, to ensure that adolescents who are not often at home are not underrepresented, the respondents were contacted every day except Sunday at times when they were most likely to be at home (from 5pm to 9pm on weekdays, from 2pm to 9pm on Wednesdays and from 2pm to 6pm on Saturdays). At those times, the respondents could very well not have been alone in the house, and this might explain their reticence to confess an illicit activity their parents, more often than not, knew nothing about (Riandey and Firdion, 1996). Even if the questions of the phone interview are formulated very carefully, so that they can be answered discreetly by saying yes or no and without having to speak aloud the words that might give away the subject (Giami, Spira et al., 1996), an adolescent may nonetheless hesitate to reveal illicit behaviour in the presence of a family member. In fact, in cases where the respondent reported not being alone during the conversation, or where the interviewer indicated that the respondent seemed not to be alone or was not freely answering the questions, the prevalence of cannabis use was much lower (17% during lifetime and 14% during the past year, compared to 25.7% and 21.3% respectively, for the entire group of secondary school students aged 15-19 interviewed in the Baromètre survey). In addition, Aquilino et al. (2000) examined the influence of the presence of bystanders on the answers of teenagers in self-administered questionnaires on drug and alcohol use, and showed that the respondents were less likely to report cannabis and alcohol consumption when a parent was present [10]. These elements support the hypothesis that cannabis use is easier to acknowledge in a self-administered questionnaire completed in school.

26Similar results were obtained among adults, in particular concerning the significant influence of partner presence on answers to questions concerning marriage and marital life (Aquilino, 1991, 1993) or sexual behaviour (Firdion, 1996). On the basis of the ACSF survey, Firdion shows in particular that among persons aged 18-69, lifetime illicit use of drugs is underreported if a third party is present during a telephone interview. In the case of the CADIS-OFDT survey, the presence of a person supervising the survey may have introduced such a bias. Although it is not possible to study the impact of context on this bias since we have no precise information concerning the function of such persons, we do know that they usually belonged to the school medical staff, and that the school counsellors were rarely involved (Ballion, 1999).

2 – Data collection method and sensitive questions

27Our hypothesis is as follows. Teenagers interviewed by phone at home, in the presence of, or not far from, family members, hesitate to acknowledge illicit drug use. More generally, if this is the case, one will observe a systematic underreporting on “sensitive” issues—issues pertaining to behaviour which the respondent’s parents do not know about— in the Baromètre survey, whereas on other issues no difference will be observed between the Baromètre and the CADIS-OFDT survey. For instance, students skip classes a priori without their parents’ knowledge, but parents do know whether their child has repeated a year or not. Effectively, truancy is much more often reported in the self-administered survey (40.8% as against 21.6%), although the proportion of students who have repeated a year at least once is almost identical. The observed difference for truancy tends to increase with age (Figure 3).

28Our hypothesis is supported by findings on two other sensitive issues, one concerning tobacco, the other suicide. For daily smokers, the survey results are very similar: 20% of the teenagers surveyed by CFES smoke between 1 and 9 cigarettes per day, and 21% in the CADIS-OFDT survey, while for those smoking at least 10 cigarettes per day, the percentages are respectively 12% and 13%. In contrast, the results for occasional smokers differ significantly: 7% in the Baromètre as against 17% in the CADIS-OFDT survey, and this difference remains relatively stable between ages 15 and 19 (Figure 3). One may suppose that, in general, the parents of a regular smoker are aware that their child smokes. If smoking is occasional, however, they tend to be unaware, since this type of smoker is more likely to hide the fact from his or her parents. This type of consumption is thus more “sensitive” and less often reported in a phone interview.

29As concerns suicidal thoughts or suicide attempts, one can also compare the results of the Baromètre survey with those of the 1993 INSERM survey on adolescents (Choquet and Ledoux, 1994), an in-school self-administered questionnaire survey among students aged 11-19 (the CADIS-OFDT survey did not ask any questions on this topic). In the Baromètre Santé jeunes survey, 10.5% of the students aged 15-19 reported having had suicidal thoughts or attempted suicide, as against 23.4% of those aged 11-19 surveyed in 1993. However, if the question concerns suicide attempts followed by hospitalization, which the parents therefore know about, the results are identical: 1.3% for the 15-19 year-olds surveyed in 1997 and for the 11-19 year-olds surveyed in 1993 (Baudier et al., 1998). It thus appears that when interviewed at home by phone, adolescents tend to underreport behaviour that is unknown to their parents.

Figure 3

Truancy and occasional use of tobacco among secondary school students aged 15-19, by data source (%)

Figure 3

Truancy and occasional use of tobacco among secondary school students aged 15-19, by data source (%)

Sources: CFES, Baromètre Santé jeunes, 1997; CADIS-OFDT survey on deviant behaviour among secondary school students, 1997.

30In order to quantify the probable effect of the data collection method on the results, we performed a logistic regression by merging the samples of the two surveys (keeping the weighting of the Baromètre survey). The dependent variable is the prevalence of cannabis use during the past year. There are three types of independent variables.

31— Socio-demographic indicators: sex, age (in completed years beyond age 15, this variable being an integer between 0 and 4) and whether the head of the household occupies a managerial or higher intellectual occupation.

32— Educational indicators: attends a vocational school, has repeated a year (at least once) and truancy (has skipped class at least once in the past 12 months).

33— Impact of the data collection method: the sample to which each observation belongs.

34In addition, since a socio-demographic or educational indicator may not have the same incidence on the dependent variable in both samples, we will also compute interaction terms between these indicators and the data collection method [11].

35Table 2 makes it possible to sort out the numerous potential independent variables. For the model that includes all the variables, the table shows the level of significance corresponding to each [12]. All the socio-demographic and educational indicators have a significant effect on the modelled prevalence, except for vocational school attendance, whose effect becomes negligible when the other indicators are taken into account. The data collection method also has a significant effect. For the interactions between the data collection method and the previous indicators, the only ones that are not negligible are those pertaining to the socio-occupational category of the head of household and to truancy.

Table 2

Selection of independent variables for modelling the prevalence of cannabis use during the previous year

Table 2
Combined CADIS-OFDT and Baromètre samples (n = 10,961) Potential independent variables Level of significance Socio-demographic indicators Sex <0.001 Age <0.001 Head of household in managerial or higher intellectual occupation <0.001 Educational indicators Vocational school 0.200 Repeated a year <0.001 Truancy <0.001 Data collection method <0.001 Interactions between data collection method and other indicators Data collection method sex 0.907 Data collection method head in managerial or higher intell. occupation 0.036 Data collection method vocational school 0.156 Data collection method repeated a year 0.287 Data collection method truancy <0.001 Sources: CFES, Baromètre Santé jeunes 1997; CADIS-OFDT survey on deviant behaviour among secondary school students, 1997.

Selection of independent variables for modelling the prevalence of cannabis use during the previous year

36For the final model, we retained the variables that have a significant effect in Table 2 [13]. Table 3 shows the results in detail. For sex, age, and socio-occupational category (SOC) of the head of household, repeating a year and truancy, the results confirm relations that were already well established by previous research. The data collection method also has a specific effect on reporting. All things being equal, a teenager interviewed by self-administered questionnaire is 1.69 times more likely to report having used cannabis during the year than a teenager interviewed by phone at home [14].

37The interactions considered in the model also require some comment, even though the interpretation of interaction terms is always a difficult exercise. In the first place, the link between truancy and cannabis use during the year is stronger for the adolescents interviewed in the Baromètre survey. For them, truancy multiplies by 5.20 the likelihood of cannabis use, taking into account the interaction with the data collection method [15]. These two types of behaviour are precisely those we believe are underreported by phone: the “real” link between both forms of behaviour may be reinforced by a common reporting bias. From this angle, we may interpret the odds ratio by considering that a teenager who declares during a phone interview never having “skipped class” is five times more likely to also report never having “smoked pot” during the year. The second, less significant interaction (see Table 2), shows that the link between the socio-occupational category of the head of household and cannabis use (the children of executives are more likely to have used cannabis during the past year) is also a little stronger for the teenagers interviewed in the Baromètre survey. In order to interpret this interaction, we may consider that the bias introduced by underreporting in phone interviews is also socially determined, and that this bias is less powerful in families of executives. As it happens, the odds ratio measuring the data collection method falls to 1.20 for the child of an executive [16].

Table 3

Results of logistic regression on the prevalence of cannabis use during the previous year

Table 3
Combined CADIS-OFDT + Baromètre samples (n =10,961) Independent variables Odds ratio CI 95%(1) Sex Boy 1.63 [1.49; 1.78] Reference: girl -1- Age 1.11 [1.06; 1.16] Reference: 15 -1- SOC of head of household Managerial, higher intellectual occupation 1.49 [1.32; 1.68] Reference: other -1- Repeated a year At least once since attending school 1.25 [1.13; 1.39] Reference: never -1- Truancy At least once during past year 2.84 [2.58; 3.13] Reference: never -1- Effect of data collection method Self-administered (CADIS-OFDT) 1.69 [1.39; 2.05] Reference: phone interview (Baromètre) -1- Interaction data collection method and truancy Baromètre absent at least once 1.83 [1.38; 2.43] Reference: other -1- Interaction data collection method and SOC Baromètre head of family managerial or higher intellectual 1.41 [1.01; 1.96] Reference: other -1- (1) Confidence interval 95%. How to read the table: For each variable, the reference category is indicated in italics. By construction, the odds ratio is 1 for this reference category. For age, the odds ratio measures the impact of each additional year beyond age 15. Sources: CFES, Baromètre Santé jeunes 1997; CADIS-OFDT survey on deviant behaviour among secondary school students, 1997.

Results of logistic regression on the prevalence of cannabis use during the previous year

38These results suggest that phone interviews not only lead to underestimation of cannabis use but also distort the links observed between cannabis use and other related factors, to the extent that the latter are also underreported (truancy, for example) or interact with the reporting bias just mentioned (as with the SOC of the head of household).


39When questions touch upon “sensitive” topics, the data collection method seems to have an incidence on the answers obtained from young people aged 15-19. With regard to the consumption of illicit drugs, the reported prevalence of past-year consumption is systematically lower in the phone survey than in the self-administered in-school survey. The difference persists even after controlling for type of school, age and sex. Most of the time, the difference is interpreted as the result of underreporting in the phone survey (Turner et al., 1992). However, the in-school self-administered survey may also lead to overreporting, to the extent that one cannot exclude the operation of a “group” effect. If the family’s presence can be inhibiting for a teenager interviewed by phone, the presence of peers who may value the use of cannabis can on the contrary lead to overreporting. A comparison with the ESCAPAD survey on health and behaviour conducted during the “Roll Call Days of Preparation for Defence” (JAPD) [17], among teenagers who do not know each other, may provide some information on this point in the near future.

40Be that as it may, phone and self-administered surveys complement each other since they address slightly different populations, placed in different contexts, and especially since phone surveys reach a more heterogeneous group of people. Phone interviews, such as the Baromètre Santé 2000 survey which covered people aged 12-75, make it possible to question all the respondents (both teenagers and adults) under the same conditions. In addition, phone interviews allow the use of filters and complex patterns of questions that are not possible in self-administered surveys. The drawback of phone interviews, however, is that the sample frame excludes households with unlisted numbers or without a phone; in addition, there is a higher risk of refusal. As concerns the second data collection method, it seems that the presence of the research team while the questionnaires are being completed represents a distinct advantage. The survey is presented to the respondents in a more uniform way, and the students probably feel that confidentiality is better ensured. Nonetheless, this procedure is more costly than having the survey supervised by a member of the school staff. In any case, for both types of surveys, it is important that the successive rounds remain comparable, so that trends may be monitored. In the future, other investigation methods adapted to sensitive topics will have to be developed, such as, for instance, computer-assisted self-administered surveys, which have already been tested in the United States (Rogers et al., 1999), or even using an audio interface (Audio CASI), which makes it possible to standardize interviews regardless of topic and immediately check the answers for consistency. Turner et al. (1998) have shown, for example, that among boys, the Audio CASI method leads to a doubling of the reported daily consumption of cannabis, compared to the self-administered questionnaire on paper. Computerizing the surveys appears to ensure optimal confidentiality, in particular thanks to the computer-assisted self-administered phone interview system (with pre-recorded questions), T-ACASI, which seems to overcome the draw backs of both methods [18] (Gribble et al., 2000). Audiovisual methods also make it possible to interview persons who cannot read, and to conduct multilingual surveys. These methods seem promising and deserve to be tested in France, although they are very costly. Finally, the findings presented in this article should not be generalized to surveys conducted among the general adult population, given that the stakes of reporting this type of behaviour are different for teenagers. Moreover, previous research has shown that phone interviews are well adapted to the study of illicit drug consumption by adults (ACSF, 1992; Guilbert et al., 1999).


The authors extend their thanks to Annie VELTER (CFES) for making available the data base of the Baromètre Santé jeunes 97/98, to her and Stéphane LEGLEYE (OFDT) for reading the article before publication, and to an anonymous referee for valuable comments.


  • [*]
    OFDT (Observatoire français des drogues et toxicomanies), Paris.
    Translated by Zoé Andreyev.
  • [1]
    From this angle, any survey can be compared to certain methods applied in total institutions (Goffman, 1961).
  • [2]
    For example, for the methodological study commissioned in 1998 by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and executed by the Centrum voor Drugsonderzoek (CEDRO) of the University of Amsterdam, on the impact of different collection methods on drug use prevalence among the general population, the sample included 800 persons per method to ensure that the test would be sensitive enough to reveal a potential impact of the data collection method.
  • [3]
    During the pilot survey of the Analysis of Sexual Behaviour in France (ACSF), researchers had found, by comparing the two collection methods of the 1992 Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs and Practices (KABP) survey, that the telephone interview elicited more normative answers than in face-to-face. This phenomenon is probably due to the fast pace of the telephone interview, which left respondents little time to think.
  • [4]
    This is a multi-stage sample (two stages in this case: the schools and the classes), for which the sampling unit is the cluster (in this case the class), each cluster being surveyed (all the students of the selected class are interviewed). This type of sampling is cheap (since it reduces travelling costs) and does not greatly disrupt the school routine (since the students do not have to be chosen at random, and regrouped or interviewed separately), but it does lead to some loss of precision in the estimates (Ardilly, 1994). This loss of precision occurs because individuals belonging to a single cluster have similar characteristics. For example, if cannabis use depends strongly on region, type of school, and the specialization chosen by the students, since all the respondents of a class share these characteristics, their answers will be to some extent “redundant”.
  • [5]
    This survey was conducted through self-administered questionnaires in schools, in June 1998, among 875 adolescents representative of public and private Parisian secondary school students. A purposive sample of schools was selected to ensure that the sample typified the structure of the Parisian secondary school population by sector and specialization. In each school, the respondents were randomly selected from the list of students and regrouped in a single room to complete the questionnaire. They were supervised by a member of the research team. This survey dealt with questions of self-esteem, leisure activities, school attendance and family relationships. It was presented to the students as a “survey on what young people really think and how they live”.
  • [6]
    For the CADIS-OFDT survey: “During the last year, have you used: hashish, marijuana?” (first item of a list of six other psychoactive substances). For the Baromètre Santé jeunes survey: “During the last twelve months, which of these drugs did you use: cannabis (hashish, marijuana, joint, grass, oil, shit)?” (first item of a list of eight psychoactive substances).
  • [7]
    They are not alone in this. Those responsible for coding at the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE) also find it difficult sometimes to determine the SOC of the persons enumerated in the census interviewed for the Employment survey (Chenu and Guglielmetti, 2000).
  • [8]
    In line with findings of other surveys, adolescents belonging to a household whose head is a manager or executive show the highest prevalence of cannabis use over the year: 35.8% for the CADIS-OFDT survey and 31.5% for the Baromètre survey.
  • [9]
    The type of administrative area of residence figures among the socio-demographic characteristics we were unfortunately unable to control.
  • [10]
    Aquilino et al. (2000) have shown that completing the questionnaire with the help of a computer reduced the impact of parental presence on answers.
  • [11]
    Except for age, for which it is harder to introduce an interaction term (because it is a quantitative variable). To ensure that age has the same incidence on both surveys, a regression was carried out separately for each sample: the odds ratios obtained are practically identical (1.26 for the CADIS-OFDT survey, 1.27 for the Baromètre survey).
  • [12]
    A parameter is associated with each variable. The level of significance measures the probability of wrongly assessing that this parameter is not equal to zero, in other words that the variable has a significant impact on the modelled prevalence: the lower the level of significance, the more significant the impact, and vice versa.
  • [13]
    The results are identical with a step-wise upwards or downwards selection procedure.
  • [14]
    In this case, the interpretation of odds ratios in terms of relative risks may represent an approximation, given the prevalence levels.
  • [15]
    This odds ratio is obtained by multiplying the truancy and interaction odds ratios: 2.84 x 1.83 = 5.20.
  • [16]
    1.69/1.41 = 1.20 (odds ratio for a student who does not “skip classes”). One might have expected senior-level professionals less likely to be at home at the time of the phone interviews, but this hypothesis is not confirmed by available data.
  • [17]
    This survey, conducted by the OFDT during the “Journées d’appel de préparation à la Défense” (JAPD) which replaced military service from October 1998 and have included girls since April 2000, took place in May 2000 by means of a self-administered questionnaire on approximately 14,000 young people aged 17-19.
  • [18]
    Although the risk that a respondent will give up in mid-survey is greater with T-ACASI than in face-to-face surveys.


Surveys to measure the extent of illicit drug use by young people produce contrasting results depending on the data collection method employed. This article compares two surveys, one using a self-completed questionnaire in school, the other a telephone survey conducted at home. The former yields a systematically higher prevalence of drug use over the last year. These differences, which are then analysed for cannabis consumption, seem not to result from selection bias. When analysed for senior high school (lycée) pupils only, they are unchanged after controlling for age and sex. Similar differences are observed on other sensitive questions (truancy, occasional tobacco consumption, suicidal thoughts), suggesting that they are indeed a result of the data collection method. A logistic model is used to evaluate the effect of the collection method, after adjusting for a number of socio-demographic and educational indicators: relative to the telephone interview, the self-completed questionnaire in school increases by 1.7 the probability of reporting cannabis use during the previous year. A possible “group effect” with this form of collection remains to be controlled for, however.



Las encuestas que pretender estimar el nivel de uso de drogas ilegales entre los adolescentes dan resultados contrastados según el método de colecta. Este artículo compara dos encuestas basadas en métodos de colecta de datos distintos: cuestionario auto-administrado en medios escolares y entrevista por teléfono en el domicilio. Los niveles de uso durante el año obtenidos utilizando el primer método son sistemáticamente superiores. Las diferencias, que se analizan para el caso de consumo de cannabis, no parecen deberse a efectos de selección. Si se analizan exclusivamente los estudiantes de secundaria, las diferencias por edad y sexo persisten. La existencia de diferencias similares en las respuestas a otras preguntas sensibles (absentismo, uso de tabaco ocasional, ideas suicidas) ponen el método de colecta en cuestión. Un modelo logístico permite evaluar el efecto del método, una vez se han tomado en cuenta varios indicadores socio-demográficos y escolares: en relación a la entrevista por teléfono, el cuestionario auto-administrado en medios escolares multiplica por 1,7 las probabilidades de declarar consumo de cannabis durante el año de la entrevista. No obstante, haría falta controlar un posible “efecto de grupo” para este último método de colecta.


  • ACSF Investigators, 1992, “Analysis of sexual behavior in France (ACSF): a comparison between two modes of investigation, telephone survey and face-to-face survey”, AIDS, No 6, pp. 315-323.
  • Ambroise Patrick, Mauris Pascal, 1999, “L’usage du téléphone dans les sondages”, in G. Brossier, A. M. Dussaix, Enquêtes et sondages : méthodes, modèles, applications nouvelles approches, Paris, Dunod, pp. 331-339.
  • Aquilino William S., 1991, Effects of Interviewer Privacy on the Collection of Marital Quality Data, Centre for Demography and Ecology, Madison, University of Wisconsin.
  • Aquilino William S., 1993, “Effects of spouse presence during the interview on survey responses concerning marriage”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, pp. 358-376.
  • Aquilino William S., 1994, “Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, pp. 210-240.
  • Aquilino William S., Wright Debra L., SUPPLE Andrew J., 2000, “Response effects due to bystander presence in CASI and paper-and-pencil surveys of drug use and alcohol use”, Substance Use and Misuse, 35(6-8), pp. 845-867.
  • Ardilly Pascal, 1994, Les techniques de sondage, Paris, Technip, 393 p.
  • Auriat Nadia, 1996, Les défaillances de la mémoire humaine, (coll. « Travaux et documents », cahier 136), Paris, INED-PUF, 203 p.
  • Ballion Robert, 1998, Les conduites déviantes des lycéens de l’enseignement agricole, convention d’étude avec le ministère de l’Agriculture, 17 p.
  • Ballion Robert, 1999, Les conduites déviantes des lycéens, Paris, rapport OFDT, 243 p.
  • Baudier François, Dressen Christiane, Arenes Jacques, Chan Chee Christine, 1997, Baromètre Santé jeunes 94, Vanves, CFES, 288 p.
  • Baudier François, Arenes Jacques, 1997, Baromètre Santé adultes 95/96, Paris, CFES, 148 p.
  • Baudier François, Janvrin Marie-Pierre, Arenes Jacques, 1998, Baromètre Santé jeunes 97/98, Vanves, CFES, 328 p.
  • Beck François, Choquet Marie, Hassler Christine, Ledoux Sylvie, Peretti-Watel Patrick, 2000, “Consommations de substances psychoactives chez les 14-18 ans scolarisés : premiers résultats de l’enquête ESPAD 1999, évolutions 1993-1999”, Tendances, No 6.
  • Beck François, Arwidson Pierre, Firdion Jean-Marie, Gremy Isabelle, Jaspard Maryse, Warszawski Josiane, 2000, “L’avenir des enquêtes téléphoniques face à l’évolution des télécommunications”, Deuxième colloque francophone sur les sondages : résumés des communications, Université libre de Bruxelles, 22-23 June 2000, pp. 23-27.
  • Berthier Catherine, Deville Jean-Claude, Neros Bernard, 1996, “Une méthode mesure de l’effet enquêteur”, Journées de méthodologie statistique, INSEE, pp. 1-9.
  • Chenu Alain, Guglielmetti Francis, 2000, “La profession dans les enquêtes : les libellés en question”, Journées de méthodologie statistique, INSEE (5 décembre 2000).
  • Choquet Marie, Ledoux Sylvie, 1994, Adolescents, enquête nationale. Paris, Les Éditions Inserm, 346 p.
  • Choquet Marie, Ledoux Sylvie, 1999, “Jeunes et usage de drogues illicites”, in Adolescence et toxicomanie, sous la direction de G. Ferréol, Paris, Armand Colin, pp. 3-11.
  • Choquet Marie, Ledoux Sylvie, Hassler Christine, PAre Catherine, 1998, Adolescents de la protection judiciaire de la jeunesse et santé, Direction de la Protection judiciaire de la jeunesse, MILDT, 146 p.
  • Czaja Ronald, 1987, “Asking sensitive behavioral questions in telephone interviews”, Quarterly of Community Health Education, Vol. 8(1), pp. 23-32.
  • Deville Jean-Claude, 1994, Quelques éléments pour l’analyse de l’effet enquêteur dans le dispositif « Europanel », Note INSEE No 780/F401.
  • Firdion Jean-Marie, 1996, “The call rank and partner presence effects in a telephone survey”, in M. Bozon, H. Leridon (eds), Sexuality and the Social Sciences: A French Survey on Sexual Behaviour, Dartmouth, Aldershot, pp. 107-140.
  • Firdion Jean-Marie, Laurent Raphaël, 1998, “Effets du sexe de l’enquêteur. Une enquête sur la sexualité et le sida”, in Bajos et al. (eds.) La sexualité aux temps du sida, Paris, PUF, pp. 117-149.
  • Giami Alain, Spira Alfred et les groupes ACSF, ACSAG, ACSJ, 1996, “Les enquêtes sur des sujets sensibles, Bilan méthodologique des enquêtes françaises sur les comportements sexuels”, Journées de méthodologie statistique des 11 et 12 décembre 1996, Paris, INSEE, pp. 1-19.
  • Gmel Gerhard, 2000, “The effect of mode of data collection and of non-response on reported alcohol consumption: a split-sample study in Switzerland”, Addiction, 95(1), pp. 123-134.
  • Goffman Erving, 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York, Doubleday and Company.
  • Goffman Erving, 1961, Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates, New York, Doubleday and Company.
  • Greenfield Thomas K., Midanik Lorraine T., Rodgers John D., 2000, “Effects of telephone versus face to face interview mode on reports of alcohol consumption”, Addiction, 95(2), pp. 277-284.
  • Gremy Isabelle, Beltzer Nathalie, Echevin Damien, 1999, Les connaissances, attitudes, croyances et comportements face au sida en France : évolutions 1992-1994-1998, ORS Île-de-France, 193 p.
  • Gribble James N., Miller Heather G., Cooley Philip C., Catania Joseph A., Pollack Lance, Turner Charles F., 2000, “The impact of T-ACASI interviewing on reported drug use among men who have sex with men”, Substance Use and Misuse, 35(6-8), pp. 869-890.
  • Guilbert Philippe, Baudier François, Arwidson Pierre, 1999, “Comparaison de 2 modalités d’enquête sur les comportements et attitudes au sujet de l’alcool, du tabac et des drogues illégales”, Rev. Épidém. et Santé Publ., pp. 129-138.
  • Hochstim J., 1967, « A critical comparison of three strategies of collecting data from households », Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, pp. 976-989.
  • Lagrange Hugues, Lhomond Brigitte, Calvez Marcel, Levinson Sherman, Maillochon Florence, Mogoutov Andreï, Warszawski Josiane, 1997, L’entrée dans la sexualité; le comportement des jeunes dans le contexte du sida, Paris, La Découverte, 431 p.
  • Langemeijer Marieke, 1997, The prevalence of illicit drug use in the general population and in schools, as monitored by a number of different methods, presented at the Invitational Conference on Monitoring Illicit Drugs and Health in the European Union, Amsterdam, 22 May 1997, 10 p.
  • Le Vaillant Marc, 1993, “L’enquête KABP sur la perception sociale du Sida”, Séminaire Méthodes d’enquêtes : les enquêtes téléphoniques (systèmes CATI), available on the Internet:
  • Mooney H.W., Pollack B.R., Corsa J.R., 1968, “Use of telephone interviewing to study human reproduction”, Public Health Reports, 83, 12, pp. 1049-1060.
  • Navarro Félix, Godeau Emmanuelle, Dressen Christiane, Mouret Geneviève, Jeunier Benoît, Aptel Évelyne, 1999, “Les comportements de santé des jeunes, consommation de substances psychoactives : résultats préliminaires (enquête HBSC/OMS)”, Bulletin Épidémiologique Hebdomadaire, No 48/99, pp. 201-204.
  • Peretti Christine de, Lesellbaum Nelly, 1995, Tabac, alcool, drogues illicites, opinions et consommations des lycéens, INRP – Université Paris X, 167 p.
  • Peretti Christine de, 1996, Les lycéens des banlieues difficiles et les substances psychoactives : rapport de recherche, INRP, 193 p.
  • Peretti Christine de, Lesellbaum Nelly, 1999, Les lycéens parisiens et les substances psychoactives : évolutions. Paris, OFDT, 170 p.
  • Pless I.B., Miller J.R., 1979, “Apparent validity of alternative survey methods”, Journal of Community Health, 5(1), pp. 22-27.
  • Riandey Benoît, Firdion Jean-Marie, 1996, “Private life and the telephone survey: The example of the ACSF survey”, in M. Bozon, H. Leridon (eds), Sexuality and the Social Sciences: A French Survey on Sexual Behaviour, Dartmouth, Aldershot, pp. 83-105.
  • Rogers Susan M., Gribble James N., Turner Charles F., Miller Heather G., 1999, “Entretiens autoadministrés sur ordinateurs et mesure des comportements sensibles”, Population, 54(2), pp. 231-250.
  • Siemiatycki J., Campbell S., Richardson L., Aubert D., 1984, “Quality of responses in different population groups in mail and telephone surveys”, American Journal of Epidemiology, 120, pp. 302-314.
  • Singly François de, 1983, “Questionnaire et figuration”, Revue de l’Institut de sociologie, 3-4, pp. 311-325.
  • Smart R.G., 1985, “When to do cross-sectional studies”, in L.N. Robins, (ed.) Studying Drug Abuse, New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press, pp. 47-56.
  • Turner Charles F., Lessler J.T., Devore J.W., 1992, “Effects of mode of administration and wording on reporting drug use”, in C.F. Turner, J.T. Lessler, J.C. Gfroerer, (eds.), Survey Measurement of Drug Use, Methodological Issues, US Departement of Health and Human Services Pub, No 92-1929, Washington DC : Government Printing Office.
  • Turner Charles F., Ku L., Rodgers S.M., Lindberg L.D., Pleck J.H., Sonenstein F.L., 1998, “Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology”, Science, (280), pp. 867-873.
  • Wiseman A., 1972, “Methodological bias in public opinion surveys”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, pp. 105-108.
François Beck [*]
François Beck, Observatoire français des drogues et des toxicomanies, 105, rue Lafayette, Paris. tel.: 33 (0)1 53 20 16 08; fax: 33 (0)1 53 20 16 00
  • [*]
    OFDT (Observatoire français des drogues et toxicomanies), Paris.
    Translated by Zoé Andreyev.
Patrick Peretti-Watel [*]
  • [*]
    OFDT (Observatoire français des drogues et toxicomanies), Paris.
    Translated by Zoé Andreyev.
Translated by
Zoé Andreyev
Latest publication on cairn or another partner portal
Uploaded on on 03/03/2014
Distribution électronique pour Ined Editions © Ined Editions. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. Il est interdit, sauf accord préalable et écrit de l’éditeur, de reproduire (notamment par photocopie) partiellement ou totalement le présent article, de le stocker dans une banque de données ou de le communiquer au public sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit.
Loading... Please wait