Like many countries, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced Statistics Netherlands to make changes in its fieldwork strategy. Since mid-March 2020, there have been limited opportunities to conduct face-to-face interviews. Therefore, from September 2020, CAPI sampled people are offered the opportunity to respond by telephone. For this purpose, face-to-face interviewers are instructed to persuade the potential respondent at the doorway. When people refuse a face-to-face interview, interviewers ask for a telephone number and try to make an appointment to conduct the interview by telephone. The aim of our study was to investigate the effects of conducting the interview by telephone instead of face-to-face on important survey outcome variables. We were particularly interested in whether differences are due to selection effects or caused by mode-specific measurement errors. Because we did not have the time or capacity to set up a controlled experiment, we performed regression analyses to decompensate the differences between selection effects and mode-specific measurement errors. We used data of the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and the Housing Survey (WoON). Our analysis showed that there were differences in important target variables, for both LFS and WoON. These differences were, however, mainly caused by selection effects – which can be taken into account for during weighting – and were less likely to be caused by mode specific measurement errors. Although there are important limitations and caveats, these findings are supportive to further implement this field strategy.
Background:Tobacco consumption is a leading cause of death and disease, killing >8 million people each year. Smoking cessation significantly reduces the risk of developing smoking-related diseases. Although combined treatment for addiction is promising, evidence of its effectiveness is still emerging. Currently, there is no published research comparing the effectiveness of blended smoking cessation treatments (BSCTs) with face-to-face (F2F) treatments, where web-based components replace 50% of the F2F components in blended treatment.Objective:The primary objective of this 2-arm noninferiority randomized controlled trial was to determine whether a BSCT is noninferior to an F2F treatment with identical ingredients in achieving abstinence rates.Methods:This study included 344 individuals who smoke (at least 1 cigarette per day) attending an outpatient smoking cessation clinic in the Netherlands. The participants received either a blended 50% F2F and 50% web-based BSCT or only F2F treatment with similar content and intensity. The primary outcome measure was cotinine-validated abstinence rates from all smoking products at 3 and 15 months after treatment initiation. Additional measures included carbon monoxide–validated point prevalence abstinence; self-reported point prevalence abstinence; and self-reported continuous abstinence rates at 3, 6, 9, and 15 months after treatment initiation.Results:None of the 13 outcomes showed statistically confirmed noninferiority of the BSCT, whereas 4 outcomes showed significantly (P<.001) inferior abstinence rates of the BSCT: cotinine-validated point prevalence abstinence rate at 3 months (difference 12.7, 95% CI 6.2-19.4), self-reported point prevalence abstinence rate at 6 months (difference 19.3, 95% CI 11.5-27.0) and at 15 months (difference 11.7, 95% CI 5.8-17.9), and self-reported continuous abstinence rate at 6 months (difference 13.8, 95% CI 6.8-20.8). The remaining 9 outcomes, including the cotinine-validated point prevalence abstinence rate at 15 months, were inconclusive.Conclusions:In this high-intensity outpatient smoking cessation trial, the blended mode was predominantly less effective than the traditional F2F mode. The results contradict the widely assumed potential benefits of blended treatment and suggest that further research is needed to identify the critical factors in the design of blended interventions.Trial Registration:Netherlands Trial Register 27150; https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/nl/trial/27150
In higher education, students often misunderstand teachers’ written feedback. This is worrisome, since written feedback is the main form of feedback in higher education. Organising feedback conversations, in which feedback request forms and verbal feedback are used, is a promising intervention to prevent misunderstanding of written feedback. In this study a 2 × 2 factorial experiment (N = 128) was conducted to examine the effects of a feedback request form (with vs. without) and feedback mode (written vs. verbal feedback). Results showed that verbal feedback had a significantly higher impact on students’ feedback perception than written feedback; it did not improve students’ self-efficacy, or motivation. Feedback request forms did not improve students’ perceptions, self-efficacy, or motivation. Based on these results, we can conclude that students have positive feedback perceptions when teachers communicate their feedback verbally and more research is needed to investigate the use of feedback request forms.
MULTIFILE
