This article explores interviewer/respondent interactions using a handheld computer (HHC) and identifies issues arising from using a self-administered paper form to create a mobile computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) instrument. To evaluate the success of this instrument, the authors used the behavior-coding method to evaluate a sample of about 220 audiotaped interviews to identify survey questions that cause problems at the administration and/or response stage. This article explores problems with the interview, as it was conductedon an HHC, both at a question level and overall. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the automation of this survey instrument encouraged standardized interviewing procedures by examining how interviewers read the questions and how respondents answer them. The authors discuss mode-specific problems that arose in the interview and proposesuggestionsfor futuresurveys thatuse a similar methodof datacollection.
Bosley, J., F. G. Conrad, and G. Uglow. 1998. Pen CASIC: Design and usability. In Computerassisted survey information collection, ed. M. P. Couper, R. P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, C. Z. F. Clark, J. Martin, W. L. Nicholls II, and J. M. O'Reilly, 521–541. New York: John Wiley.
2.
Cameron, M. 2005. Bleeding edge or proven technology? The fact and fiction of mobile survey computing. Paper presented at the Association for Survey Computing's Conference on Mobile Computing, London.
3.
Cannell, C., F. Fowler, and K. Marquis. 1968. The influence of interviewer and respondent psychological and behavioral variables on reporting in household interviews. In Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2 (26). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
4.
Couper, M. P.1999. The application of cognitive science to computer-assisted interviewing. In Cognition and survey research, ed. M. G. Sirken, D. J. Herrmann, S. Schechter, N. Schwarz, J. M. Tanur, and R. Tourangeau, 277–300. New York: John Wiley.
5.
Couper, M. P. 2002. New technologies and survey data collection: Challenges and opportunities. Paper presented at the International Conference on Improving Surveys, Copenhagen.
6.
Couper, M. P., and S. E. Hansen. 2001. Computer-assisted interviewing. In Handbook of interviewing, ed. J. F. Gubrium and J. Holstein, 557–575. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
de Heer, W. F.1991. The use of handheld computers in social surveys of the Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics. The Statistician40:125–138.
8.
de Leeuw, E. D.2005. To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of Official Statistics21:233–255.
9.
Dillman, D. A., and L. M. Christian. 2005. Survey mode as a source of instability in responses across surveys. Field Methods17 (1): 30–52.
10.
Fowler, F.1992. How unclear terms affect survey data. Public Opinion Quarterly56:218–231.
11.
Fowler, F., and C. Cannell. 1996. Using behavioral coding to identify cognitive problems with survey questions. In Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research, ed. N. Schwarz and S. Sudman, 15–36. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Fowler, F. J., G. Fitzgerald, and P. Beatty. 1999. When two questions are better than one. In Proceedings of the section on survey research methods, American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
13.
Fowler, F., and T. Mangione. 1990. Standardized survey interviewing: Minimizing interviewerrelated error. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Fowler, F. J., and A. M. Roman. 1992. A study of approaches to survey question evaluation. Report submitted to the U.S. Census Bureau.
15.
Gravlee, C. C.2002. Mobile computer-assisted personal interviewing (MCAPI) with handheld computers: The Entryware System v3.0. Field Methods14 (3): 322–336.
16.
Greene, P. D.2001. Handheld computers as tools for writing and managing field data. Field Methods13 (2): 181–197.
17.
Hansen, S. E.1999. The impact of design on interaction in the computer-assisted survey interview. In Proceedings of the section on survey research methods, American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
18.
Hunter, J. E., and A. D. Landreth. 2005. Behavior coding analysis report: Evaluating bilingual versions of the non-response follow-up (NRFU) for the 2004 Census Test. http://www.census.gov/srd/www/byname.html.
19.
Ice, G. H.2004. Technological advances in observational data collection: The advantages and limitations of computer-assisted data collection. Field Methods16 (3): 352–375.
20.
Johnson, A. J., and D. Horne. 2005. CAPI at MORI: A decade of mobile interviewing. Paper presented at the Association for Survey Computing Conferenceon Mobile Computing, London.
21.
Lepkowski, J. M., S. A. Sadosky, and P. S. Weiss. 1998. Mode, behavior, and data recording error. In Computer-assisted survey information collection, ed. M. P. Couper, R. P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, C. Z. F. Clark, J. Martin, W. L. Nicholls II, and J. M. O'Reilly, 367–388. New York: John Wiley.
22.
Nicholls, W. L., and E. de Leeuw.1996. Factors in acceptanceof computer-assistedinterviewing methods: A conceptual and historic review. In Proceedings of the section on survey research methods, American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
23.
Nusser, S. M. 1999. Mobile CASIC and the survey process. In Proceedings of the Third International Association for Survey Computing Conference. Edinburgh, UK: Association for Survey Computing.
24.
Nusser, S. M., D. M. Thompson, and G. S. DeLozier. 1996. Using personal digital assistants to collect surveydata. In Proceedingsof the section on survey research methods, American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
25.
Oksenberg, L., C. Cannell, and G. Kalton. 1991. New strategies for pretesting survey question. Journal of Official Statistics7 (3): 349–394.
26.
Sykes, W., and J. Morton-Williams. 1987. Evaluating survey questions. Journal of Official Statistics3 (2): 191–207.
