Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:22:07.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of results obtained by men and women interviewers in a fertility survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Ann Cartwright  and
Joanna Moffett
Ann Cartwright
Affiliation:
Institute for Social Studies in Medical Care, London
Joanna Moffett
Affiliation:
Institute for Social Studies in Medical Care, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a pilot survey about family size and the use of contraception for which the sample was the parents of legitimate babies the interviews with fathers were systematically divided between men and women interviewers. There was no difference in the response rate of the two groups and although there were some differences in the types of answers given to certain questions most of the differences might have occurred by chance. We could not see any clear pattern in the sorts of response that varied.

A hypothesis about the variation was put forward by some of our advisers and we collected some further information about this which did not support the hypothesis. On the basis of this study we do not feel it necessary to recruit and train men to interview the fathers on the main study but are using women interviewers for both mothers and fathers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 1974 , pp. 315 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © 1974, Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cartwright, A. (1970) Parents and Family Planning Services. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Cartwright, A. & Tucker, W. (1969) An experiment with an advance letter on an interview inquiry. Br. J. prev. soc. Med. 23, 241.Google Scholar