Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:02:53.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The repeatability of data obtained in a fertility survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Ann Cartwright
Affiliation:
Institute for Social Studies in Medical Care, London
Elizabeth Prince
Affiliation:
Institute for Social Studies in Medical Care, London

Summary

This small study has looked at only one aspect of the reliability of survey data–their repeatability at an interval of 2–6 months with a different interviewer. Even for basic factual data such as date of birth, household composition and number of children there were some errors. Some were coding errors, some punching, some appeared to be reporting errors, but the numbers were small and no discernible patterns emerged.

For other factual data, such as ability to have more children or the use of different methods of contraception, the repeatability seemed to vary with the hardness of the categories. Sterilization was reported consistently, but more loosely defined characteristics, such as difficulty in conceiving or carrying a pregnancy to term, proved relatively unreliable; birth control methods which involved use of an appliance were more consistently reported than withdrawal and the safe period.

If ‘hard’ facts were reported more consistently than ‘soft’ ones it might be thought that attitudes would be reported less consistently than facts. But the dimension of hard versus soft cuts across both factual and opinion data. Fortunately for us, the question about whether they wanted more children appeared relatively hard; only 2% appeared to have changed their minds radically about this. Their memory of their intentions about becoming pregnant on the last occasion was more consistent than their reports about use of contraception around the time of conception.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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. (1963) Memory errors in a morbidity survey. Milbank meml. Funnd q. Bull. 41, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, A. (1970) Parents and Family Planning Services. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Freedman, R., Whelpton, P.K. & Campbell, A.A. (1959) Family Planning, Sterility, and Population Growth. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Marquis, K.H., Cannell, C.F. & Laurent, A. (1972) Reporting health events in household interviews: effects of reinforcement, question length and reinterviews. Vital and Health Statistics, PHS Publication No. 1028, Series 2, No. 45. Public Health Service, Washington, U.S.Google Scholar
Vessey, M.P., Johnson, B. & Donnelly, J. (1974) Reliability of reporting by women taking part in a prospective contraceptive study. Br. J. Prev. soc. Med. 28, 104.Google Scholar
Westoff, C.F., Potter, R.G. Jr, & Sagi, P.C. (1961) Some estimates of the reliability of survey data on family planning. Popul. Stud. 15, 52.Google Scholar
Woolf, M. (1971) Family Intentions. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar