UC Merced

Background

The employment of professional interviewers from academic survey centers to conduct surveys has been standard practice. Because one goal of community-engaged research is to provide professional skills to community residents, this paper considers whether employing locally trained lay interviewers from within the community may be as effective as employing interviewers from an academic survey center with regard to unit and item nonresponse rates and cost.

Methods

To study a nutrition-focused intervention, 1035 in-person household interviews were conducted in East Los Angeles and Boyle Heights, 503 of which were completed by lay community interviewers. A chi-square test was used to assess differences in unit nonresponse rates between professional and community interviewers and Welch's t tests were used to assess differences in item nonresponse rates. A cost comparison analysis between the two interviewer groups was also conducted.

Results

Interviewers from the academic survey center had lower unit nonresponse rates than the lay community interviewers (16.2% vs. 23.3%; p < 0.01). However, the item nonresponse rates were lower for the community interviewers than the professional interviewers (1.4% vs. 3.3%; p < 0.01). Community interviewers cost approximately $415.38 per survey whereas professional interviewers cost approximately $537.29 per survey.

Conclusions

With a lower cost per completed survey and lower item nonresponse rates, lay community interviewers are a viable alternative to professional interviewers for fieldwork in community-based research. Additional research is needed to assess other important aspects of data quality interviewer such as interviewer effects and response error.