Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effect of Interview Method on Self-Reported Sexual Behavior and Perceptions of Community Norms in Botswana

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since self-reports of sensitive behaviors play an important role in HIV/AIDS research, the accuracy of these measures has often been examined. In this paper we (1) examine the effect of three survey interview methods on self-reported sexual behavior and perceptions of community sexual norms in Botswana, and (2) introduce an interview method to research on self-reported sexual behavior in sub-Saharan Africa. Comparing across these three survey methods (face-to-face, ballot box, and randomized response), we find that ballot box and randomized response surveys both provide higher reports of sensitive behaviors; the results for randomized response are particularly strong. Within these overall patterns, however, there is variation by question type; additionally the effect of interview method differs by sex. We also examine interviewer effects to gain insight into the effectiveness of these interview methods, and our results suggest that caution be used when interpreting the differences between survey methods.

Resumen

Dado que los auto informes de conductas sensibles juegan un papel importante en la investigación de VIH/SIDA, la precisión de estas medidas se examinan a menudo. En este artículo nosotros (1) examinamos el efecto de tres métodos de entrevista en el auto informe de comportamiento sexual y las percepciones de las normas comunitarias sexuales en Botswana, y (2) se introduce un método de entrevista a la investigación del uso de auto informe en la conducta sexual en el Africa, Sur del Sahara. Después de comparar los tres métodos (cara a cara, urna electoral, y la respuesta aleatorizada), se encuentra que las urnas y la respuesta aleatorizada producen reportes más altos de comportamientos sensibles. Los resultados de la respuesta aleatorizada son particularmente fuerte. Entre esto resultados, se encuentra que hay variación por pregunta y que el efecto de cada método varia por genero. Finalmente, usamos el análisis del efecto del entrevistador para aprender más sobre la eficacia de estos métodos de entrevista y se sugiere cuidado cuando se interpreta las diferencias entre estos métodos de entrevista.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. de Zoysa I, Sweat MD, Denison JA. Faithful but fearful: reducing HIV transmission in stable relationships. AIDS 1995; 10 Suppl A:S197–S203.

  2. Heise LL, Elias C. Prevention to meet women’s needs. A focus on developing countries. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40(7):931–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McKenna SL, Muyinda GK, Roth D, et al. Rapid HIV testing and counseling for voluntary testing centers in Africa. AIDS. 1997;11(Suppl 1):S103–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gallo MF, Behets FM, Steiner MJ, et al. Prostate-specific antigen to ascertain reliability of self-reported coital exposure to semen. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33:476–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mensch BS, Hewett PC, Gregory R, Helleringer S. Sexual behavior and STI/HIV status among adolescents in rural Malawi: an evaluation of the effect of interview mode on reporting. Stud Fam Plan. 2008;39(4):321–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Minnis AM, Steiner M, Gallo M, et al. Biomarker validation of reports of recent sexual activity: results of a randomized controlled study in Zimbabwe. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170:918–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eggleston E, Leitch J, Jackson J. Consistency of self-reports of sexual activity among young adolescents in Jamaica. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2000;26(2):79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Curtis SL, Sutherland EG. Measuring sexual behaviour in the era of HIV/AIDS: the experience of demographic and health surveys and similar enquiries. Sex Transm Infect. 2004; 80 Suppl II:ii22–ii27.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bignami-Van Assche S. Are we measuring what we want to measure? Individual consistency in survey response in rural Malawi. Demogr Res. 2003;S1(3):77–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Palen L, Smith E, Caldwell L, Flisher A, Wegner L, Vergnani T. Inconsistent reports of sexual intercourse among South African high school students. J Adolesc Health. 2009;42:221–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nnko S, Boerma JT, Urassa M, Mwaluko G, Zaba B. Secretive females or swaggering males? An assessment of the quality of sexual partnership reporting in rural Tanzania. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(2):299–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Luke N, Clark S, Zulu EM. The relationship history calendar: improving the scope and quality of data on youth sexual behavior. Demography. 2011;48(3):1151–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Langhaug LF, Cheung YB, Pascoe S, Chirawu P, Woelk G, Hayes R, Cowan FM. How you ask really matters: randomised comparison of four sexual behaviour questionnaire delivery modes in Zimbabwean youth. Sex Transm Infect. 2011;87:165–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Plummer ML, Ross DA, Wight D, et al. A bit more truthful: the validity of adolescent sexual behaviour data collected in rural northern Tanzania using five methods. Sex Transm Infect. 2004; 80 Suppl II:ii49–ii56.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gregson S, Zhuwau T, Ndlovu J, Nyamukapa C. Methods to reduce social desirability bias in sex surveys in low-development settings. Sex Transm Dis. 2002;29(10):568–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson AM, Copas AJ, Erens B, et al. Effect of computer-assisted self interviews on reporting of sexual HIV risk behaviours in a general population sample: a methodological experiment. AIDS. 2001;15:111–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hewett PC, Mensch BS, de A Ribeiro M, Jones HE, Lippman S, Montgomery M, van de Wijgert J. Using sexually transmitted infection biomarkers to validate reporting of sexual behavior within a randomized experimental evaluation of interviewing methods. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(2):202–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mensch BS, Hewett PC, Erulkar AS. The reporting of sensitive behavior by adolescents: a methodological experiment in Kenya. Demography. 2003;40(2):247–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Potdar R, Koenig M. Does audio-CASI improve reports of risky behavior? Evidence from a randomized field trial among young urban men in India. Stud Fam Plan. 2005;36(2):107–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, Lindberg LD, Pleck JH, Sonenstein FL. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science. 1998;280:867–77.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Phillips A, Gomez GB, Boily MC, Garnett G. A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative interviewing tools to investigate self-reported HIV and STI associated behaviours in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(6):1541–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jaccard J, McDonald R, Wan CK, Dittus PJ, Quinlan S. The accuracy of self-reports of condom use and sexual behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32:1863–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nyitray AG, Kim J, Hsu CH, et al. Test-retest reliability of a sexual behavior interview for men residing in Brazil, Mexico, and the United States: the HPV in men (HIM) study. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170:965–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vanable PA, Carey MP, Brown JL, et al. Test-retest reliability of self-reported HIV/STD-related measures among African-American adolescents in four U.S. cities. J Adolesc Health. 2009;44(3):214–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Carey MP, Carey KB, Maisto SA, Gordon CM, Weinhardt LS. Assessing sexual risk behaviour with the timeline followback (TLFB) approach: continued development and psychometric evaluation with psychiatric outpatients. Int J STD AIDS. 2001;12:365–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Needle R, Fisher DG, Weatherby N, Chitwood D, Brown B, Cesari H, et al. Reliability of self-reported HIV risk behaviors of drug users. Psychol Addict Behav. 1995;9:242–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McElrath K, Chitwood DD, Griffin DK, Comerford M. The consistency of self-reported HIV risk behavior among injection drug users. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1965–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wringe A, Cremin I, McGrath N, et al. Comparative assessment of the quality of age-at-event reporting in three HIV cohort studies in sub-Saharan Africa. Sex Transm Infect. 2009; 85 Suppl 1:i56–i63.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Clark S, Kabiru C, Zulu E. Do men and women report their sexual partnerships differently? Evidence from Kisumu, Kenya. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011;37(4):181–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Helleringer S, Kohler HP, Kalilani-Phiri L, Mkandawire J, Armbruster B. The reliability of sexual partnership histories: implications for the measurement of partnership concurrency during surveys. AIDS. 2011;25:503–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lurie MN, Rosenthal S. Concurrent partnerships as a driver of the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa? The evidence is limited. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:17–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. UNAIDS Reference Group on Estimates Modelling and Projections. Working Group on measuring concurrent sexual partnerships. Consultation on concurrent sexual partnerships: recommendations from a meeting of the UNAIDS Reference Group on estimates, Modelling and Projections held in Nairobi, Kenya, 20–21 April 2009.

  33. Glynn JR, Kayuni N, Banda E, Parrott F, Floyd S, Francis-Chizororo M, et al. Assessing the validity of sexual behavior reports in a whole population survey in rural Malawi. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(7):e22840.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Maughan-Brown B, Venkataramani AS. Measuring concurrent partnerships: potential for underestimation in UNAIDS recommended method. AIDS. 2011;25:1549–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mensch B, Soler-Hampejsek E, Kelly C, Hewett P, Grant M. Transitions to adulthood in rural Malawi: estimating the sequencing of sexual initiation, school leaving, and marriage. Paper presented at annual meeting of the population association of America, Washington DC, 1 April 2011.

  36. Nelson SJ, Manhart LE, Gorbach PM, Martin DH, Stoner BP, Aral SO, Holmes KK. Measuring sex partner concurrency: it’s what’s missing that counts. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34:801–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Fisher M, Kupferman LB, Lesser M. Substance use in a school-based clinic population: use of the randomised response technique to estimate prevalence. J Adolesc Health. 1992;13:281–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ostapczuk M, Musch J, Moshagen M. A randomized-response investigation of the education effect in attitudes towards foreigners. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2009;39:920–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ostapczuk M, Moshagen M, Zhao Z, Musch J. Assessing sensitive attributes using the randomized response technique: evidence for the importance of response symmetry. J Educ Behav Stat. 2009;34(2):267–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Scheers NJ, Mitchell DC. Improved estimation of academic cheating behaviour using the randomized response technique. Res High Educ. 1987;26(1):61–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Weissman AN, Steer RA, Lipton DS. Estimating illicit drug use through telephone interviews and the randomised response technique. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1986;18:225–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lensvelt-Mulders G, Joop J, van der Heijden P, Maas C. Meta-analysis of randomized response research: Thirty-five years of validation. Sociological Methods Res. 2005;33:319–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. McBurney P. On transferring statistical techniques across cultures: the kish grid. Curr Anthropol. 1988;29(2):323–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Haneman U. Literacy in Botswana. UNESCO Institute for Education. Paper commissioned for the EFA global monitoring report 2006, Literacy for Life, UNESCO Institute for Education (UIE), Hamburg, Germany.

  45. Boruch RF. Assuring confidentiality of responses in social research: a note on strategies. Am Sociol. 1971;6(4):308–11.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Warner S. Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J Am Stat Assoc. 1965;60(309):63–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Fox JA, Tracy PR. Randomized response: a method for sensitive surveys. London: Sage Publications; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lensvelt-Mulders G, Hox JJ, van der Heijden PG. How to improve the efficiency of randomised response designs. Qual Quant. 2005;39:253–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Fowler FJ, Mangione TW. Standardized survey interviewing: minimizing interviewer-related error. California: Sage Publications; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lagarde E, Enel C, Pison G. Reliability of reports of sexual behavior: a study of married couples in rural West Africa. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141(12):1194–200.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Biraro S, Shafer LA, Kleinschmidt I, et al. Is sexual risk taking behaviour changing in rural south-west Uganda? Behaviour trends in a rural population cohort. Sex Transm Infect. 2009; 85 Suppl 1:i3–i11.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wellings K, Collumbien M, Slaymaker E, et al. Sexual behaviour in context: a global perspective. Lancet. 2006;368:1706–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Glynn JR, Dube A, Kayuni N, Floyd S, Molesworth A, Parrott F, French N, Crampin A. Measuring concurrency: an empirical study of different methods in a large population-based survey in northern Malawi and evaluation of the UNAIDS guidelines. AIDS 2012; post acceptance, 9 January 2012.

  54. Boeije H, Gerty JL, Lensvelt-Mulders M. Honest by chance: a qualitative interview study to clarify respondents’ (non-)compliance with computer-assisted randomized response. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique. 2002;75:24–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Coutts S, Jann B. Sensitive questions in online surveys: experimental results from a randomized response technique and unmatched count technique. Soc Methods Res. 2011;40(1):169–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. van der Heijden P, Ger van Gils G. Some logistic regression models for randomized response data. In: Forcina A, Marchetti GM, Hatzinger R, Galmatti G, editors. Statistical modelling: proceedings of the 11th international workshop on statistical modelling. Orvieto: Graphos; 1996.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge and appreciate support provided by The National Coordinator and MCP Campaign Team, National AIDS Coordinating Agency, Botswana; and The World Bank. We are also very grateful to Peter Molefi, Irene Kedisang and Mogomotsi Kgari, and the research team at PSI Botswana for their efforts in collecting and organizing the data for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Global Health Systems and Development, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 1440 Canal Street Suite 2200, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA

    Philip Anglewicz

  2. Population Services International, Private Bag 00465, Gaborone, Botswana

    Diana Gourvenec, Iris Halldorsdottir, Cate O’Kane, Obakeng Koketso & Toby Kasper

  3. The World Bank Global HIV/AIDS Program, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA

    Marelize Gorgens

Authors
  1. Philip Anglewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diana Gourvenec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Iris Halldorsdottir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cate O’Kane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Obakeng Koketso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marelize Gorgens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Toby Kasper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip Anglewicz.

Additional information

At the time of the research, D. Gourvenec, I. Halldorsdottir, C. O’Kane, O. Koketso, and T. Kasper were members of Population Services International, Private Bag 00465, Gaborone, Botswana.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anglewicz, P., Gourvenec, D., Halldorsdottir, I. et al. The Effect of Interview Method on Self-Reported Sexual Behavior and Perceptions of Community Norms in Botswana. AIDS Behav 17, 674–687 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-012-0224-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-012-0224-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation