Methods and representativeness of a European survey in children and adolescents: the KIDSCREEN study
2007

KIDSCREEN Study: Comparing Survey Methods for Children and Adolescents

Sample size: 22827 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Silvina Berra, Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, Michael Erhart, Cristian Tebé, Corinna Bisegger, Wolfgang Duer, Ursula von Rueden, Michael Herdman, Jordi Alonso, Luis Rajmil

Primary Institution: Agency for Quality, Research and Assessment in Health (AQuRA Health)

Hypothesis

The study aims to compare different sampling and questionnaire administration methods in the KIDSCREEN study regarding participation, response rates, and external validity.

Conclusion

School-based sampling achieved the highest response rates but produced slightly more biased samples than other methods.

Supporting Evidence

  • Response rates by country ranged from 18.9% to 91.2%.
  • School-based surveys had the highest response rates (69.0%–91.2%).
  • Parents in lower educational categories were less likely to participate.
  • Samples were generally similar to the Eurostat reference population.

Takeaway

The KIDSCREEN study looked at how different ways of asking kids about their health affected how many kids answered the questions. They found that asking kids in schools got the most answers.

Methodology

Children and adolescents aged 8–18 were surveyed in 13 European countries using various sampling methods, including telephone and school-based surveys.

Potential Biases

Parents with lower educational levels were less likely to participate, potentially biasing the sample.

Limitations

Results may not be generalizable beyond the countries studied, and there may be confounding between countries and different sampling approaches.

Participant Demographics

Mean age of children was 9.7 years, with 51.3% female; mean age of adolescents was 14.4 years, with 53.8% female.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.01

Confidence Interval

95% CI for PFR were not included; all were statistically different from the reference category.

Statistical Significance

p<0.01

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1471-2458-7-182

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication