Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In the instances and areas of the country where the number of native Spanish speakers is low, will non-native speakers conduct Spanish interviews as well as native bilingual speakers? After all, more Americans whose native language is not Spanish are learning to speak Spanish as a second language. We are not aware of any literature that examined and compared native vs. learned bilingual interviewers except in document translations. Two NORC bilingual interviewers, one native and the other a learned speaker of Spanish, together conducted 15 cognitive interviews to test the Spanish language version of the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Prior to that, each interviewers had already collected time use data from 14 English-speaking respondents. In the ATUS Spanish cognitive interviewing, the first ten interviews were conducted with bilingual subjects, and after making changes to the instrument based on findings from the bilingual interviews, five monolingual subjects were interviewed. Since the ATUS is a non-scripted and conversational survey and the cognitive debriefing was done in English (except for the monolinguals), an interviewer's bilingual proficiency is essential. The interviews were tape recorded; we examined both the hardcopy protocols and the tape recorded interviews. Although findings from cognitive interviewing are qualitative in nature and the sample size is small, our data is compellingly suggestive – We observed that the learned Spanish interviewer achieves the same effectiveness in cognitive interviewing as a native speaker. As a measure of effectiveness, we quantified the instances when an interviewer asks the key questions that guide data collection in the time diary, especially in the monolingual interviews; we also compared the entries in the time diary. We found that for a learned Spanish speaker, the performance is not confounded by habitual use of local idioms, and there is no difference between the quality of qualitative data collected.

Publication Type: Poster
Abstract: Investigators oftentimes do not record witness interviews relying on memory, interview notes and/or subsequent reports as the only remaining source of “accurate” documentation when reconstructing witness statements. Little is known about how well interviewers remember interview content and about factors influencing their memory. The present study examined mock interviewers’ memory for interview content and the impact of note-taking and delay on the likelihood that information is reported vs. omitted during subsequent recall. Interviewers’ reports were compared to actual interview videotapes, to determine the quantity and type of information, both interviewer and witness statements, lost between the interview and subsequent report.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The growing needs for non-English interviewing have inspired recent literature and presentations on bilingual interviewer selection and training. They pointed out the importance of assessing language skills, evaluating performance by native versus non-native speakers, and conducting special training. While we have begun to recognize the significance of ensuring bilingual interviewers’ qualifications, do we realize that we may be asking too much of them? NORC’s Culture Methodology Program takes a closer look at how selection and training process differs for bilingual and English-speaking interviewers. The variables we identified include language proficiency, length of training, CAI (Computer Assisted Interviewing) support, cognitive processing demands, and on-the-fly activities during interviewing. These differences merit the attention of survey researchers as they may affect interviewer attrition and data quality.

Publication Type: Paper/Poster Proposal
Abstract: The present paper analyzes the results of a RDD telephone pre-election poll conducted in Minneapolis a few days before the mayoral elections in November 2001. The candidates for mayor were the two-term mayor S. Belton, an African American woman, and the incumbent R. T. Rybak, a White man. This unique combination of race and gender of the candidates gave us the opportunity to test for both race and gender of interviewer effects.
The dependent variable is measured with the question: “If the general election for Minneapolis mayor was held today, would you vote for S. S. Belton or R.T. Rybak?” and has three categories: the intention of voting for Belton, Rybak, or saying “don’t know”. A preliminary analysis showed an interaction effect between race of the interviewer and gender of the interviewer on voting intentions of the respondents, controlling for race and gender of the respondent. For example, we found that the odds for voting for Belton and not Rybak were the highest when interviewed by an African American woman. We also found that when interviewed by a White man the odds for making a choice were higher than for giving a DK answer.
Contrary to other studies, we did not found that interviewer effects are dependent on matching between the respondent and the interviewer. In addition, we could not fully explain the interaction effect between race and gender of the interviewer. In this paper, the results are discussed in more detail in light of current theories of interviewer race and gender effects. In the current analyses, we will also test if the effect of interviewer race and gender can be accounted for by differences in the political interest and political affiliation of the respondents and by differences between the interviewers in factors such as interviewer experience, education, and workload.

Publication Type: Abstract
Abstract: Objectives: Applicant interviews and interviewer training are required by the new Accreditation Standards and Guidelines for the Professional Program in Pharmacy Leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy Degree. However, there is little guidance on how this training should occur and what should be included. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Pharmacy implemented interviewer training during the 2005-2006 admissions cycle. The purpose of this study was to elicit feedback and faculty interviewer opinions regarding the importance of applicant interviews and interviewer training. Methods: A survey was sent to all forty faculty members who participated in applicant interviews during the 2005-2006 admissions cycle. The survey consisted of nine questions aimed at gaining insight into the faculty’s perception of applicant interviews and interviewer training, and to gather feedback on how to improve the interviewer training for the next admissions cycle. Results: A response was received from 31 faculty members (78% response rate). The majority of faculty believed applicant interviews and interviewer training were extremely important in the admissions process. However, half of the faculty did not believe that the interviewer training provided by the School was helpful because it did not enable differentiation between desirable and undesirable applicants. Implications: The survey results suggest the need for improved interviewer training at the UNC School of Pharmacy. In addition, further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of applicant interviews and interviewer training in helping to identify those applicants who are most likely to be successful.