Levels of psychological distress in Australia may have been systematically underestimated, particularly among young Australians, new research in the Australian Journal of Psychology suggests (Klein, Tyler-Parker, & Bastian, 2020).
Researchers from the University of Melbourne and market research firm Pollinate examined whether responses to the 10-question Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), a popular method of measuring psychological distress, could be influenced by the method of administration.
Responses to an anonymous online administration of the K10 were compared to results from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which exclusively administers the K10 via face-to-face interviews.
The discrepancy was clear; participants from the online survey were more than four times more likely to report high or very high levels of psychological distress than respondents from the ABS 2017–18 National Health Survey.
This difference was most marked for younger Australians, with 59 per cent of the 18–24 and 67 per cent of the 25–34 age groups reporting high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared to 19 per cent and 14 per cent among ABS respondents respectively.
These stark differences likely reflect a greater willingness to answer personal questions in an anonymous setting. The K10 questionnaire asks intimate questions, such as how often the respondent feels worthless, hopeless, or ‘so sad that nothing could cheer you up’. It is easy to imagine a reluctance to honestly answer these questions in face-to-face or phone interviews and a tendency to ‘fake good’.
This research provides evidence that online surveys may elicit more honest responses on sensitive issues, while face-to-face surveys may be prone to social desirability bias. It provides for important reflection on the downsides of face-to-face interviews, particularly on sensitive topics.
While these have been taken as the gold standard in many cases, it may be time researchers paid more attention to the advantages of anonymous online surveys.
https:/doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12283
Disclaimer: Published in InPsych on April 2020. The APS aims to ensure that information published in InPsych is current and accurate at the time of publication. Changes after publication may affect the accuracy of this information. Readers are responsible for ascertaining the currency and completeness of information they rely on, which is particularly important for government initiatives, legislation or best-practice principles which are open to amendment. The information provided in InPsych does not replace obtaining appropriate professional and/or legal advice.