PDF, 3.8 MB - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services ...

8. Quality Control
While every step was designed to help collect the highest quality data possible, the 2003
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) included specific quality control processes
which are described in this chapter.
8.1 Field Supervisor/Interviewer Evaluation
8.1.1 Regular Conferences
Each field interviewer (FI) had at least one regularly scheduled weekly telephone
conference with his/her field supervisor (FS). During this call, the FI reported progress made
toward completing the work; reviewed production, time, and expense information for the week;
discussed field problems; and asked any questions that had emerged during the week. The FS
then provided feedback on the progress and quality of work and offered solutions to problems or
questions encountered. The FS also shared any information from project managers, such as "Data
Quality Item of the Week" notices or approaching project deadlines.
Regular weekly telephone conferences were also held between the regional supervisor
(RS) and each of the FSs in his/her territory. FI production and performance were discussed
during these conferences, as were budget considerations and any problems that were occurring.
8.1.2 Observations at New-to-Project Training/Training Evaluations
Beginning at training, FI performance was monitored closely and consistently throughout
the field period. Training classrooms were small enough to observe and evaluate each FI's
individual performance and comprehension. The classroom trainers worked together to evaluate
FIs on a daily basis, rating each trainee on a 4-point scale:
Rating
Trainee Rating Explanation
1 Probation, significant problems with equipment and/or procedures.
2 Marginal Performance - may need field mentoring and continued practice,
shows willingness to learn.
3 Satisfactory, understands concepts, can proficiently handle equipment.
4 Fully satisfies training requirements, exhibits better than average skill in
comprehension of project procedures and handling equipment.
Additional letter ratings were assigned documenting improved trainee performance or significant
problems such as attention difficulties or physical limitations like poor eyesight. Explanations
were required for a rating of 1 or 2 or any problematic letter ratings.
In all cases this trainee evaluation system was used strictly as a management tool—
ratings were not shared with the trainees. Reports of struggling FIs were given to the site leader
daily to help identify problems and develop resolution plans. The information was also
forwarded to the trainee's supervisor to keep the FS informed of progress. These evaluations
ensured that those FIs who were struggling with training program content but willing and
331