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

8.4.1 In-house Verification
Verification information for completed interviews was obtained from the Quality Control
Form completed by each interview respondent (see Exhibit 8.6). For the final non-interview
screening codes of 10 (vacant), 13 (not primary residence), 18 (not a dwelling unit), 22 (dwelling
unit contains only military personnel), 26 (not eligible for the quarter), and 30 (no one selected
for interview), the contact information was recorded in the Newton at the time the case was
finalized. For codes 10, 13 and 18, the contact was made with a knowledgeable person, such as a
real estate agent, property manager, or neighbor. For codes 22, 26, and 30, the verification was
completed most often with the screening respondent.
The telephone verification was conducted by project trained telephone interviewers in
RTI's TIO unit. Spanish translations of all materials were available for verifications with
Spanish-speaking respondents. Again, most of the selected code 70s and all of the selected codes
10, 13, 18, 22, 26, and 30 were verified by TIO. The NSDUH telephone verification script used
depended on the final status code of the case (see Appendix E).
For those selected code 70s that did not have a telephone number on the Quality Control
Form but did have an address, verification by mail was attempted. The mail verification letter
(see Exhibit 8.7) was sent to the respondent to complete and return by mail to RTI. The
completed verification letters were keyed, and the results were displayed in the CMS and on the
Verification Reports. Of 307 cases for which mail verification letters were sent, 69 were returned
by respondents. Most cases verified by this method verified with no problem discovered.
Telephone verification had two stages. During the first stage as described above,
telephone interviewers followed a script when speaking with the respondent to confirm that the
FI was professional and followed project protocols. The majority of cases were finalized as
having no problems. During the second stage of verification, a follow-up call was made to
investigate any serious problems found during the initial call. That follow-up call was made by
the Call Back Team, an elite group of telephone interviewers who were trained on all project
procedures and protocols.
The Call Back Team was responsible for conducting a thorough investigation of each
problem case identified. During the follow-up call, they determined whether or not the FI was
adhering to project protocols. If not, the Call Back Team caller determined the types and severity
of the FI's deviations from protocol. The Call Back Team documented the results and provided a
summary to DQCs. This information was used as a basis for retraining the FI, or, in the case of
falsification, as evidence to substantiate terminating the FI.
Unlike the initial telephone interviewer who followed a script for verification, the Call
Back Team was given example introductions, the problem or problems identified during the first
call, and a list of items to cover for each type of case based on the final result code. The Call
Back Team conversed with the respondent asking probing questions that allowed the respondent
to talk about what happened during the screening or interview process in an attempt to confirm
or resolve the identified problem(s).
337