Changes in affect after completing a mailed survey about trauma: two pre- and post-test studies in former disability applicants for posttraumatic stress disorder.

BACKGROUND: One potential concern with using mailed surveys containing trauma-related content is the possibility of re-traumatizing survivors without a trained mental health professional present. Prior research provides insufficient guidance regarding the prevalence and magnitude of this risk because the psychological harms of trauma-related surveys have typically been estimated using single post-test observations. Post-test observations cannot quantify magnitude of change in participants' emotional states and may over or under estimate associations between participants' characteristics (risk factors) and post-survey upset. METHODS: We conducted two pre- and post-test studies in samples of former applicants for posttraumatic stress disorder disability benefits: 191 males who served during Gulf War I plus 639 male and 921 female Veterans who served sometime between 1955 and 1998. We used two 9-point items from the Self-Assessment Manikins to measure participants' valence (sadness/happiness) and arousal (tenseness/calmness) before and after they completed mailed surveys asking about trauma-related symptoms or experiences. We examined the following potential predictors for post-survey sadness and tenseness: screening positive for posttraumatic stress disorder, having a serious mental illness, and history of military sexual assault or combat. RESULTS: After the survey, across the groups, 29.3-41.8% were sadder, 45.3-52.2% had no change in valence, and 12.9-22.5% were happier; 31.7-40.2% were tenser, 40.6-48.2% had no change in arousal, and 17.3-24.0% were calmer. The mean increase in sadness or tenseness post-survey was less than one point in all groups (SD's < 1.7). Cohen's d ranged from 0.07 to 0.30. Most hypothesized predictors were associated with greater baseline sadness or tenseness, but not necessarily with larger post-survey changes. Women with a history of military sexual assault had the largest net post-survey changes in sadness (mean = 0.7, SD = 1.4) and tenseness (mean = 0.6, SD = 1.6). CONCLUSION: While a substantial minority of Veterans reported more sadness or tenseness post-survey, the net change in affect was small. Most hypothesized risk factors were actually associated with higher baseline sadness or tenseness scores. When receiving unsolicited, trauma-related surveys by mail, separate protections for Veterans with the risk factors studied here do not seem necessary.

Impact of different privacy conditions and incentives on survey response rate, participant representativeness, and disclosure of sensitive information: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anonymous survey methods appear to promote greater disclosure of sensitive or stigmatizing information compared to non-anonymous methods. Higher disclosure rates have traditionally been interpreted as being more accurate than lower rates. We examined the impact of 3 increasingly private mailed survey conditions-ranging from potentially identifiable to completely anonymous-on survey response and on respondents' representativeness of the underlying sampling frame, completeness in answering sensitive survey items, and disclosure of sensitive information. We also examined the impact of 2 incentives ($10 versus $20) on these outcomes. METHODS: A 3X2 factorial, randomized controlled trial of 324 representatively selected, male Gulf War I era veterans who had applied for United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability benefits. Men were asked about past sexual assault experiences, childhood abuse, combat, other traumas, mental health symptoms, and sexual orientation. We used a novel technique, the pre-merged questionnaire, to link anonymous responses to administrative data. RESULTS: Response rates ranged from 56.0% to 63.3% across privacy conditions (p = 0.49) and from 52.8% to 68.1% across incentives (p = 0.007). Respondents' characteristics differed by privacy and by incentive assignments, with completely anonymous respondents and $20 respondents appearing least different from their non-respondent counterparts. Survey completeness did not differ by privacy or by incentive. No clear pattern of disclosing sensitive information by privacy condition or by incentive emerged. For example, although all respondents came from the same sampling frame, estimates of sexual abuse ranged from 13.6% to 33.3% across privacy conditions, with the highest estimate coming from the intermediate privacy condition (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Greater privacy and larger incentives do not necessarily result in higher disclosure rates of sensitive information than lesser privacy and lower incentives. Furthermore, disclosure of sensitive or stigmatizing information under differing privacy conditions may have less to do with promoting or impeding participants' "honesty" or "accuracy" than with selectively recruiting or attracting subpopulations that are higher or lower in such experiences. Pre-merged questionnaires bypassed many historical limitations of anonymous surveys and hold promise for exploring non-response issues in future research.

The Psychological Risk of Minimal Risk Activities: A Pre- and Posttest Study Using the Self-Assessment Manikin.

It is difficult to apply U.S. Federal Code of Regulation's criterion for "minimal risk," because benchmarks of minimal risk have not been quantified. Our goal was to examine the psychological risks of several day-to-day activities. Using the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), we assessed the state valence and arousal of 432 patients and employees at a large Midwestern Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility before and after they had their blood drawn, saw their primary care physician or mental health provider, or took part in an exercise class. Exercise was associated with near-large to large salutary effects (Cohen's d = 0.76-1.17); other effects were small or moderate in positive directions (Cohen's d = 0.02-0.51). Our findings are a promising start toward establishing benchmarks and quantifying the psychological harms of minimal risk activities. Estimates such as these may help researchers determine whether their own research exceeds minimal risk.