From a qualitative perspective, however, the focus is more on the respondents' interpretation of the questions and what they mean by their answers.
However, we can not be certain that this was accomplished since respondents' interpretation of questions varies [ 26].
The prevalence of physical injury might be low in our sample due to the respondents' interpretation of level of seriousness in their injury, even though there were few reports of a serious nature.
Such items and scales do not rely heavily on respondents' interpretation of an items' meaning due to the situational specificity of the content, thus both respondents and scale assessors can be fairly certain of what is being rated.
There is also some potential for reporting bias which may have occurred because of the respondents' interpretation of the question or desire to report their emotions in a certain way or simply due to inaccuracies in responses.
One such limitation is the reliance on self-reported exposure data, which is likely to produce unreliable estimates due to recall bias and to the respondents' interpretation of the meaning of 'worked nights'.
These figures need to be viewed with caution as respondents' interpretation of the question may be variable, and there is potential for subsequent referrals to services further into their admission after the screening process.
The high internal consistency, as shown by the Cronbach α scores, indicated that keying responses in both the positive and negative direction did not compromise respondents' interpretation of questions.
Whilst the data need to be viewed with caution as respondents' interpretation of the question appears variable and there is also scope for referral to services during the prison admission, nevertheless the proportion reporting existing engagement with services is low, considering the AUDIT scores relate to behaviour prior to admission.
