DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating Survey Questions Question

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluating Survey Questions Question What Respondents Do to Answer a Evaluating Survey Questions Question • Comprehend Question • Retrieve Information from Memory Chase H. Harrison Ph.D. • Summarize Information Program on Survey Research • Report an Answer Harvard University Problems in Answering Survey Problems in Answering Survey Questions Questions – Failure to comprehend – Failure to recall • If respondents don’t understand question, they • Questions assume respondents have information cannot answer it • If respondents never learned something, they • If different respondents understand question cannot provide information about it differently, they end up answering different questions • Problems with researcher putting more emphasis on subject than respondent Problems in Answering Survey Problems in Answering Survey Questions Questions – Problems Summarizing – Problems Reporting Answers • If respondents are thinking about a lot of things, • Confusing or vague answer formats lead to they can inconsistently summarize variability • If the way the respondent remembers something • Interactions with interviewers or technology can doesn’t readily correspond to the question, they lead to problems (sensitive or embarrassing may be inconsistemt responses) 1 Evaluating Survey Questions Focus Groups • Early stage • Qualitative research tool – Focus groups to understand topics or dimensions of measures • Used to develop ideas for questionnaires • Pre-Test Stage – Cognitive interviews to understand question meaning • Used to understand scope of issues – Pre-test under typical field conditions • Used to understand contours of findings • Field and Post Stage – Interviewer evaluations • Used to have group evaluate and critique – Behavior coding questions and ideas – Validation to external data – Randomized experiments Focus Groups for Questionnaire Development Focus Groups • Develop parameters of measures • Small group in structured discussion • Lead by trained moderator • Understand typical language and cultural • Uses 8 – 10 “typical” but talkative conventions respondents • Homogenous or heterogeneous groups • Learn about unanticipated responses Moderating Focus Groups Disadvantages of Focus Groups • Develop structured guide for group • Group dynamics can play key role • Encourage respondents to think aloud and • Moderator needs to be skilled discuss • Results not necessarily replicatable • Written exercises can often be used to start group • Requires numerous groups for success and understanding 2 Cognitive Interviews Cognitive Interviews • Administering draft questionnaires • Collecting additional information about responses • Used to evaluate quality of question • Used to understand whether question gathers intended information Typical Framework for Evaluating Cognitive Interviews Responses • Look at question-answering from respondent’s perspective • Comprehension – Understand cognitive strategies used to • Memory Retrieval answer • Information Summarization – Understand how questions are interpreted – Understand how respondents understand • Answer Reporting and Formatting concepts Two Generally Different Different Approaches for Approaches Interviewers • Think-aloud • Standardized: – Facilitate respondent revealing full thought – Standardized probes process – Neutral probing and approach – Relies on standardized training: no specific knowledge • Active probing • Active: – Identify specific problems and answer specific – Interviewer modifies script based on evaluation of questions answering strategies – Plays more active role – Specialized interviewer functions as investigator 3 Thinking Aloud Thinking Aloud • Protocol analysis based in cognitive labs • Ask respondent to think aloud • Requires respondents to “Think Aloud” • Have respondent give free-form answer • Assumes that respondent thoughts are • “What is going through your mind?” – Available – Reported accurately – Does not change further responses Example: Continuing Survey of Thinking Aloud Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) • Often begins with generic question and • Original Structure: listens to respondent process of answering – “Starting with the (first/next) time you ate or • Models questions and questionnaire drank something yesterday….. structure based on respondent thought •Time processes • Name of meal • Food item – Examples: • Quantity • Event dating •Place eaten • Recollection forward rather than backward • Place purchased » DeMaio, Ciochetto, and Davis (1994) Example: Continuing Survey of Example: Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) • Cognitive interviews revealed respondents recalled food • 1991 Revision: items more than occasions – Quick list of everything eaten – Naming of time eaten • Respondents used multiple strategies to recall how – Probing of other foods consumed with quick foods were consumed list • Did you have anything else on….. • Did you have anything else in….. • Did you have anything else with – Did you nibble on anything else…. » DeMaio, Ciochetto, and Davis (1994) – Did you have anything else…… 4 Potential Problems with Interviewing with Probes: Respondents Think Out Loud • Respondents veer off course or onto tangents • Read question and probe responses • Respondents focus more on response process – “What made you say that?” than on stimulus of questions – “Why did you respond that way?” • Process of thinking aloud may change – “What does that mean to you?” answering process – “Please tell me what I was asking in your own • Respondents don’t necessarily provide all types words?” of useful information • Potentially overlooks problems following instructions in self-administered questionnaires Example: Types of Probes • “In the past twelve months, how many times have you seen or talked Proactive Administration Reactive Administration on the telephone about your physical, emotional, or mental health (Initiated by interviewer (Triggered by subject with a family doctor or general practitioner?” or administrator) behavior) • Respondent: “Zero” Standardized Construction (1) Anticipated probes (3) Conditional probes • PROBES FROM COGNITIVE INTERVIEWER reveal several doctor (Constructed prior to visits interview) • “Oh, I thought you said talked to on the telephone…..” Non-Standardized Construction (2) Spontaneous Probes (4) Emergent probes (Constructed during the – Adapted from Beatty (2004) interview) From: Willis (2005) Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design Benefits of Active Probing Standardized Approaches • Makes use of expertise • Potentially can be replicated across • Likely more value from fewer interviews facilities, languages, and cultures • May be useful to generate understanding • Can incorporate experimental of types of problems to be included in manipulations and quantitative more standardized phase comparisons • May be better at elucidating rare problems • Facilitate coding and classification of than standardized interviews problems 5 Examples of Classification: Standardized Approaches • Types of Problems: • Require large number of interviews – Lexical –Temporal – Logical • Potentially replicate early mistakes –etc. • Response Stage – Understanding • Often merge with pilot test phase – Task performance – Response formatting –etc. » Conrad and Blair (1996) Selection of Respondents Pilot Tests • Generally limited to convenience samples • Done using realistic field conditions • Relevant population • Help test interviewer instructions and • Demographic variety protocols • Should represent diverse patterns – skip and usage – of survey questionnaire • Data often intensively recorded and • Extreme cases can help to understand analyzed parameters • Respondent and interviewer debriefing • Best if done in a number of locations often conducted • Often conducted iteratively with sets of 5 – 15 respondents Behavior Coding Paralinguistic Measures • Analyzing responses to survey • Coding responses of terms such as: – Comprehension of response – I think – Adequacy of response – I’m not sure • Request for reformulation – Probably • Interpretation of question – Umm…. • Comments and voluntary observations – [Silence] • Use of “Don’t know” • Refusal or other non-answer 6 Response Latency Respondent Debriefing • Length of time to respond is often • “When I asked you ….. Did you think you negatively correlated with would ….?” – Stability • “Were you still thinking when I asked the – Difficulty next question…?” – Accuracy (Current state of Future behavior) • “Did you loose track….?” • “Were you confused?” • Measures of response latency used to • “Did you feel bored or impatient….?” measure quality of question • “Is there something that is relevant that you didn’t tell me?” Interviewer Debriefing Randomized Experiments • Use of interviewers to provide information • Split samples administered different about responses versions of “same” question • Assessment of respondent comprehension • Analysis of: • Assessment of respondent interest – Differences in responses • Interviewer assessment of problems – Accuracy (compared to external knowledge) – Ease of use – Latencies – Percentages don’t know / confused Example of Measure of Chronic Conditions: Further Readings on Pre-testing and Cognitive Testing Question Sequence A: Question Sequence B: • Beaty, Paul C. and Gorden B. Willis. (2007) Research Synthesis: The Practice of Cognitive Interviewing. " Public Opinion Quarterley 71: 287- Do you now have any physical or In the last 12 months, have you seen a 311. A critical synthesis of current practice. medical conditions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statistical Inference: How Reliable Is a Survey?
    Math 203, Fall 2008: Statistical Inference: How reliable is a survey? Consider a survey with a single question, to which respondents are asked to give an answer of yes or no. Suppose you pick a random sample of n people, and you find that the proportion that answered yes isp ˆ. Question: How close isp ˆ to the actual proportion p of people in the whole population who would have answered yes? In order for there to be a reliable answer to this question, the sample size, n, must be big enough so that the sample distribution is close to a bell shaped curve (i.e., close to a normal distribution). But even if n is big enough that the distribution is close to a normal distribution, usually you need to make n even bigger in order to make sure your margin of error is reasonably small. Thus the first thing to do is to be sure n is big enough for the sample distribution to be close to normal. The industry standard for being close enough is for n to be big enough so that 1 − p 1 − p n > 9 and n > 9 p p both hold. When p is about 50%, n can be as small as 10, but when p gets close to 0 or close to 1, the sample size n needs to get bigger. If p is 1% or 99%, then n must be at least 892, for example. (Note also that n here depends on p but not on the size of the whole population.) See Figures 1 and 2 showing frequency histograms for the number of yes respondents if p = 1% when the sample size n is 10 versus 1000 (this data was obtained by running a computer simulation taking 10000 samples).
    [Show full text]
  • SAMPLING DESIGN & WEIGHTING in the Original
    Appendix A 2096 APPENDIX A: SAMPLING DESIGN & WEIGHTING In the original National Science Foundation grant, support was given for a modified probability sample. Samples for the 1972 through 1974 surveys followed this design. This modified probability design, described below, introduces the quota element at the block level. The NSF renewal grant, awarded for the 1975-1977 surveys, provided funds for a full probability sample design, a design which is acknowledged to be superior. Thus, having the wherewithal to shift to a full probability sample with predesignated respondents, the 1975 and 1976 studies were conducted with a transitional sample design, viz., one-half full probability and one-half block quota. The sample was divided into two parts for several reasons: 1) to provide data for possibly interesting methodological comparisons; and 2) on the chance that there are some differences over time, that it would be possible to assign these differences to either shifts in sample designs, or changes in response patterns. For example, if the percentage of respondents who indicated that they were "very happy" increased by 10 percent between 1974 and 1976, it would be possible to determine whether it was due to changes in sample design, or an actual increase in happiness. There is considerable controversy and ambiguity about the merits of these two samples. Text book tests of significance assume full rather than modified probability samples, and simple random rather than clustered random samples. In general, the question of what to do with a mixture of samples is no easier solved than the question of what to do with the "pure" types.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Human Subjects Protection Issues Related to Large Sample Surveys
    Summary of Human Subjects Protection Issues Related to Large Sample Surveys U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Joan E. Sieber June 2001, NCJ 187692 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs John Ashcroft Attorney General Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Acting Director Report of work performed under a BJS purchase order to Joan E. Sieber, Department of Psychology, California State University at Hayward, Hayward, California 94542, (510) 538-5424, e-mail [email protected]. The author acknowledges the assistance of Caroline Wolf Harlow, BJS Statistician and project monitor. Ellen Goldberg edited the document. Contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the Department of Justice. This report and others from the Bureau of Justice Statistics are available through the Internet — http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 Limitations of the Common Rule with respect to survey research 2 2. Risks and benefits of participation in sample surveys 5 Standard risk issues, researcher responses, and IRB requirements 5 Long-term consequences 6 Background issues 6 3. Procedures to protect privacy and maintain confidentiality 9 Standard issues and problems 9 Confidentiality assurances and their consequences 21 Emerging issues of privacy and confidentiality 22 4. Other procedures for minimizing risks and promoting benefits 23 Identifying and minimizing risks 23 Identifying and maximizing possible benefits 26 5. Procedures for responding to requests for help or assistance 28 Standard procedures 28 Background considerations 28 A specific recommendation: An experiment within the survey 32 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Experiments
    IU Workshop in Methods – 2019 Survey Experiments Testing Causality in Diverse Samples Trenton D. Mize Department of Sociology & Advanced Methodologies (AMAP) Purdue University Survey Experiments Page 1 Survey Experiments Page 2 Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Overview .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 What is a survey experiment? .................................................................................................................................... 9 What is an experiment?.............................................................................................................................................. 10 Independent and dependent variables ................................................................................................................. 11 Experimental Conditions ............................................................................................................................................. 12 WHY CONDUCT A SURVEY EXPERIMENT? ........................................................................................................................... 13 Internal, external, and construct validity ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MRS Guidance on How to Read Opinion Polls
    What are opinion polls? MRS guidance on how to read opinion polls June 2016 1 June 2016 www.mrs.org.uk MRS Guidance Note: How to read opinion polls MRS has produced this Guidance Note to help individuals evaluate, understand and interpret Opinion Polls. This guidance is primarily for non-researchers who commission and/or use opinion polls. Researchers can use this guidance to support their understanding of the reporting rules contained within the MRS Code of Conduct. Opinion Polls – The Essential Points What is an Opinion Poll? An opinion poll is a survey of public opinion obtained by questioning a representative sample of individuals selected from a clearly defined target audience or population. For example, it may be a survey of c. 1,000 UK adults aged 16 years and over. When conducted appropriately, opinion polls can add value to the national debate on topics of interest, including voting intentions. Typically, individuals or organisations commission a research organisation to undertake an opinion poll. The results to an opinion poll are either carried out for private use or for publication. What is sampling? Opinion polls are carried out among a sub-set of a given target audience or population and this sub-set is called a sample. Whilst the number included in a sample may differ, opinion poll samples are typically between c. 1,000 and 2,000 participants. When a sample is selected from a given target audience or population, the possibility of a sampling error is introduced. This is because the demographic profile of the sub-sample selected may not be identical to the profile of the target audience / population.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evidence from World Values Survey Data
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive The return of religious Antisemitism? The evidence from World Values Survey data Tausch, Arno Innsbruck University and Corvinus University 17 November 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/90093/ MPRA Paper No. 90093, posted 18 Nov 2018 03:28 UTC The return of religious Antisemitism? The evidence from World Values Survey data Arno Tausch Abstract 1) Background: This paper addresses the return of religious Antisemitism by a multivariate analysis of global opinion data from 28 countries. 2) Methods: For the lack of any available alternative we used the World Values Survey (WVS) Antisemitism study item: rejection of Jewish neighbors. It is closely correlated with the recent ADL-100 Index of Antisemitism for more than 100 countries. To test the combined effects of religion and background variables like gender, age, education, income and life satisfaction on Antisemitism, we applied the full range of multivariate analysis including promax factor analysis and multiple OLS regression. 3) Results: Although religion as such still seems to be connected with the phenomenon of Antisemitism, intervening variables such as restrictive attitudes on gender and the religion-state relationship play an important role. Western Evangelical and Oriental Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are performing badly on this account, and there is also a clear global North-South divide for these phenomena. 4) Conclusions: Challenging patriarchic gender ideologies and fundamentalist conceptions of the relationship between religion and state, which are important drivers of Antisemitism, will be an important task in the future. Multiculturalism must be aware of prejudice, patriarchy and religious fundamentalism in the global South.
    [Show full text]
  • A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Concurrent Web Options on Mail Survey Response Rates
    When More Gets You Less: A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Concurrent Web Options on Mail Survey Response Rates Jenna Fulton and Rebecca Medway Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland May 19, 2012 Background: Mixed-Mode Surveys • Growing use of mixed-mode surveys among practitioners • Potential benefits for cost, coverage, and response rate • One specific mixed-mode design – mail + Web – is often used in an attempt to increase response rates • Advantages: both are self-administered modes, likely have similar measurement error properties • Two strategies for administration: • “Sequential” mixed-mode • One mode in initial contacts, switch to other in later contacts • Benefits response rates relative to a mail survey • “Concurrent” mixed-mode • Both modes simultaneously in all contacts 2 Background: Mixed-Mode Surveys • Growing use of mixed-mode surveys among practitioners • Potential benefits for cost, coverage, and response rate • One specific mixed-mode design – mail + Web – is often used in an attempt to increase response rates • Advantages: both are self-administered modes, likely have similar measurement error properties • Two strategies for administration: • “Sequential” mixed-mode • One mode in initial contacts, switch to other in later contacts • Benefits response rates relative to a mail survey • “Concurrent” mixed-mode • Both modes simultaneously in all contacts 3 • Mixed effects on response rates relative to a mail survey Methods: Meta-Analysis • Given mixed results in literature, we conducted a meta- analysis
    [Show full text]
  • (“Quasi-Experimental”) Study Designs Are Most Likely to Produce Valid Estimates of a Program’S Impact?
    Which Comparison-Group (“Quasi-Experimental”) Study Designs Are Most Likely to Produce Valid Estimates of a Program’s Impact?: A Brief Overview and Sample Review Form Originally published by the Coalition for Evidence- Based Policy with funding support from the William T. Grant Foundation and U.S. Department of Labor, January 2014 Updated by the Arnold Ventures Evidence-Based Policy team, December 2018 This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part for educational purposes is granted. We welcome comments and suggestions on this document ([email protected]). Brief Overview: Which Comparison-Group (“Quasi-Experimental”) Studies Are Most Likely to Produce Valid Estimates of a Program’s Impact? I. A number of careful investigations have been carried out to address this question. Specifically, a number of careful “design-replication” studies have been carried out in education, employment/training, welfare, and other policy areas to examine whether and under what circumstances non-experimental comparison-group methods can replicate the results of well- conducted randomized controlled trials. These studies test comparison-group methods against randomized methods as follows. For a particular program being evaluated, they first compare program participants’ outcomes to those of a randomly-assigned control group, in order to estimate the program’s impact in a large, well- implemented randomized design – widely recognized as the most reliable, unbiased method of assessing program impact. The studies then compare the same program participants with a comparison group selected through methods other than randomization, in order to estimate the program’s impact in a comparison-group design.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Design and Create an Effective Survey/Questionnaire; a Step by Step Guide Hamed Taherdoost
    How to Design and Create an Effective Survey/Questionnaire; A Step by Step Guide Hamed Taherdoost To cite this version: Hamed Taherdoost. How to Design and Create an Effective Survey/Questionnaire; A Step by Step Guide. International Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM), 2016, 5. hal-02546800 HAL Id: hal-02546800 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02546800 Submitted on 23 Apr 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. International Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM) Vol. 5, No. 4, 2016, Page: 37-41, ISSN: 2296-1747 © Helvetic Editions LTD, Switzerland www.elvedit.com How to Design and Create an Effective Survey/Questionnaire; A Step by Step Guide Authors Hamed Taherdoost [email protected] Research and Development Department, Hamta Business Solution Sdn Bhd Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Research and Development Department, Ahoora Ltd | Management Consultation Group Abstract Businesses and researchers across all industries conduct surveys to uncover answers to specific, important questions. In fact, questionnaires and surveys can be an effective tools for data collection required research and evaluation The challenge is how to design and create an effective survey/questionnaire that accomplishes its purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Questionnaire Analysis Using SPSS
    Questionnaire design and analysing the data using SPSS page 1 Questionnaire design. For each decision you make when designing a questionnaire there is likely to be a list of points for and against just as there is for deciding on a questionnaire as the data gathering vehicle in the first place. Before designing the questionnaire the initial driver for its design has to be the research question, what are you trying to find out. After that is established you can address the issues of how best to do it. An early decision will be to choose the method that your survey will be administered by, i.e. how it will you inflict it on your subjects. There are typically two underlying methods for conducting your survey; self-administered and interviewer administered. A self-administered survey is more adaptable in some respects, it can be written e.g. a paper questionnaire or sent by mail, email, or conducted electronically on the internet. Surveys administered by an interviewer can be done in person or over the phone, with the interviewer recording results on paper or directly onto a PC. Deciding on which is the best for you will depend upon your question and the target population. For example, if questions are personal then self-administered surveys can be a good choice. Self-administered surveys reduce the chance of bias sneaking in via the interviewer but at the expense of having the interviewer available to explain the questions. The hints and tips below about questionnaire design draw heavily on two excellent resources. SPSS Survey Tips, SPSS Inc (2008) and Guide to the Design of Questionnaires, The University of Leeds (1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey Federal Legislative and Program Uses
    Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey Federal Legislative and Program Uses Issued March 2018 This page is intentionally blank. Contents Introduction . 1 Protecting the Information Collected by These Questions . 2 Questions Planned for the 2020 Census . 3 Age .......................................................................................... 5 Citizenship. 7 Hispanic Origin ................................................................................ 9 Race. 11 Relationship ................................................................................... 13 Sex. 15 Tenure (Owner/Renter) ......................................................................... 17 Operational Questions for use in the 2020 Census. ................................................. 19 Questions Planned for the American Community Survey . 21 Acreage and Agricultural Sales .................................................................. 23 Age .......................................................................................... 25 Ancestry. 27 Commuting (Journey to Work) .................................................................. 29 Computer and Internet Use ..................................................................... 31 Disability. 33 Fertility. 35 Grandparent Caregivers ........................................................................ 37 Health Insurance Coverage and Health Insurance Premiums and Subsidies ........................... 39 Hispanic Origin ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • STANDARDS and GUIDELINES for STATISTICAL SURVEYS September 2006
    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR STATISTICAL SURVEYS September 2006 Table of Contents LIST OF STANDARDS FOR STATISTICAL SURVEYS ....................................................... i INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1 DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND DESIGN .................. 5 Section 1.1 Survey Planning..................................................................................................... 5 Section 1.2 Survey Design........................................................................................................ 7 Section 1.3 Survey Response Rates.......................................................................................... 8 Section 1.4 Pretesting Survey Systems..................................................................................... 9 SECTION 2 COLLECTION OF DATA................................................................................... 9 Section 2.1 Developing Sampling Frames................................................................................ 9 Section 2.2 Required Notifications to Potential Survey Respondents.................................... 10 Section 2.3 Data Collection Methodology.............................................................................. 11 SECTION 3 PROCESSING AND EDITING OF DATA...................................................... 13 Section 3.1 Data Editing ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]