DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating Survey Questions: an Inventory of Methods

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluating Survey Questions: an Inventory of Methods Statistical Policy Working Paper 47 Evaluating Survey Questions: An Inventory of Methods Statistical and Science Policy Office Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget January 2016 THE FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY January 2016 MEMBERS Jonaki Bose (Chair) Peter Meyer (CDAC Chair) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services National Center for Health Statistics Administration Peter Miller Nancy Bates U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau Renee Miller Patrick Cantwell Energy Information Administration U.S. Census Bureau Jeri Mulrow Chris Chapman National Science Foundation National Center for Education Statistics Amy O’Hara John Eltinge U.S. Census Bureau Bureau of Labor Statistics Polly Phipps Dennis Fixler Bureau of Labor Statistics Bureau of Economic Analysis Nathaniel Schenker Barry Graubard National Center for Health Statistics National Cancer Institute Rolf Schmitt Arthur B. Kennickell Bureau of Transportation Statistics Federal Reserve Board Marilyn Seastrom Jennifer Madans National Center for Education Statistics National Center for Health Statistics Joy Sharp Rochelle (Shelly) Martinez Bureau of Transportation Statistics Office of Management and Budget Katherine K. Wallman (Champion) Jaki McCarthy Statistical and Science Policy National Agriculture Statistic Services Office of Management and Budget Pam McGovern (Webmaster) G. David Williamson National Agriculture Statistic Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Grace Medley (Secretary) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Gordon Willis Administration National Cancer Institute 1 Statistical Policy Working Paper 47 Evaluating Survey Questions: An Inventory of Methods Prepared by Subcommittee on Questionnaire Evaluation Methods Statistical and Science Policy Office Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget January 2016 Evaluating Survey Questions: An Inventory of Methods A Report of the Subcommittee on Questionnaire Evaluation Methods January 2016 Washington, D.C. Members of the Subcommittee on Questionnaire Evaluation Methods Jennifer Madans, Chair Kristen Miller National Center for Health Statistics National Center for Health Statistics Lionel Deang Rebecca L. Morrison Social Security Administration National Science Foundation Jennifer Edgar Cleo Redline Bureau of Labor Statistics National Center for Education Statistics Scott Fricker Paul Scanlon Bureau of Labor Statistics National Center for Health Statistics Patricia Goerman Kristin Stettler U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau Kashka Kubzdela Diane K. Willimack National Center for Education Statistics U.S. Census Bureau Jaki McCarthy Stephanie Willson National Agricultural Statistics Service National Center for Health Statistics Kathy Ott National Agricultural Statistics Service , , Evaluating Survey Questions: An Inventory of Methods Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Question Development and Evaluation Methods (QDEM) ...................................................................................... 1 Question Development ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Question Development Methods........................................................................................................................... 4 Development using Respondents Actively ........................................................................................................... 4 Development using Respondents Passively .......................................................................................................... 6 Question Evaluation .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Data Collection Vehicles .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Combining Multiple Methods ................................................................................................................................. 10 Question Evaluation Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Expert Reviews (Methodological) .......................................................................................................................... 12 Cognitive interviews ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Embedded Probing/Web Probing ........................................................................................................................... 16 Vignette Studies and Fictional Scenarios ............................................................................................................... 17 Usability Testing ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 Feedback from Survey Personnel ........................................................................................................................... 21 Respondent Debriefing ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Response Analysis Surveys .................................................................................................................................... 23 Randomized Experiments ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Validation Studies ................................................................................................................................................... 27 Re-interview / Content Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 28 Analysis of Paradata ............................................................................................................................................... 30 Response Quality Indicators ................................................................................................................................... 33 Item Response Theory ............................................................................................................................................ 36 Latent Class Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 37 Attachment A: Multi-Method Examples ................................................................................................................... 40 Multi-Method Questionnaire Evaluation and Testing for the Census of Agriculture ............................................. 40 Multi-Method Questionnaire Development and Evaluation for National Postsecondary Student Aid and Beginning Postsecondary Student Longitudinal Studies ........................................................................................ 42 Multi-Method Questionnaire Development and Evaluation of a Sexual Identity Question ................................... 44 Evaluating Survey Questions: An Inventory of Methods Introduction This document was developed by the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology (FCSM) Subcommittee on Question Evaluation Methodology to provide an inventory of methods used by federal statistical agencies to evaluate survey questions. Since question development methods play a crucial role in assuring the quality of survey questions and the data they produce, this document also includes a section on developing survey questions which outlines important steps in creating the survey questions that will subsequently be tested and evaluated. The question development section is followed by a discussion of question evaluation, a description of data collection methods, and a list of the methods federal agencies use to evaluate survey questions, along with a definition, common uses, strengths, and limitations for each evaluation method. Question Development and Evaluation Methods (QDEM) The many techniques employed to assure that survey questions evoke the intended response and to evaluate question quality come under the broad umbrella label of “question development and evaluation methods” (QDEM). This includes assuring: (1) that the survey questions ask what the researcher intended, (2) that they are consistently understood as intended, (3) that respondents are willing and able to consistently answer the questions as intended, and (4) that providing the full response is not overly burdensome (Groves et al., 2009). This process involves both development and evaluation of the questions (Figure 1). While conceptually distinct, the development and evaluation processes become intertwined in practice. Question development involves identifying and defining the concepts to be measured, and drafting the questions to measure these concepts. After questions have been developed, they should be assessed using one or more of the evaluation methods defined in this inventory. The process should be iterative, where questions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • E-Survey Methodology
    Chapter I E-Survey Methodology Karen J. Jansen The Pennsylvania State University, USA Kevin G. Corley Arizona State University, USA Bernard J. Jansen The Pennsylvania State University, USA ABSTRACT With computer network access nearly ubiquitous in much of the world, alternative means of data col- lection are being made available to researchers. Recent studies have explored various computer-based techniques (e.g., electronic mail and Internet surveys). However, exploitation of these techniques requires careful consideration of conceptual and methodological issues associated with their use. We identify and explore these issues by defining and developing a typology of “e-survey” techniques in organiza- tional research. We examine the strengths, weaknesses, and threats to reliability, validity, sampling, and generalizability of these approaches. We conclude with a consideration of emerging issues of security, privacy, and ethics associated with the design and implications of e-survey methodology. INTRODUCTION 1999; Oppermann, 1995; Saris, 1991). Although research over the past 15 years has been mixed on For the researcher considering the use of elec- the realization of these benefits (Kiesler & Sproull, tronic surveys, there is a rapidly growing body of 1986; Mehta & Sivadas, 1995; Sproull, 1986; Tse, literature addressing design issues and providing Tse, Yin, Ting, Yi, Yee, & Hong, 1995), for the laundry lists of costs and benefits associated with most part, researchers agree that faster response electronic survey techniques (c.f., Lazar & Preece, times and decreased costs are attainable benefits, 1999; Schmidt, 1997; Stanton, 1998). Perhaps the while response rates differ based on variables three most common reasons for choosing an e-sur- beyond administration mode alone.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 RHFS Survey Methodology
    2021 RHFS Survey Methodology Survey Design For purposes of this document, the following definitions are provided: • Building—a separate physical structure identified by the respondent containing one or more units. • Property—one or more buildings owned by a single entity (person, group, leasing company, and so on). For example, an apartment complex may have several buildings but they are owned as one property. Target population: All rental housing properties in the United States, circa 2020. Sampling frame: The RHFS sample frame is a single frame based on a subset of the 2019 American Housing Survey (AHS) sample units. The RHFS frame included all 2019 AHS sample units that were identified as: 1. Rented or occupied without payment of rent. 2. Units that are owner occupied and listed as “for sale or rent”. 3. Vacant units for rent, for rent or sale, or rented but not yet occupied. By design, the RHFS sample frame excluded public housing and transient housing types (i.e. boat, RV, van, other). Public housing units are identified in the AHS through a match with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administrative records. The RHFS frame is derived from the AHS sample, which is itself composed of housing units derived from the Census Bureau Master Address File. The AHS sample frame excludes group quarters housing. Group quarters are places where people live or stay in a group living arrangement. Examples include dormitories, residential treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, correctional facilities, military barracks, group homes, and maritime or military vessels. As such, all of these types of group quarters housing facilities are, by design, excluded from the RHFS.
    [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]
  • A Computationally Efficient Method for Selecting a Split Questionnaire Design
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Creative Components Dissertations Spring 2019 A Computationally Efficient Method for Selecting a Split Questionnaire Design Matthew Stuart Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/creativecomponents Part of the Social Statistics Commons Recommended Citation Stuart, Matthew, "A Computationally Efficient Method for Selecting a Split Questionnaire Design" (2019). Creative Components. 252. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/creativecomponents/252 This Creative Component is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Creative Components by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Computationally Efficient Method for Selecting a Split Questionnaire Design Matthew Stuart1, Cindy Yu1,∗ Department of Statistics Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011 Abstract Split questionnaire design (SQD) is a relatively new survey tool to reduce response burden and increase the quality of responses. Among a set of possible SQD choices, a design is considered as the best if it leads to the least amount of information loss quantified by the Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) distance. However, the calculation of the KLD distance requires computation of the distribution function for the observed data after integrating out all the missing variables in a particular SQD. For a typical survey questionnaire with a large number of categorical variables, this computation can become practically infeasible. Motivated by the Horvitz-Thompson estima- tor, we propose an approach to approximate the distribution function of the observed in much reduced computation time and lose little valuable information when comparing different choices of SQDs.
    [Show full text]
  • Chi Square Survey Questionnaire
    Chi Square Survey Questionnaire andCoptic polo-neck and monoclonal Guido catholicizes Petey slenderize while unidirectional her bottom tigerishness Guthrie doffs encased her lamplighter and cricks documentarily necromantically. and interlinedMattery disinterestedly,queenly. Garcon offerable enskied andhis balderdashesmanufactural. trivializes mushily or needily after Aamir ethylate and rainproof Chi Square test of any Contingency Table because Excel. Comparing frequencies Chi-Square tests Manny Gimond. Are independent of squared test have two tests are the. The Chi Squared Test is a statistical test that already often carried out connect the start of they intended geographical investigation. OpenStax Statistics CH11THE CHI-SQUARE Top Hat. There are classified according to chi square survey questionnaire. You can only includes a questionnaire can take these. ANOVA Regression and Chi-Square Educational Research. T-Tests & Survey Analysis SurveyMonkey. Aids victims followed the survey analysis has a given by using likert? Square test of questionnaires, surveys frequently scared to watch horror movies too small? In short terms with are regression tests t-test ANOVA chi square and. What you calculate a survey solution is two columns of questionnaires, surveys frequently than to download reports! Using Cross Tabulation and Chi-Square The Survey Says. The Chi-Square Test for Independence Department of. And you'll must plug the research into a chi-square test for independence. Table 4a reports the responses to questions 213 in framework study survey. What output it mean look the chi square beauty is high? Completing the survey and surveys frequently ask them? Chi square test is rejected: the survey in surveys, is the population, explain that minority male and choose your dv the population of.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Methods
    SURVEY METHODS About the survey In the spring of 2015, the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia entered into an agreement with Foothills Forum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of citizens in Rappahannock County, Virginia, to design and then conduct a mail-out survey of households in Rappahannock County. Foothills Forum is currently organized as a 501(c)3 non-profit. Foothills Forum was represented by its chairman, Larry “Bud” Meyer, and a survey committee charged with assisting in the development of the questionnaire. The goal of the survey was to determine citizen opinion on issues important to them regarding life in the County. Questionnaire development Beginning in January, 2015, the staff at the Center for Survey Research and the survey committee for Foothills Forum discussed the aims of the survey, based on an initial conceptual outline formulated by Foothills Forum. Foothills Forum also conducted a series of focus groups, not designed or assisted by the Center for Survey Research, in order to help them clarify issues to be included in the questionnaire. A preliminary questionnaire was developed by August, 2015 and was pretested at a focus group in Washington, Virginia, held on September 15, 2015. Foothills Forum was responsible for the recruitment of volunteers for the focus group and for arrangements and set-up of the meeting. The group was facilitated by Kathryn Wood, assisted by Matthew Braswell, who served as recorder. As a result of the focus group, significant modifications were made to the questionnaire. The final questionnaire was approved by the Foothills Forum survey committee on October 9, 2015 and was submitted for review and approval by the University of Virginia’s Institutional Review Board for the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Weighting Methods
    Journal of Of®cial Statistics, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2003, pp. 81±97 Weighting Methods Graham Kalton and Ismael Flores-Cervantes1 Weighting adjustments are commonly applied in surveys to compensate for nonresponse and noncoverage, and to make weighted sample estimates conform to external values. Recent years have seen theoretical developments and increased use of methods that take account of substantial amounts of auxiliary information in making these adjustments. The article uses a simple example to describe such methods as cell weighting, raking, generalised regression estimation, logistic regression weighting, mixtures of methods, and methods for restricting the range of the resultant adjustments. It also discusses how auxiliary variables may be chosen for use in the adjustments and describes some applications. Key words: Calibration; generalised regression estimation; poststrati®cation; raking; trimming weights. 1. Introduction Weights are commonly assigned to respondent records in a survey data ®le in order to make the weighted records represent the population of inference as closely as possible. The weights are usually developed in a series of stages to compensate for unequal selec- tion probabilities, nonresponse, noncoverage, and sampling ¯uctuations from known population values ,Brick and Kalton 1996). The ®rst stage of weighting for unequal selection probabilities is generally straight- forward. Each sampled element ,whether respondent or nonrespondent) is assigned a base weight that is either the inverse of the element's selection probability or proportional to that inverse. With probability sampling, the selection probabilities are known, and the base weights are generally readily determined. A dif®culty that sometimes occurs with the base weights arises from sampling frame problems that result in some sampled elements being selected withmarkedly different probabilities thandesired.
    [Show full text]
  • American Community Survey Design and Methodology
    Design and Methodology Issued April 2009 American Community Survey ACS-DM1 U.S. Department of Commerce U S C E N S U S B U R E A U Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Helping You Make Informed Decisions ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The updating of the May 2006 unedited version of this technical report was conducted under the direction of Susan Schechter, Chief, American Community Survey Office. Deborah H. Griffin, Special Assistant to the Chief, American Community Survey Office, provided overall management and coordination. The American Community Survey program is under the direction of Arnold A. Jackson, Associate Director for Decennial Census, and Daniel H. Weinberg, Assistant Director for American Community Survey and Decennial Census. Major contributing authors for this updated 2008 report include Herman A. Alvarado, Mark E. Asiala, Lawrence M. Bates, Judy G. Belton, Grace L. Clemons, Kenneth B. Dawson, Deborah H. Griffin, James E. Hartman, Steven P. Hefter, Douglas W. Hillmer, Jennifer L. Holland, Cynthia Davis Hollingsworth, Todd R. Hughes, Karen E. King, Debra L. U. Klein, Pamela M. Klein, Alfredo Navarro, Susan Schechter, Nicholas M. Spanos, John G. Stiller, Anthony G. Tersine, Jr., Nancy K. Torrieri, Kai T. Wu, and Matthew A. Zimolzak. The U. S. Census Bureau is also grateful to staff from Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., who provided valuable comments and revisions to an earlier draft of this report. Assisting in the production of this report were Cheryl V. Chambers, Destiny D. Cusick, Susan L. Hostetter, Clive Richmond, and Sue Wood. The May 2006 unedited version was produced through the efforts of a number of individuals, primarily Mark E.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter XX More Advanced Approaches to the Analysis of Survey Data Gad Nathan Abstract
    Household Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition Countries Chapter XX More advanced approaches to the analysis of survey data Gad Nathan Hebrew University Jerusalem, Israel Abstract In the present chapter, we consider the effects of complex sample design used in practice in most sample surveys on the analysis of the survey data. The cases in which the design may or may not influence analysis are specified and the basic concepts involved are defined. Once a model for analysis has been set up, we consider the possible relationships between the model and the sample design. When the design may have an effect on the analysis and additional explanatory variable related to the design cannot be added to the analytical model, two basic methodologies may be used: classical analysis, which could be modified to take the design into account; or a new analytical tool, which could be developed for each design. Different approaches are illustrated with real-data applications to linear regression, linear models, and categorical data analysis. Key terms: complex sample design, analysis of survey data, linear regression, linear models, categorical data analysis, model-based analysis. 419 Household Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition Countries A. Introduction 1. Sample design and data analysis 1. The primary purpose of the vast majority of sample surveys, both in developed and in developing countries, is a descriptive one, namely, to provide point and interval estimates of descriptive measures of a finite population, such as means, medians, frequency distributions and cross-tabulations of qualitative variables. Nevertheless, as demonstrated in chapters XV-XIX and as will be demonstrated in chapter XXI, there is increasing interest in making inferences about the relationships among the variables investigated, as opposed to simply describing phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Methodologymethodology Prepared by Mirya Holman Duke University Law Library Empirical Research Support Inin Thethe Beginningbeginning……
    SurveySurvey MethodologyMethodology Prepared by Mirya Holman Duke University Law Library Empirical Research Support InIn thethe beginningbeginning…… y Survey research is a relatively new phenomenon y Straw polls, or polls conducted by newspapers were some of the first surveys y Straw polls were notoriously unreliable; the average error of a poll conducted by Hearst Newspapers in 1924 was 12%. y This continued until… InIn thethe beginningbeginning…… y The Literary Digest 1936 Presidential election poll: The Digest predicted that Alf Landon would beat Franklin Roosevelt, 57% to 43%. ◦ FDR went on to win the election, with 62.5% of the vote. ◦ They were 20% away from the actual vote! y Their mistakes were largely due to a lack of a random sample (they asked their readers, who were richer and more Republican than the general population) y This same election saw three pollsters (Crossley, Roper and Gallup) use more scientific methods to better predict the election SomeSome definitionsdefinitions ` Population: Total set of subjects of interest in the study ` Sample: Subset of the population from which we collect data y Random sample: A subset of n size in which each possible sample of that size has the same probability of being selected y Error: The typical deviation of the mean of the sample from the mean of the population DevelopingDeveloping aa surveysurvey y Three basic principles: 1. Use existing materials 2. Test your survey 3. Be considerate of your respondents SurveySurvey DesignDesign 11 y Wording: The Ideal ◦ The ideal question: ◦ Measures the underlying concept well ◦ Measures one (and only one) concept ◦ Means the same thing to all respondents SurveySurvey DesignDesign 22 y Wording: Where to Start ◦ Look to what others have done! x Someone else has probably tried to measure this concept x Re-using survey questions provides two distinct advantages x 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Evaluating Prevalence Studies
    Evid Based Mental Health: first published as 10.1136/ebmh.1.2.37 on 1 May 1998. Downloaded from EBMH NOTEBOOK Guidelines for evaluating prevalence studies As stated in the first issue of Evidence-Based Mental Health, we are planning to widen the scope of the journal to include studies answering additional types of clinical questions. One of our first priorities has been to develop criteria for studies providing information about the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, both in the population and in specific clinical settings. We invited the following editorial from Dr Michael Boyle to highlight the key methodological issues involved in the critical appraisal of prevalence studies. The next stage is to develop valid and reliable criteria for selecting prevalence studies for inclusion in the jour- nal. We welcome our readers contribution to this process. You are a geriatric psychiatrist providing consultation and lation must be defined by shared characteristics assessed and care to elderly residents living in several nursing homes. measured accurately. Some of these characteristics include The previous 3 patients referred to you have met criteria age, sex, language, ethnicity, income, and residency. Invari- for depression, and you are beginning to wonder if the ably, subsets of the target population are too expensive or prevalence of this disorder is high enough to warrant screen- difficult to enlist because, for example, they live in places that ing. Alternatively, you are a child youth worker on a clinical are inaccessible to surveys (eg, remote areas, native reserves, service for disruptive behaviour disorders. It seems that all of military bases, shelters) or they speak languages not accom- the children being treated by the team come from economi- modated by data collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Analysis of Experiments Embedded in Sample Surveys
    Journal of Of®cial Statistics, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1998, pp. 277±295 Design and Analysis of Experiments Embedded in Sample Surveys Jan van den Brakel and Robbert H. Renssen1 This article focuses on the design and analysis of large-scale ®eld experiments embedded in ongoing surveys. Historically, experimental designs and sampling theory have formed two separated domains in applied statistics. However, in the design and analysis of embedded experiments, statistical methods from experimental designs and sampling theory can be combined in order to improve the quality and ef®ciency of these experiments. We will discuss how parallels between randomized experiments and random survey samples can support the design of ®eld experiments embedded in ongoing surveys. This is illustrated with a series of embedded experiments conducted at Statistics Netherlands. This article focuses on a design- based approach for the analysis of such experiments. Generally, the objective of embedded ®eld experiments is to draw inferences on ®nite population parameters. To this end the analysis has to include the probability structure imposed by the applied sampling design of the survey as well as the randomization of the applied experimental design used to assign the experimental units to the different treatments. We worked out such a design-based method for the analysis of the two-sample problem. Key words: Experimental design; sampling design; Horvitz-Thompson estimator; generalized regression estimator; two-sample problem. 1. Introduction Traditionally, the design and analysis of experiments and sampling theory form two separate domains of applied statistics. These two ®elds, however, come together in situations where experiments are performed in order to investigate possible improvements of a sample survey process.
    [Show full text]