8 research outputs found

    Mantelzorg tijdens de pandemie

    No full text

    Perceived Burden, Focus of Attention, and the Urge to Justify: The Impact of the Number of Screens and Probe Order on the Response Quality of Probing Questions

    No full text
    Web probing is a valuable tool to assess the validity and comparability of survey items. It uses different probe types—such as category-selection probes and specific probes—to inquire about different aspects of an item. Previous web probing studies often asked one probe type per item, but research situations exist where it might be preferable to test potentially problematic items with multiple probes. However, the response behavior might be affected by two factors: question order and the visual presentation of probes on one screen versus multiple screens as well as their interaction. In this study, we report evidence from a web experiment that was conducted with 532 respondents from Germany in September 2013. Experimental groups varied by screen number (1 versus 2) and probe order (category-selection probe first versus specific probe first). We assessed the impact of these manipulations on several indicators of response quality, probe answer content, and the respondents’ motivation with logistic regressions and two-way ANOVAs. We reveal that multiple mechanisms push response behavior in this context: perceived response burden, the focus of attention, the need for justification, and verbal context effects. We find that response behavior in the condition with two screens and category-selection probe first outperforms all other experimental conditions. We recommend this implementation in all but one scenario: if the goal is to test an item that includes a key term with a potentially too large lexical scope, we recommend starting with a specific probe but on the same screen as the category-selection probe

    Using Web Probing to Elucidate Respondents’ Understanding of ‘Minorities’ in Cross-Cultural Comparative Research

    No full text
    Due to the growing significance of international studies, the need for tools to assess the equivalence of items is pressing. Web probing, which is implementing verbal probing techniques traditionally used in cognitive interviewing in online surveys, is a method to complement quantitative techniques to establish equivalence of items in crosscultural research. We illustrate this approach by assessing the question of ‘how important it is that government authorities respect and protect the rights of minorities’, which was originally used in the International Social Survey Program, for respondents in five countries (Germany, Britain, the U.S., Mexico, and Spain). First, participants answered this question using a 7-point Likert scale. Then they wrote freely what types of minorities they had thought of. Whether country differences in the response patterns can be interpreted substantially depends partially on how similarly the term ‘minorities’ is understood across these five contexts. Our results show that people in the participating countries have slightly different kinds of ‘minorities’ in mind

    Perceived Burden, Focus of Attention, and the Urge to Justify: The Impact of the Number of Screens and Probe Order on the Response Quality of Probing Questions

    No full text
    Web probing is a valuable tool to assess the validity and comparability of survey items. It uses different probe types—such as category-selection probes and specific probes—to inquire about different aspects of an item. Previous web probing studies often asked one probe type per item, but research situations exist where it might be preferable to test potentially problematic items with multiple probes. However, the response behavior might be affected by two factors: question order and the visual presentation of probes on one screen versus multiple screens as well as their interaction. In this study, we report evidence from a web experiment that was conducted with 532 respondents from Germany in September 2013. Experimental groups varied by screen number (1 versus 2) and probe order (category-selection probe first versus specific probe first). We assessed the impact of these manipulations on several indicators of response quality, probe answer content, and the respondents’ motivation with logistic regressions and two-way ANOVAs. We reveal that multiple mechanisms push response behavior in this context: perceived response burden, the focus of attention, the need for justification, and verbal context effects. We find that response behavior in the condition with two screens and category-selection probe first outperforms all other experimental conditions. We recommend this implementation in all but one scenario: if the goal is to test an item that includes a key term with a potentially too large lexical scope, we recommend starting with a specific probe but on the same screen as the category-selection probe

    Using Web Probing to Elucidate Respondents’ Understanding of ‘Minorities’ in Cross-Cultural Comparative Research

    Get PDF
    Due to the growing significance of international studies, the need for tools to assess the equivalence of items is pressing. Web probing, which is implementing verbal probing techniques traditionally used in cognitive interviewing in online surveys, is a method to complement quantitative techniques to establish equivalence of items in crosscultural research. We illustrate this approach by assessing the question of ‘how important it is that government authorities respect and protect the rights of minorities’, which was originally used in the International Social Survey Program, for respondents in five countries (Germany, Britain, the U.S., Mexico, and Spain). First, participants answered this question using a 7-point Likert scale. Then they wrote freely what types of minorities they had thought of. Whether country differences in the response patterns can be interpreted substantially depends partially on how similarly the term ‘minorities’ is understood across these five contexts. Our results show that people in the participating countries have slightly different kinds of ‘minorities’ in mind
    corecore