Respondent debriefings conducted by experts: A technique for questionnaire evaluation

Field Methods

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 115-132

  Nichols, Elizabeth ^a   Hunter Childs, Jennifer ^a  

^a U S CENSUS BUREAU   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive interviewing; Coverage improvement; Gold standard; Pretesting; Respondent debriefings

Indexed keywords

EID: 67049132472     PISSN: 1525822X     EISSN: 15523969     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1525822X08330265     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bates, N., and E.R. Gerber. 1998. Temporary mobility and reporting of usual residence. Survey Methodology 24 (1): 89-98.
2. Beatty, P. 1995. Understanding the standardized/non-standardized interviewing controversy. Journal of Official Statistics 11 (2): 147-60.
3. Beatty, P. 2004. The dynamics of cognitive interviewing. In Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires, ed. S. Presser, J. Rothgeb, M. Couper, J. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, and E. Singer, 45-66. New York: Wiley.
4. Belson, W.A. 1981. The design and understanding of survey questions. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
5. Campanelli, P.C., E. Martin, and J. Rothgeb. 1991. The use of respondent and interviewer debriefing as a way to study response error in survey data. The Statistician 40 (3): 253-64.
6. Conrad, F.G., and M.F. Schober. 2000. Clarifying question meaning in a household telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (1): 1-28.
7. DeMaio, T. J., ed. 1983. Approaches to developing questionnaires. Statistical Policy Working Paper 10. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.
8. DeMaio, T.J., and J. Rothgeb. 1996. Cognitive interviewing techniques in the lab and in the field. In Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research, ed. N. Schwartz and S. Sudman, 177-95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Esposito, J., P.C. Campanelli, J. Rothgeb, and A.E. Polivka. 1991. Determining which questions are best: Methodologies for evaluating survey questions. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (Survey Research Methods Section), 46-55. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
10. Feldpausch, R., 2001. Census person duplication and the corresponding A.C.E. enumeration status. Executive Steering Committee for A.C. E. Policy II, Report 6. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, October 13. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www./pdf/Report6.PDF (accessed November 5, 2008).
11. Hess, J., and E. Singer. 1995. The role of respondent debriefing questions in questionnaire development. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/sm9518.pdf (accessed November 5, 2008).
12. Hogan, H. 1993. The 1990 post-enumeration survey: Operations and results. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88 (423): 1047-60.
13. Martin, E., R. Fay, and E. Krejsa. 2006. Analysis of questionnaire errors in survey measurement of census coverage. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/resm2006-05.pdf (accessed November 5, 2008).
14. National Research Council. 2006. Once, only once, and in the right place: Residence rules in the decennial census. Panel on Residence Rules in the Decennial Census, ed. D. L. Cork and P. R. Voss. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
15. Schober, M.F., and F.G. Conrad. 1997. Does conversational interviewing reduce survey measurement error? Public Opinion Quarterly 61 (4): 576-602.
16. Schuman, H. 1966. The random probe: A technique for evaluating the validity of closed questions. American Sociological Review 31 (2): 218-22.
17. Willimack, D., L. Lyberg, J. Martin, L. Japec, and P. Whitridge. 2004. Evolution and adaptation of questionnaire development, evaluation, and testing methods for establishment surveys. In Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires, ed. S. Presser, J. Rothgeb, M. Couper, J. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, and E. Singer, 385-407. New York: Wiley.
18. Willis, G. 2005. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.