Designing a questionnaire with retrospective pre-post items: Format matters

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Melanie Hwalek , Kate Pierce , Victoria Straub
{"title":"Designing a questionnaire with retrospective pre-post items: Format matters","authors":"Melanie Hwalek ,&nbsp;Kate Pierce ,&nbsp;Victoria Straub","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Evaluators are frequently asked to evaluate educational interventions that are one-time events. The Retrospective Pretest (RPT) methodology is well suited for these circumstances and the evaluation literature is replete with discussions about the pros and cons of this approach. In RPT, program participants rate their attitudes or knowledge now, and also rate how they were before participation in the intervention. The difference between now and before ratings constitutes the measure of change. Little published literature exists about whether the layout of RPT items within the evaluation questionnaire yields different results. This study compared six different layouts using a sample of 1941 caregivers who participated in one of 96 training workshops. The layouts were compared on inattentiveness, unexpected decline in perceived knowledge, and the degree of before-now change. Findings show that design matters. The best performing layout is where items are placed in the center with before response options on the left of the page and the now response options on the right. Results point to the need for evaluators to pay attention to RPT layout, and for the field to establish criteria for assessing survey layout quality. The unexpectedly high rate of inattentiveness calls for evaluators to pay more attention identifying and addressing this in their survey data.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924000120","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evaluators are frequently asked to evaluate educational interventions that are one-time events. The Retrospective Pretest (RPT) methodology is well suited for these circumstances and the evaluation literature is replete with discussions about the pros and cons of this approach. In RPT, program participants rate their attitudes or knowledge now, and also rate how they were before participation in the intervention. The difference between now and before ratings constitutes the measure of change. Little published literature exists about whether the layout of RPT items within the evaluation questionnaire yields different results. This study compared six different layouts using a sample of 1941 caregivers who participated in one of 96 training workshops. The layouts were compared on inattentiveness, unexpected decline in perceived knowledge, and the degree of before-now change. Findings show that design matters. The best performing layout is where items are placed in the center with before response options on the left of the page and the now response options on the right. Results point to the need for evaluators to pay attention to RPT layout, and for the field to establish criteria for assessing survey layout quality. The unexpectedly high rate of inattentiveness calls for evaluators to pay more attention identifying and addressing this in their survey data.

设计带有事后回顾项目的问卷:格式很重要
评估人员经常被要求对一次性的教育干预措施进行评估。回顾性预测试(RPT)方法非常适合这种情况,评估文献中对这种方法的利弊进行了大量的讨论。在 RPT 中,项目参与者会对他们现在的态度或知识进行评分,同时也会对他们参与干预前的情况进行评分。现在的评分与参加干预前的评分之间的差异就是衡量变化的标准。关于 RPT 项目在评估问卷中的布局是否会产生不同的结果,已发表的文献很少。本研究以 1941 名参加了 96 期培训讲习班的护理人员为样本,比较了六种不同的布局。比较了注意力不集中、感知知识的意外下降以及之前与现在的变化程度。研究结果表明,设计很重要。效果最好的版面设计是把项目放在中间,以前的回答选项放在页面左边,现在的回答选项放在右边。研究结果表明,评估人员有必要关注 RPT 版面设计,并建立评估调查版面设计质量的标准。不专心的比例出乎意料地高,这就要求评估人员在调查数据中更加注意识别和解决这个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evaluation and Program Planning
Evaluation and Program Planning SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that relevant contributions to these areas come from people representing many different positions, intellectual traditions, and interests. In order to further the development of evaluation and planning, we publish articles from the private and public sectors in a wide range of areas: organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental, social services, mental retardation, corrections, substance abuse, and education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信