A Comparison of Three Designs for List-style Open-ended Questions in Web Surveys

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
Tanja Kunz, Katharina Meitinger
{"title":"A Comparison of Three Designs for List-style Open-ended Questions in Web Surveys","authors":"Tanja Kunz, Katharina Meitinger","doi":"10.1177/1525822X221115831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although list-style open-ended questions generally help us gain deeper insights into respondents’ thoughts, opinions, and behaviors, the quality of responses is often compromised. We tested a dynamic and a follow-up design to motivate respondents to give higher quality responses than with a static design, but without overburdening them. Our results showed that a follow-up design achieved longer responses with more themes and theme areas than a static design. In contrast, the dynamic design produced the shortest answers with the fewest themes and theme areas. No differences in item nonresponse and only minor differences in additional response burden were found among the three list-style designs. Our study shows that design features and timing are crucial to clarify the desired response format and motivate respondents to give high-quality answers to list-style open-ended questions.","PeriodicalId":48060,"journal":{"name":"Field Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Field Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X221115831","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Although list-style open-ended questions generally help us gain deeper insights into respondents’ thoughts, opinions, and behaviors, the quality of responses is often compromised. We tested a dynamic and a follow-up design to motivate respondents to give higher quality responses than with a static design, but without overburdening them. Our results showed that a follow-up design achieved longer responses with more themes and theme areas than a static design. In contrast, the dynamic design produced the shortest answers with the fewest themes and theme areas. No differences in item nonresponse and only minor differences in additional response burden were found among the three list-style designs. Our study shows that design features and timing are crucial to clarify the desired response format and motivate respondents to give high-quality answers to list-style open-ended questions.
三种网络调查问卷开放式问题设计的比较
虽然列表式开放式问题通常有助于我们更深入地了解受访者的想法、观点和行为,但回答的质量往往会受到影响。我们测试了动态设计和后续设计,以激励受访者给出比静态设计更高质量的回答,但不会给他们带来过重的负担。我们的研究结果表明,与静态设计相比,后续设计在更多主题和主题区域上获得了更长时间的回应。相比之下,动态设计产生的答案最短,主题和主题区域最少。三种表式设计在项目无反应上无差异,在附加反应负担上差异较小。我们的研究表明,设计特征和时间对于明确期望的回答格式和激励受访者对列表式开放式问题给出高质量的答案至关重要。
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
Field Methods
Field Methods Multiple-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Field Methods (formerly Cultural Anthropology Methods) is devoted to articles about the methods used by field wzorkers in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities for the collection, management, and analysis data about human thought and/or human behavior in the natural world. Articles should focus on innovations and issues in the methods used, rather than on the reporting of research or theoretical/epistemological questions about research. High-quality articles using qualitative and quantitative methods-- from scientific or interpretative traditions-- dealing with data collection and analysis in applied and scholarly research from writers in the social sciences, humanities, and related professions are all welcome in the pages of the journal.
×
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