Survey Consent to Administrative Data Linkage: Five Experiments on Wording and Format

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
A. Jäckle, Jonathan Burton, M. Couper, Thomas F. Crossley, Sandra Walzenbach
{"title":"Survey Consent to Administrative Data Linkage: Five Experiments on Wording and Format","authors":"A. Jäckle, Jonathan Burton, M. Couper, Thomas F. Crossley, Sandra Walzenbach","doi":"10.1093/jssam/smad019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n To maximize the value of the data while minimizing respondent burden, survey data are increasingly linked to administrative records. Record linkage often requires the informed consent of survey respondents and failure to obtain consent reduces sample size and may lead to selection bias. Relatively little is known about how best to word and format consent requests in surveys. We conducted a series of experiments in a probability household panel and an online access panel to understand how various features of the design of the consent request can affect informed consent. We experimentally varied: (i) the readability of the consent request, (ii) placement of the consent request in the survey, (iii) consent as default versus the standard opt-in consent question, (iv) offering additional information, and (v) a priming treatment focusing on trust in the data holder. For each experiment, we examine the effects of the treatments on consent rates, objective understanding of the consent request (measured with knowledge test questions), subjective understanding (how well the respondent felt they understood the request), confidence in their decision, response times, and whether they read any of the additional information materials. We find that the default wording and offering additional information do not increase consent rates. Improving the readability of the consent question increases objective understanding but does not increase the consent rate. However, asking for consent early in the survey and priming respondents to consider their trust in the administrative data holder both increase consent rates without negatively affecting understanding of the request.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smad019","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To maximize the value of the data while minimizing respondent burden, survey data are increasingly linked to administrative records. Record linkage often requires the informed consent of survey respondents and failure to obtain consent reduces sample size and may lead to selection bias. Relatively little is known about how best to word and format consent requests in surveys. We conducted a series of experiments in a probability household panel and an online access panel to understand how various features of the design of the consent request can affect informed consent. We experimentally varied: (i) the readability of the consent request, (ii) placement of the consent request in the survey, (iii) consent as default versus the standard opt-in consent question, (iv) offering additional information, and (v) a priming treatment focusing on trust in the data holder. For each experiment, we examine the effects of the treatments on consent rates, objective understanding of the consent request (measured with knowledge test questions), subjective understanding (how well the respondent felt they understood the request), confidence in their decision, response times, and whether they read any of the additional information materials. We find that the default wording and offering additional information do not increase consent rates. Improving the readability of the consent question increases objective understanding but does not increase the consent rate. However, asking for consent early in the survey and priming respondents to consider their trust in the administrative data holder both increase consent rates without negatively affecting understanding of the request.
调查同意行政数据联动:五项措辞与格式实验
为了最大限度地提高数据的价值,同时最大限度地减少受访者的负担,调查数据越来越多地与行政记录挂钩。记录联系通常需要调查受访者的知情同意,未能获得同意会减少样本量,并可能导致选择偏差。对于如何在调查中最好地表达和格式化同意请求,人们知之甚少。我们在概率家庭小组和在线访问小组中进行了一系列实验,以了解同意请求设计的各种特征如何影响知情同意。我们通过实验改变了:(i)同意请求的可读性,(ii)同意请求在调查中的位置,(iii)默认同意与标准的选择加入同意问题,(iv)提供额外信息,以及(v)专注于对数据持有者的信任的启动处理。对于每个实验,我们检查了治疗对同意率、对同意请求的客观理解(用知识测试题衡量)、主观理解(受访者认为他们理解请求的程度)、对自己决定的信心、回答时间以及他们是否阅读了任何附加信息材料的影响。我们发现,默认的措辞和提供额外的信息并不会提高同意率。提高同意问题的可读性可以增加客观理解,但不会增加同意率。然而,在调查的早期征求同意,并促使受访者考虑他们对行政数据持有者的信任,都会提高同意率,而不会对对请求的理解产生负面影响。
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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