Identifying Data Quality Challenges in Online Opt-In Panels Using Cognitive Interviews in English and Spanish

IF 0.5 4区 数学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS
Y. G. Trejo, Mikelyn Meyers, Mandi Martinez, Angie O’Brien, Patricia L. Goerman, Betsarí Otero Class
{"title":"Identifying Data Quality Challenges in Online Opt-In Panels Using Cognitive Interviews in English and Spanish","authors":"Y. G. Trejo, Mikelyn Meyers, Mandi Martinez, Angie O’Brien, Patricia L. Goerman, Betsarí Otero Class","doi":"10.2478/jos-2022-0035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, we evaluate how the analysis of open-ended probes in an online cognitive interview can serve as a metric to identify cases that should be excluded due to disingenuous responses by ineligible respondents. We analyze data collected in 2019 via an online opt-in panel in English and Spanish to pretest a public opinion questionnaire (n = 265 in English and 199 in Spanish). We find that analyzing open-ended probes allowed us to flag cases completed by respondents who demonstrated problematic behaviors (e.g., answering many probes with repetitive textual patterns, by typing random characters, etc.), as well as to identify cases completed by ineligible respondents posing as eligible respondents (i.e., non-Spanish-speakers posing as Spanish-speakers). These findings indicate that data collected for multilingual pretesting research using online opt-in panels likely require additional evaluations of data quality. We find that open-ended probes can help determine which cases should be replaced when conducting pretesting using opt-in panels. We argue that open-ended probes in online cognitive interviews, while more time consuming and expensive to analyze than close-ended questions, serve as a valuable method of verifying response quality and respondent eligibility, particularly for researchers conducting multilingual surveys with online opt-in panels.","PeriodicalId":51092,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Official Statistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Official Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2022-0035","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In this article, we evaluate how the analysis of open-ended probes in an online cognitive interview can serve as a metric to identify cases that should be excluded due to disingenuous responses by ineligible respondents. We analyze data collected in 2019 via an online opt-in panel in English and Spanish to pretest a public opinion questionnaire (n = 265 in English and 199 in Spanish). We find that analyzing open-ended probes allowed us to flag cases completed by respondents who demonstrated problematic behaviors (e.g., answering many probes with repetitive textual patterns, by typing random characters, etc.), as well as to identify cases completed by ineligible respondents posing as eligible respondents (i.e., non-Spanish-speakers posing as Spanish-speakers). These findings indicate that data collected for multilingual pretesting research using online opt-in panels likely require additional evaluations of data quality. We find that open-ended probes can help determine which cases should be replaced when conducting pretesting using opt-in panels. We argue that open-ended probes in online cognitive interviews, while more time consuming and expensive to analyze than close-ended questions, serve as a valuable method of verifying response quality and respondent eligibility, particularly for researchers conducting multilingual surveys with online opt-in panels.
使用英语和西班牙语的认知访谈识别在线选择小组中的数据质量挑战
摘要在本文中,我们评估了在线认知访谈中对开放式调查的分析如何作为一种衡量标准,以确定由于不合格受访者的虚假回答而应排除的病例。我们分析了2019年通过英语和西班牙语在线选择加入小组收集的数据,以预测试一份民意调查问卷(英语n=265,西班牙语n=199)。我们发现,分析开放式调查使我们能够标记出表现出问题行为的受访者完成的案例(例如,通过键入随机字符等,用重复的文本模式回答许多调查),并识别出不合格的受访者冒充合格的受访者(即,非西班牙语使用者冒充西班牙语使用者)完成的案例。这些发现表明,使用在线选择加入小组为多语言预测试研究收集的数据可能需要对数据质量进行额外评估。我们发现,当使用选择加入面板进行预测试时,开放式探针可以帮助确定哪些情况应该更换。我们认为,在线认知访谈中的开放式调查虽然比封闭式问题更耗时、更昂贵,但却是验证回答质量和受访者资格的一种有价值的方法,尤其是对于通过在线选择小组进行多语言调查的研究人员来说。
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
Journal of Official Statistics
Journal of Official Statistics STATISTICS & PROBABILITY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
39
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: JOS is an international quarterly published by Statistics Sweden. We publish research articles in the area of survey and statistical methodology and policy matters facing national statistical offices and other producers of statistics. The intended readers are researchers or practicians at statistical agencies or in universities and private organizations dealing with problems which concern aspects of production of official statistics.
×
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