dc.contributor.author | Nicolaas, Gerry | de |
dc.contributor.author | Campanelli, Pamela | de |
dc.contributor.author | Hope, Steven | de |
dc.contributor.author | Jäckle, Annette | de |
dc.contributor.author | Lynn, Peter | de |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-02-23T16:03:25Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-02-23T16:03:25Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | de |
dc.identifier.issn | 1864-3361 | de |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/46243 | |
dc.description.abstract | "The work of Smyth, Dillman, Christian, and Stern (2006) and Smyth, Christian, and Dillman (2008) compares 'yes/no' questions to 'check all that apply' questions. They conclude that the “yes/no” format is preferable as it reflects deeper processing of survey questions. Smyth et al. (2008) found that the 'yes/no' format performed similarly across telephone and web modes. In this paper we replicate their research and extend it by including a comparison with face-to-face in addition to telephone and web and by using probability samples of the general adult population. A cognitive interviewing follow-up was used to explore the quantitative findings. Our results suggest there are times when the 'yes/no' format may not perform similarly across modes and that there may be factors which limit the quality of answers." (author's abstract) | en |
dc.language | de | de |
dc.subject.ddc | Sozialwissenschaften, Soziologie | de |
dc.subject.ddc | Social sciences, sociology, anthropology | en |
dc.subject.other | check all that apply; forced choice | de |
dc.title | Revisiting "yes/no" versus "check all that apply": results from a mixed modes experiment | de |
dc.description.review | begutachtet (peer reviewed) | de |
dc.description.review | peer reviewed | en |
dc.source.journal | Survey Research Methods | |
dc.source.volume | 9 | de |
dc.publisher.country | DEU | |
dc.source.issue | 3 | de |
dc.subject.classoz | Erhebungstechniken und Analysetechniken der Sozialwissenschaften | de |
dc.subject.classoz | Methods and Techniques of Data Collection and Data Analysis, Statistical Methods, Computer Methods | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Umfrageforschung | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | survey research | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Befragung | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | survey | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Erhebungsmethode | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | data collection method | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Datengewinnung | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | data capture | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Fragebogen | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | questionnaire | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Test | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | test | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Antwortverhalten | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | response behavior | en |
dc.subject.thesoz | Datenqualität | de |
dc.subject.thesoz | data quality | en |
dc.rights.licence | Deposit Licence - Keine Weiterverbreitung, keine Bearbeitung | de |
dc.rights.licence | Deposit Licence - No Redistribution, No Modifications | en |
internal.status | formal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossen | de |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10040714 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10037910 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10037921 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10040547 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10037914 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10037953 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10035808 | |
internal.identifier.thesoz | 10055811 | |
dc.type.stock | article | de |
dc.type.document | Zeitschriftenartikel | de |
dc.type.document | journal article | en |
dc.source.pageinfo | 189-204 | de |
internal.identifier.classoz | 10105 | |
internal.identifier.journal | 674 | |
internal.identifier.document | 32 | |
internal.identifier.ddc | 300 | |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2015.v9i3.6151 | de |
dc.description.pubstatus | Veröffentlichungsversion | de |
dc.description.pubstatus | Published Version | en |
internal.identifier.licence | 3 | |
internal.identifier.pubstatus | 1 | |
internal.identifier.review | 1 | |
internal.check.abstractlanguageharmonizer | CERTAIN | |