Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorNicolaas, Gerryde
dc.contributor.authorCampanelli, Pamelade
dc.contributor.authorHope, Stevende
dc.contributor.authorJäckle, Annettede
dc.contributor.authorLynn, Peterde
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-23T16:03:25Z
dc.date.available2016-02-23T16:03:25Z
dc.date.issued2015de
dc.identifier.issn1864-3361de
dc.identifier.urihttp://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.languagedede
dc.subject.ddcSozialwissenschaften, Soziologiede
dc.subject.ddcSocial sciences, sociology, anthropologyen
dc.subject.othercheck all that apply; forced choicede
dc.titleRevisiting "yes/no" versus "check all that apply": results from a mixed modes experimentde
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.source.journalSurvey Research Methods
dc.source.volume9de
dc.publisher.countryDEU
dc.source.issue3de
dc.subject.classozErhebungstechniken und Analysetechniken der Sozialwissenschaftende
dc.subject.classozMethods and Techniques of Data Collection and Data Analysis, Statistical Methods, Computer Methodsen
dc.subject.thesozUmfrageforschungde
dc.subject.thesozsurvey researchen
dc.subject.thesozBefragungde
dc.subject.thesozsurveyen
dc.subject.thesozErhebungsmethodede
dc.subject.thesozdata collection methoden
dc.subject.thesozDatengewinnungde
dc.subject.thesozdata captureen
dc.subject.thesozFragebogende
dc.subject.thesozquestionnaireen
dc.subject.thesozTestde
dc.subject.thesoztesten
dc.subject.thesozAntwortverhaltende
dc.subject.thesozresponse behavioren
dc.subject.thesozDatenqualitätde
dc.subject.thesozdata qualityen
dc.rights.licenceDeposit Licence - Keine Weiterverbreitung, keine Bearbeitungde
dc.rights.licenceDeposit Licence - No Redistribution, No Modificationsen
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10040714
internal.identifier.thesoz10037910
internal.identifier.thesoz10037921
internal.identifier.thesoz10040547
internal.identifier.thesoz10037914
internal.identifier.thesoz10037953
internal.identifier.thesoz10035808
internal.identifier.thesoz10055811
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo189-204de
internal.identifier.classoz10105
internal.identifier.journal674
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc300
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2015.v9i3.6151de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence3
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
internal.check.abstractlanguageharmonizerCERTAIN


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record