A COMPARISON OF EX-ANTE, LABORATORY, AND FIELD METHODS FOR EVALUATING SURVEY QUESTIONS

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorPresser, Stanleyen_US
dc.contributor.authorMaitland, Aaronen_US
dc.contributor.departmentSurvey Methodologyen_US
dc.contributor.publisherDigital Repository at the University of Marylanden_US
dc.contributor.publisherUniversity of Maryland (College Park, Md.)en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-06-24T05:55:29Z
dc.date.available2014-06-24T05:55:29Z
dc.date.issued2014en_US
dc.description.abstractA diverse range of evaluation methods is available for detecting measurement error in survey questions. Ex-ante question evaluation methods are relatively inexpensive, because they do not require data collection from survey respondents. Other methods require data collection from respondents either in the laboratory or in the field setting. Research has explored how effective some of these methods are at identifying problems with respect to one another. However, a weakness of most of these studies is that they do not compare the range of question evaluation methods that are currently available to researchers. The purpose of this dissertation is to understand how the methods researchers use to evaluate survey questions influence the conclusions they draw about the questions. In addition, the dissertation seeks to identify more effective ways to use the methods together. It consists of three studies. The first study examines the extent of agreement between ex-ante and laboratory methods in identifying problems and compares the methods in how well they predict differences between questions whose validity has been estimated in record-check studies. The second study evaluates the extent to which ex-ante and laboratory methods predict the performance of questions in the field as measured by indirect assessments of data quality such as behavior coding, response latency and item nonresponse. The third study evaluates the extent to which ex-ante, laboratory, and field methods predict the reliability of answers to survey questions as measured by stability over time. The findings suggest (1) that a multiple method approach to question evaluation is the best strategy given differences in the ability to detect different types of problems between the methods and (2) how to combine methods more effectively in the future.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/15251
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subject.pqcontrolledSocial researchen_US
dc.subject.pqcontrolledStatisticsen_US
dc.subject.pqcontrolledSociologyen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledevaluationen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledmeasurementen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledmethodologyen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledpretestingen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledquestionen_US
dc.subject.pquncontrolledsurveyen_US
dc.titleA COMPARISON OF EX-ANTE, LABORATORY, AND FIELD METHODS FOR EVALUATING SURVEY QUESTIONSen_US
dc.typeDissertationen_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Maitland_umd_0117E_15050.pdf
Size:
1.88 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

UMD Theses and Dissertations
Joint Program in Survey Methodology Theses and Dissertations