Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing
Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/poq/nfm006
复制
发表时间：
2007-06-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Willis, Gordon B.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Beatty, Paul C.;Willis, Gordon B.
认知面试已经成为一个更突出的方法来识别和纠正问题的调查问题。我们将认知访谈定义为管理调查问题草案，同时收集有关调查回答的额外口头信息，用于评估回答的质量或帮助确定问题是否产生作者想要的信息。但除了这个一般的分类，认知访谈可能包括各种各样的活动，这些活动可能基于对收集的数据类型和访谈者在该过程中的角色的不同假设。本文综述了当前认知访谈实践的范围，重点关注三个方面：（1）认知访谈的主导范式是什么-每个范式下产生了什么，它们的明显优势是什么;（2）一旦选择了一般方法，需要做出关于认知访谈研究设计的关键决定（例如，（3）如何评估认知访谈数据，以及根据研究结果制定问卷设计决策的证据标准。在考虑这些问题时，我们强调最佳实践的标准没有明确定义，并建议值得进行更多方法研究的广泛领域。
Cognitive interviewing has emerged as one of the more prominent methods for identifying and correcting problems with survey questions. We define cognitive interviewing as the administration of draft survey questions while collecting additional verbal information about the survey responses, which is used to evaluate the quality of the response or to help determine whether the question is generating the information that its author intends. But beyond this general categorization, cognitive interviewing potentially includes a variety of activities that may be based on different assumptions about the type of data that are being collected and the role of the interviewer in that process. This synthesis reviews the range of current cognitive interviewing practices, focusing on three considerations: (1) what are the dominant paradigms of cognitive interviewing-what is produced under each, and what are their apparent advantages; (2) what key decisions about cognitive interview study design need to be made once the general approach is selected (e.g., who should be interviewed, how many interviews should be conducted, and how should probes be selected), and what bases exist for making these decisions; and (3) how cognitive interviewing data should be evaluated, and what standards of evidence exist for making questionnaire design decisions based on study findings. In considering these issues, we highlight where standards for best practices are not clearly defined, and suggest broad areas worthy of additional methodological research.