Is That Still the Same? Has that Changed? On the Accuracy of Measuring Change with Dependent Interviewing
Is That Still the Same? Has that Changed? On the Accuracy of Measuring Change with Dependent Interviewing
复制标题
还是一样吗？
DOI：
10.1093/jssam/smz021
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
S. Eckman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Jäckle;S. Eckman
对变化的测量和分析是进行小组调查的主要原因之一，但研究表明，小组调查对变化的估计可能会受到测量误差的影响，最常见的是对变化的夸大。出于这个原因，许多小组调查使用了一种名为主动依赖访谈的技术，这种技术让受访者想起了他们在上一波调查中的答案，并已被证明可以减少对虚假变化的捕捉。然而，到目前为止，关于这些问题应该如何措辞，文献中几乎没有指导意见。在这里，我们使用三个实验研究的数据来检验问题措辞的主动性依赖访谈的效果。因为我们将其中一项调查的数据链接到管理记录，所以我们不仅可以按格式检查不同级别的更改，而且还可以检查更改报告的准确性。我们的结果表明，有关当前状态的问题的措辞会影响对变化的报告。总体结果，包括与行政记录的比较，表明提醒受访者他们之前的答案，然后问，“情况还是这样吗？”提供受访者体验到的关于变化和稳定性的最准确数据。
Measurement and analysis of change is one of the primary reasons to conduct panel surveys, but studies have shown that estimates of change from panel surveys can be subject to measurement error, most commonly overreporting of change. For this reason, many panel surveys use a technique called proactive dependent interviewing, which reminds respondents of their answer in the previous wave, and has been shown to reduce the capturing of spurious change. However, so far very little guidance exists in the literature on how such questions should be worded. Here, we use data from three experimental studies to examine question wording effects with proactive dependent interviewing. Because we link data from one of the surveys to administrative records, we can examine not only different levels of change by format, but the accuracy of the change reports as well. Our results show that how questions about current status are worded affects the reporting of change. The overall results, including comparisons with administrative records, suggest that reminding respondents of their previous answer and then asking, “Is that still the case?” produces the most accurate data on change and stability experienced by respondents.