4.5 Article

The impact of next and back buttons on time to complete and measurement reliability in computer-based surveys

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 1181-1184

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-010-9682-9

关键词

Computer-based surveys; Social/role activities; PROMIS

资金

  1. Northwestern University [U01AR52177]
  2. Duke University [U01AR52186]
  3. University of North Carolina [U01AR52181]
  4. University of Pittsburgh [U01AR52155]
  5. Stanford University [U01AR52158]
  6. Stony Brook University, PI [U01AR52170]
  7. University of Washington, PI [U01AR52171]
  8. National Institute on Aging [AG020679-01, P30AG021684]
  9. NCMHD [2P20MD000182]
  10. UCLA Older Americans Independence Center [P30-AG028748]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess the impact of including next and back buttons on response burden and measurement reliability of computer-based surveys. A sample of 807 participants (mean age of 53; 64% women, 83% non-Hispanic white; 81% some college or college graduates) from the YouGov Polimetrix panel was administered 56 items assessing performance of social/role activities and 56 items measuring satisfaction with social/role activities. Participants were randomly assigned to either (1) automatic advance to the next question with no opportunity to go back (auto/no back); (2) automatic advance to the next questions with an opportunity to go back (auto/back); (3) next button to go to the next question with no opportunity to go back (next/no back); or (4) next button to go to the next question with an opportunity to go back (next/back). We found no difference in missing data, internal consistency reliability, and domain scores by group. Time to complete the survey was about 50% longer when respondents were required to use a next button to go on. Given the similarity in missing data, reliability and mean scale scores with or without use of the next button, we recommend automatic advancement to the next item with the option to go back to the previous item.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据