Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Frey and colleagues outline 10 trends showing scale of America's demographic transitions

Starr says surveys intended to predict recidivism assign higher risk to poor

Prescott and colleagues find incidence of noncompetes in U.S. labor force varies by job, state, worker education

Highlights

ISR addition wins LEED Gold Certification

Call for Proposals: Small Grants for Research Using PSID Data. Due March 2, 2015

PSC Fall 2014 Newsletter now available

Martha Bailey and Nicolas Duquette win Cole Prize for article on War on Poverty

Next Brown Bag

Mon, March 9
Luigi Pistaferri, Consumption Inequality and Family Labor Supply

Frederick G. Conrad photo

Sources of Error in Cognitive Interviews

Publication Abstract

Conrad, Frederick G., and Johnny Blair. 2009. "Sources of Error in Cognitive Interviews." Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1): 32-55.

Cognitive interviewing is used to identify problems in questionnaires under development by asking a small number of pretest participants to verbally report their thinking while answering the draft questions. Just as responses in production interviews include measurement error, so the detection of problems in cognitive interviews can include error. In the current study, we examine error in the problem detection of both cognitive interviewers evaluating their own interviews and independent judges listening to the full set of interviews. The cognitive interviewers were instructed to probe for additional information in one of two ways: the Conditional Probe group was instructed to probe only about what respondents had explicitly reported; the Discretionary Probe group was instructed to probe whenever they felt it appropriate. Agreement about problems was surprisingly low overall, but differed by interviewing technique. The Conditional Probe interviewers uncovered fewer potential problems but with higher inter-judge reliability than did the Discretionary Probe interviewers. These differences in reliability were related to the type of probes. When interviewers in either group probed beyond the content of respondents' verbal reports, they were prone to believe that the respondent had experienced a problem when the majority of judges did not believe this to be the case (false alarms). Despite generally poor performance at the level of individual verbal reports, judges reached relatively consistent conclusions across the interviews about which questions most needed repair. Some practical measures may improve the conclusions drawn from cognitive interviews but the quality of the findings is limited by the content of the verbal reports.

DOI:10.1093/poq/nfp013 (Full Text)

Country of focus: United States of America.

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next