Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 68 No. 1 Pp. 109–130, © American Association for Public Opinion Research 2004; all rights reserved
Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions
University of Maryland
University of Michigan
Research Triangle Institute
U.S. Census Bureau
Office for National Statistics
U.S. Census Bureau
University of Michigan
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
An examination of survey pretesting reveals a paradox. On the one hand, pretesting is the only way to evaluate in advance whether a questionnaire causes problems for interviewers or respondents. Consequently, both elementary textbooks and experienced researchers declare pretesting indispensable. On the other hand, most textbooks offer minimal, if any, guidance about pretesting methods, and published survey reports usually provide no information about whether questionnaires were pretested and, if so, how, and with what results. Moreover, until recently there was relatively little methodological research on pretesting. Thus pretesting’s universally acknowledged importance has been honored more in the breach than in the practice, and not a great deal is known about many aspects of pretesting, including the extent to which pretests serve their intended purpose and lead to improved questionnaires.
Pretesting dates to the founding of the modern sample survey in the mid-1930s or shortly thereafter. The earliest references in scholarly
 |
Cognitive Interviews |
|---|
|
Supplements to Conventional Pretests |
|---|
|
Experiments |
|---|
|
Statistical Modeling |
|---|
|
Mode of Administration |
|---|
|
Special Populations |
|---|
|
Effects of Testing |
|---|
|
An Agenda for the Future |
|---|
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. M. Villanueva, D. T. Silverman, N. Malats, A. Tardon, R. Garcia-Closas, C. Serra, A. Carrato, J. Fortuny, N. Rothman, M. Dosemeci, et al. Determinants of Quality of Interview and Impact on Risk Estimates in a Case-Control Study of Bladder Cancer Am. J. Epidemiol., July 15, 2009; 170(2): 237 - 243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 X. Chen, F. Lupi, G. He, and J. Liu Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services PNAS, July 14, 2009; 106(28): 11812 - 11817. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Blasius and J. Friedrichs The Effect of Phrasing Scale Items in Low-Brow or High-Brow Language on Responses Int. J. Public Opin. Res., June 10, 2009; (2009) edp018v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. J. Stern The Use of Client-side Paradata in Analyzing the Effects of Visual Layout on Changing Responses in Web Surveys Field Methods, November 1, 2008; 20(4): 377 - 398. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Housen, G. R. Shannon, B. Simon, M. O. Edelen, M. P. Cadogan, L. Sohn, M. Jones, J. L. Buchanan, and D. Saliba What the Resident Meant to Say: Use of Cognitive Interviewing Techniques to Develop Questionnaires for Nursing Home Residents Gerontologist, April 1, 2008; 48(2): 158 - 169. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. C. Beatty and G. B. Willis Research Synthesis: The Practice of Cognitive Interviewing Public Opin Q, June 1, 2007; 71(2): 287 - 311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Gerich and R. Lehner Video Computer-Assisted Self-Administered Interviews for Deaf Respondents Field Methods, August 1, 2006; 18(3): 267 - 283. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. C. Testa and L. M. Coleman Accessing research participants in schools: a case study of a UK adolescent sexual health survey Health Educ. Res., August 1, 2006; 21(4): 518 - 526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. C. Graesser, Z. Cai, M. M. Louwerse, and F. Daniel Question Understanding Aid (QUAID): A Web Facility that Tests Question Comprehensibility Public Opin Q, March 1, 2006; 70(1): 3 - 22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|