IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i6p673-682.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reducing “I Don’t Know†Responses and Missing Survey Data: Implications for Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Deanna C. Denman

    (Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA)

  • Austin S. Baldwin

    (Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA)

  • Andrea C. Betts

    (Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
    Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, USA
    Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health, Dallas, TX, USA)

  • Amy McQueen

    (Division of General Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Institute for Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA)

  • Jasmin A. Tiro

    (Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
    Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, USA)

Abstract

Background. “I don’t know†(DK) responses are common in health behavior research. Yet analytic approaches to managing DK responses may undermine survey validity and researchers’ ability to interpret findings. Objective. Compare the usefulness of a methodological strategy for reducing DK responses to 3 analytic approaches: 1) excluding DKs as missing data, 2) recoding them to the neutral point of the response scale, and 3) recoding DKs with the mean. Methods. We used a 4-group design to compare a methodological strategy, which encourages use of the response scale after an initial DK response, to 3 methods of analytically treating DK responses. We examined 1) whether this methodological strategy reduced the frequency of DK responses, and 2) how the methodological strategy compared to common analytic treatments in terms of factor structure and strength of correlations between measures of constructs. Results. The prompt reduced DK response frequency (55.7% of 164 unprompted participants vs. 19.6% of 102 prompted participants). Factorial invariance analyses suggested equivalence in factor loadings for all constructs throughout the groups. Compared to excluding DKs, recoding strategies and use of the prompt improved the strength of correlations between constructs, with the prompt resulting in the strongest correlations (.589 for benefits and intentions, .446 for perceived susceptibility and intentions, and .329 for benefits and perceived susceptibility). Limitations. This study was not designed a priori to test methods for addressing DK responses. Our analysis was limited to an interviewer-administered survey, and interviewers did not probe about reasons for DK responses. Conclusion. Findings suggest that use of a prompt to reduce DK responses is preferable to analytic approaches to treating DK responses. Use of such prompts may improve the validity of health behavior survey research.

Suggested Citation

  • Deanna C. Denman & Austin S. Baldwin & Andrea C. Betts & Amy McQueen & Jasmin A. Tiro, 2018. "Reducing “I Don’t Know†Responses and Missing Survey Data: Implications for Measurement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 673-682, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:673-682
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18785159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18785159
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18785159?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Foddy, 1995. "Probing: A dangerous practice in social surveys?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 73-86, February.
    2. Ian Savage, 1993. "Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 413-420, August.
    3. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Paul S. Fischbeck & Neil A. Stiber & Baruch Fischhoff, 2002. "What Number is “Fifty‐Fifty”?: Redistributing Excessive 50% Responses in Elicited Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 713-723, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jane Greve & Morten Saaby & Anders Rosdahl & Vibeke Tornhøj Christensen, 2021. "Uncertain occupational expectations at age 19 and later educational and labour market outcomes," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 35(2), pages 163-191, June.
    2. Agnieszka Janik & Adam Ryszko & Marek Szafraniec, 2021. "Determinants of the EU Citizens’ Attitudes towards the European Energy Union Priorities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-32, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joan Costa-Font & Cristina Vilaplana-Prieto, 2022. "Biased survival expectations and behaviours: Does domain specific information matter?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 285-317, December.
    2. Cherng G. Ding & York Y. Woo & Her‐Jiun Sheu & Hui‐Chen Chien & Shu‐Fen Shen, 1996. "An Effective Statistical Approach for Comparative Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 411-419, June.
    3. Jesper Akesson & Sam Ashworth-Hayes & Robert Hahn & Robert Metcalfe & Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Fatalism, beliefs, and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 147-190, April.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:607-621 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Dürnberger, Andrea & Drasch, Katrin & Matthes, Britta, 2010. "Kontextgestützte Abfrage in Retrospektiverhebungen: Ein kognitiver Pretest zu Erinnerungsprozessen bei Weiterbildungsereignissen," IAB-Discussion Paper 201020, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    6. de Bresser, Jochem, 2019. "Measuring Subjective Survival Expectations : Do Response Scales Matter?," Other publications TiSEM 53bc2ec3-4126-4dfb-81f3-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Anna Alberini & Stefania Tonin & Margherita Turvani & Aline Chiabai, 2007. "Paying for permanence: Public preferences for contaminated site cleanup," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 155-178, April.
    8. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Melania Michetti & Stefano Ghinoi, 2020. "Climate-driven vulnerability and risk perception: implications for climate change adaptation in rural Mexico," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 290-302, September.
    11. Marcelo Bergolo & Rodrigo Ceni & Guillermo Cruces & Matias Giaccobasso & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2023. "Tax Audits as Scarecrows: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 110-153, February.
    12. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2016. "Post-materialism, Religiosity, Political Orientation, Locus of Control and Concern for Global Warming: A Multilevel Analysis Across 40 Nations," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1273-1298, September.
    13. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Tijs Neutens & Wouter Vanneuville & Philippe De Maeyer, 2011. "An Analysis of the Public Perception of Flood Risk on the Belgian Coast," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1055-1068, July.
    14. Ling Tian & Peng Yao & Shi-jie Jiang, 2014. "Perception of earthquake risk: a study of the earthquake insurance pilot area in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 74(3), pages 1595-1611, December.
    15. Alberto Palloni & Beatriz Novak, 2016. "Subjective survival expectations and observed survival: How consistent are they?," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 14(1), pages 187-228.
    16. Pamela Giustinelli & Matthew D. Shapiro, 2024. "SeaTE: Subjective Ex Ante Treatment Effect of Health on Retirement," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 278-317, April.
    17. Monica Galizzi & Tommaso Tempesti, 2015. "Workers’ Risk Tolerance and Occupational Injuries," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1858-1875, October.
    18. Charles Bellemare & Sabine Kröger & Kouamé Marius Sossou, 2018. "Reporting probabilistic expectations with dynamic uncertainty about possible distributions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 153-176, October.
    19. Lundborg, Petter & Andersson, Henrik, 2008. "Gender, risk perceptions, and smoking behavior," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1299-1311, September.
    20. Chiradip Chatterjee & Pallab Mozumder, 2014. "Understanding Household Preferences for Hurricane Risk Mitigation Information: Evidence from Survey Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 984-996, June.
    21. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Katherine G. Carman, 2018. "Measuring Subjective Probabilities: The Effect of Response Mode on the Use of Focal Responses, Validity, and Respondents’ Evaluations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2128-2143, October.
    22. Courtney G. Flint, 2007. "Changing Forest Disturbance Regimes and Risk Perceptions in Homer, Alaska," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1597-1608, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:673-682. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.