IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/dk9bc.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Smileys Valid Answers? Survey Data Quality with Innovative Item Formats

Author

Listed:
  • Brauner, Jacob

Abstract

Introduction: Survey research is often designed based on multiple-choice questions although many other formats, also referred to as innovative item formats (IIF) exist, such as ranking, sorting, questions with pictures or smileys as response options. Research has suggested that IIF in a broad sense can strengthen data quality, but research is needed on a more specific level. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to present research for separate IIFs about the data quality for that type of item. Method: A literature study was conducted to identify articles that test the data quality of IIF. For each IIF research was discussed regarding aspects of data quality, such as reliability, validity and response rate. Results: A total of 166 research articles were identified with data from 218,532 participants revealing aspects of 22 IIFs with 13 subcategories. The type of evidence on data quality is quite varied and for some IIFs the evidence is supportive, for some it is not and for some it is inconclusive. With 6 IIFs the evidence was estimated in favour hereof, for 11 IIFs the evidence was inconclusive, 1 unfavoured and for 3 there was no evidence. With 6 IIFs potential confounders were identified. Discussion: The study suggests further research is needed where evidence is scarce. The present study could initiate more extensive systematic reviews within specific categories of IIF.

Suggested Citation

  • Brauner, Jacob, 2020. "Are Smileys Valid Answers? Survey Data Quality with Innovative Item Formats," SocArXiv dk9bc, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:dk9bc
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/dk9bc
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5fa808f5d1894f00b068b49a/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/dk9bc?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. Israel, Glenn D. & Taylor, C. L., 1990. "Can response order bias evaluations?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 365-371, January.
    2. Toepoel, V. & Das, J.W.M. & van Soest, A.H.O., 2006. "Design of Web Questionnaires : The Effect of Layout in Rating Scales," Other publications TiSEM 9401f6c5-0275-400e-ac97-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Vera Toepoel & Corrie Vis & Marcel Das & Arthur van Soest, 2009. "Design of Web Questionnaires," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 371-392, February.
    4. Bob Thompson, 2008. "Liveability," ERES eres2008_275, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bart Buelens & Jan A. van den Brakel, 2015. "Measurement Error Calibration in Mixed-mode Sample Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 44(3), pages 391-426, August.
    2. Dana Garbarski & Nora Cate Schaeffer & Jennifer Dykema, 2019. "The Effects of Features of Survey Measurement on Self-Rated Health: Response Option Order and Scale Orientation," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 14(2), pages 545-560, April.
    3. Anna DeCastellarnau, 2018. "A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1523-1559, July.
    4. Tim Klopries, 2018. "Discussion of “Working from Home—What is the Effect on Employees’ Effort?”," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 70(1), pages 57-62, February.
    5. Natalja Menold & Vera Toepoel, 2024. "Do Different Devices Perform Equally Well with Different Numbers of Scale Points and Response Formats? A test of measurement invariance and reliability," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 53(2), pages 898-939, May.
    6. Mark B. Taylor, 2021. "Counter Corporate Litigation: Remedy, Regulation, and Repression in the Struggle for a Just Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-24, September.
    7. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    8. de Bruijne, M.A., 2015. "Designing web surveys for the multi-device internet," Other publications TiSEM 19e4d446-a62b-4a95-8691-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. David F. Holland & Amanda Kraha & Linda R. Zientek & Kim Nimon & Julia A. Fulmore & Ursula Y. Johnson & Hector F. Ponce & Mariya Gavrilova Aguilar & Robin K. Henson, 2018. "Reliability Generalization of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire: A Meta-Analytic View of Reliability Estimates," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(3), pages 21582440188, September.
    10. Joseph A. McCAHERY & Erik P.M. VERMEULEN & HISATAKE Masato & SAITO Jun, 2007. "Traditional and Innovative Approaches to Legal Reform: 'The New Company Law'," Discussion papers 07033, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    11. Gaël Brulé & Ruut Veenhoven, 2017. "The ‘10 Excess’ Phenomenon in Responses to Survey Questions on Happiness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 853-870, March.
    12. Ryan K. Jacobson & Chockalingam Viswesvaran, 2017. "A Reliability Generalization Study of the Political Skill Inventory," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    13. Kojo Kakra Twum & Andrews Agya Yalley & Gloria Kakrabah-Quarshie Agyapong & Daniel Ofori, 2021. "The influence of Public University library service quality and library Brand image on user loyalty," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 207-227, June.
    14. Colleen E. Phillips & Chelsi King & Trisha M. Kivisalu & Siobhan K. O’Toole, 2016. "A Reliability Generalization of the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, August.
    15. Stel, Nora & Naudé, Wim, 2016. "Business in Genocide: Understanding and Avoiding Complicity," IZA Discussion Papers 9743, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Zeynep Filiz, 2010. "Service quality of travel agents in Turkey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 793-805, June.
    17. van Duin, J.H.R. & Tavasszy, L.A. & Taniguchi, E., 2007. "Real time simulation of auctioning and re-scheduling processes in hybrid freight markets," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1050-1066, November.
    18. Rafael Pimentel Maia & Per Madsen & Rodrigo Labouriau, 2014. "Multivariate survival mixed models for genetic analysis of longevity traits," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(6), pages 1286-1306, June.
    19. Chatpong Tangmanee & Phattharaphong Niruttinanon, 2015. "Effects of Forced Responses and Question Display Styles on Web Survey Response Rates," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 4(2), pages 54-62, April.
    20. Itohan Omoregbee & Ben W. Morrison & Natalie M.V. Morrison, 2016. "A Case for Using Ability-Based Emotional Intelligence Measures in the Selection of Trainee Psychologists," Business Perspectives and Research, , vol. 4(1), pages 1-14, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:socarx:dk9bc. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.