This article focuses on assessing item comparability in cross-national surveys by asking probing questions in Web surveys. The "civil disobedience" item from the "rights in a democracy" scale of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) serves as a substantive case study. Identical Web surveys were fielded in Canada (English-speaking), Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Spain, and the U.S. A category-selection and a comprehension probe, respectively, were incorporated into the Web surveys after the closed-ended "civil disobedience" item. Responses to the category selection-probe reveal that notably in Germany, Hungary, and Spain the detachment of politicians from the people and their lack of responsiveness is deplored. Responses to the comprehension probe show that mainly in the U.S. and Canada violence and/or destruction are associated with civil disobedience. These results suggest reasons for the peculiar statistical results found for the "civil disobedience" item in the ISSP study. On the whole, Web probing proves to be a valuable tool for identifying interpretation differences and potential bias in cross-national survey research.
We report sample composition discrepancies related to demographic and personality variables occurring in different stages of development of a probability-based online panel. The first stage-selecting eligible participants-produces differences between Internet users and nonusers in age, education, and gender distribution as well as in the personality traits of openness to experience, conscientiousness, and extraversion. The second and third stages of panel development-asking about willingness to
This article examines the use of probing techniques in web surveys to identify validity problems of items. Conventional cognitive interviewing is usually based on small sample sizes and thus precludes quantifying the findings in a meaningful way or testing small or special subpopulations characterized by their response behavior. This article investigates probing in web surveys as a supplementary way to look at item validity. Data come from a web survey in which respondents were asked to give reasons for selecting a response category for a closed question. The web study was conducted in Germany, with respondents drawn from online panels (n ¼ 1,023). The usefulness of the proposed approach is shown by revealing validity problems with a gender ideology item.
Cognitive interviewing is a well-established method for evaluating and improving a questionnaire prior to fielding. However, its present implementation brings with it some challenges, notably in terms of small sample sizes or the possibility of interviewer effects. In this study, the authors test web surveys through nonprobability online panels as a supplemental means to implement cognitive interviewing techniques. The overall goal is to tackle the above-mentioned challenges. The focus in this article is on methodological features that pave the way for an eventual successful implementation of category-selection probing in web surveys. The study reports on the results of 1,023 respondents from Germany. In order to identify implementation features that lead to a high number of meaningful answers, the authors explore the effects of (1) different panels, (2) different probing variants, and (3) different numbers of preceding probes on answer quality. The overall results suggest that category-selection probing can indeed be implemented in web surveys. Using data from two panels—a community panel where members can actively get involved, for example, by creating their own polls, and a “conventional” panel where answering surveys is the members' only activity—the authors find that high community involvement does not increase the likelihood to answer probes or produce longer statements. Testing three probing variants that differ in wording and provided context, the authors find that presenting the context of the probe (i.e., the probed item and the respondent’s answer) produces a higher number of meaningful answers. Finally, the likelihood to answer a probe decreases with the number of preceding probes. However, the word count of those who eventually answer the probes slightly increases with an increasing number of probes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.