Response Quality of Self-Administered Questionnaires

Abstract

The objective of this article is to analyze the quality of the information collected by a self-administered survey addressed to citizens of Andalusia, who were offered the possibility of answering using the post or Internet. The study showed the advantages of using web-based self-administered questionnaires. Web surveys showed a low number of unanswered questions, more detailed answers to open questions, and longer answers to questions than those generated from paper questionnaires. The five open questions with text showed longer answers from the web survey, around 63 characters more. In the open questions with numerical answers, the use of drop-box (select list) generated better response than the use of a blank space left in the paper questionnaire.

A randomized trial found online questionnaires supplemented by postal reminders generated a cost-effective and generalizable sample but don’t forget the reminders

“…On the simplest level, this may represent the number of questions completed. We found high completion rates irrespective of the method of response, in direct contradiction to a previous study reporting greater data completeness among web-questionnaire respondents [24]. The same authors also provide a thoughtful reflection on how the quality (as well as quantity) of responses may depend upon the medium it is delivered, although reassuringly a systematic review of 46 studies and 233 patient reported outcome measures found paper and electronic completion to be equivalent [25].…”

A test of web and mail mode effects in a financially sensitive survey of older Americans

“…This is consistent with previous research that shows that response options can be designed to reduce over-reporting of socially desirable behavior [18,19,20,21]. Our results are also consistent with previous findings that respondents are more willing to provide detail on open-ended nonfinancial questions on web than mail [22]. …”

Benefits and Disadvantages of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review

“…The populations varied from healthy people [ 31 , 36 , 39 , 44 , 49 ] to patients with a certain condition or disease [ 20 - 22 , 24 - 30 , 32 - 35 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 51 ]. We did not differentiate the results by population since the goal was to systematically evaluate all possible advantages and disadvantages of ePROMs regardless of the population.…”

“…Overall, the included studies represented 11,006 individuals (mean age 49 years, range 13-93 years) exposed to an ePROM or asked their opinion about it. Not all studies [ 30 , 31 , 38 , 51 ] reported the ratio between male and female participants, meaning the sex of 3038 of the 11,006 participants was unknown. Based on the available data, 61% (4827/7968) of the subjects were female, and 39% (3141/7968) were male.…”