Response to Comments on “Interviewing Practices, Conversational Practices, and Rapport: Responsiveness and Engagement in the Standardized Survey Interview”

Interviewer-respondent interaction and rapport in PIAAC

“…The paper contributes to a wider literature that examines the content of talk to investigate the quality and consequences of interaction in standardized surveys (Ackerman-Piek and Massing, 2014;Garbarski et al, 2016). It is informed theoretically and methodologically by Conversation Analysis and Gesture Studies (Duranti and Goodwin, 1992;Goodwin, 2007), with attention to sequences of action-oriented talk and gesture as interviewers and respondents complete the assessment (see also Maddox and Zumbo, 2017).…”

“…Such improvisations are associated with interviewer identity, attitudes, and personality (see Ackerman-Piek and Massing, 2014;Bell et al, 2016;Brunton-Smith et al, 2017). A contrasting perspective considers the potential for content and task appropriate interaction to impact positively on respondent participation, engagement, and motivation (Garbarski et al, 2016). From that perspective, interviewer departures from the script can involve content and task appropriate interaction and rapport-such as clarification about items, displays of empathy, and encouragement (Garbarski et al, 2016, p. 3).…”

Becoming Exceptional: Exploring selves and assemblages in the National Exceptional Teaching in Disadvantaged Schools program

“…Following transcription, the interviews were coded so they could be cross-checked against the quantitative baseline data, and then de-identified. The interviews were semi-structured, following a conversational style within a broad structure (Garbarski, Schaeffer & Dykema, 2016;Brinkman, 2016). They included discussion about the preservice teacher's own educational experiences prior to university; experiences in the workforce prior to university; the reasons for entering into the teacher education degree program and their experiences being chosen for and becoming part of the NETDS program.…”

Item Location, the Interviewer–Respondent Interaction, and Responses to Battery Questions in Telephone Surveys

“…For instance, Dykema, Schaeffer, Garbarski, et al (2016) found that respondents are less likely to exhibit problematic response behaviors when interviewers read optional parenthetical information in question stems versus not reading that information, a decision process similar to that for battery items. In addition, prior research has shown that question-reading behaviors can have downstream effects on respondent behaviors and answers and on interviewer behaviors, and they may influence rapport between the respondent and interviewer (e.g., Fowler and Mangione 1990;Garbarski, Schaeffer, and Dykema 2016;Holbrook et al 2015Holbrook et al , 2016. Thus, (Hypothesis 3a) we hypothesize that including the question stem and response options in the item administration reminds the respondent about the response task, decreasing the rate of final DK/REF responses.…”