IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v40y2011i1p88-104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Asking Filter Questions in Interleafed Versus Grouped Format

Author

Listed:
  • Frauke Kreuter

    (University of Maryland, College Park, USA, fkreuter@survey.umd.edu, Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany)

  • Susan McCulloch

    (Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, USA, University of Maryland, College Park, USA)

  • Stanley Presser

    (University of Maryland, College Park, USA)

  • Roger Tourangeau

    (University of Maryland, College Park, USA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA)

Abstract

When filter questions are asked to determine respondent eligibility for follow-up items, they are administered either interleafed (follow-up items immediately after the relevant filter) or grouped (follow-up items after multiple filters). Experiments with mental health items have found the interleafed form produces fewer yeses to later filters than the grouped form. Given the sensitivity of mental health, it is unclear whether this is due to respondent desire to avoid sensitive issues or simply the desire to shorten the interview. The absence of validation data in these studies also means the nature of the measurement error associated with the filter types is unknown. We conducted an experiment using mainly nonsensitive topics of varying cognitive burden with a sample that allowed validation of some items. Filter format generally had an effect, which grew as the number of filters increased and was larger when the follow-up questions were more difficult. Surprisingly, there was no evidence that measurement error for filters was reduced in the grouped version; moreover, missing data for follow-up items was increased in that version.

Suggested Citation

  • Frauke Kreuter & Susan McCulloch & Stanley Presser & Roger Tourangeau, 2011. "The Effects of Asking Filter Questions in Interleafed Versus Grouped Format," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 88-104, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:40:y:2011:i:1:p:88-104
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124110392342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124110392342
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124110392342?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Talip Kilic & Thomas Pave Sohnesen, 2019. "Same Question But Different Answer: Experimental Evidence on Questionnaire Design's Impact on Poverty Measured by Proxies," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 65(1), pages 144-165, March.
    2. Thomas F. Crossley & Joachim K. Winter, 2014. "Asking Households about Expenditures: What Have We Learned?," NBER Chapters, in: Improving the Measurement of Consumer Expenditures, pages 23-50, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Jäckle, Annette & Pudney, Stephen, 2015. "Survey response behaviour and the dynamics of self-reported health and disability: an experimental analysis," Understanding Society Working Paper Series 2015-05, Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    4. Kerstin Ruckdeschel & Lenore Sauer & Robert Naderi, 2016. "Reliability of retrospective event histories within the German Generations and Gender Survey," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 34(11), pages 321-358.
    5. Hans-Jürgen Andreß, 2018. "Is material deprivation decreasing in Germany? A trend analysis using PASS data from 2006 to 2013," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 52(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. S. C. Noah Uhrig & Nicole Watson, 2020. "The Impact of Measurement Error on Wage Decompositions: Evidence From the British Household Panel Survey and the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(1), pages 43-78, February.
    7. Kosyakova, Yuliya & Olbrich, Lukas & Sakshaug, Joseph & Schwanhäuser, Silvia, 2019. "Identification of interviewer falsification in the IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees in Germany," FDZ Methodenreport 201902_en, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].

    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:somere:v:40:y:2011:i:1:p:88-104. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.