IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v35y2019i2p353-386n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Trust in Medical Researchers: Adding Insights from Cognitive Interviews to Examine Agree-Disagree and Construct-Specific Survey Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Dykema Jennifer

    (University of Wisconsin Survey Center (UWSC), 4308 Sterling Hall, 475 N. Charter St. Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.)

  • Garbarski Dana

    (Loyola University Chicago, Coffey Hall 440, 1032 W. Sheridan Rd. Chicago, IL 60660, U.S.A.)

  • Wall Ian F.

    (Steelcase, 901 44th Street SE, Grand Rapids, MI, 49508, U.S.A.)

  • Edwards Dorothy Farrar

    (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2176 Medical Science Center, 1300 University Avenue Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.)

Abstract

While scales measuring subjective constructs historically rely on agree-disagree (AD) questions, recent research demonstrates that construct-specific (CS) questions clarify underlying response dimensions that AD questions leave implicit and CS questions often yield higher measures of data quality. Given acknowledged issues with AD questions and certain established advantages of CS items, the evidence for the superiority of CS questions is more mixed than one might expect. We build on previous investigations by using cognitive interviewing to deepen understanding of AD and CS response processing and potential sources of measurement error. We randomized 64 participants to receive an AD or CS version of a scale measuring trust in medical researchers. We examine several indicators of data quality and cognitive response processing including: reliability, concurrent validity, recency, response latencies, and indicators of response processing difficulties (e.g., uncodable answers). Overall, results indicate reliability is higher for the AD scale, neither scale is more valid, and the CS scale is more susceptible to recency effects for certain questions. Results for response latencies and behavioral indicators provide evidence that the CS questions promote deeper processing. Qualitative analysis reveals five sources of difficulties with response processing that shed light on under-examined reasons why AD and CS questions can produce different results, with CS not always yielding higher measures of data quality than AD.

Suggested Citation

  • Dykema Jennifer & Garbarski Dana & Wall Ian F. & Edwards Dorothy Farrar, 2019. "Measuring Trust in Medical Researchers: Adding Insights from Cognitive Interviews to Examine Agree-Disagree and Construct-Specific Survey Questions," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 35(2), pages 353-386, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:35:y:2019:i:2:p:353-386:n:4
    DOI: 10.2478/jos-2019-0017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2019-0017
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/jos-2019-0017?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
    ---><---

    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:vrs:offsta:v:35:y:2019:i:2:p:353-386:n:4. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.