IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v103y2024ics0149718924000120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing a questionnaire with retrospective pre-post items: Format matters

Author

Listed:
  • Hwalek, Melanie
  • Pierce, Kate
  • Straub, Victoria

Abstract

Evaluators are frequently asked to evaluate educational interventions that are one-time events. The Retrospective Pretest (RPT) methodology is well suited for these circumstances and the evaluation literature is replete with discussions about the pros and cons of this approach. In RPT, program participants rate their attitudes or knowledge now, and also rate how they were before participation in the intervention. The difference between now and before ratings constitutes the measure of change. Little published literature exists about whether the layout of RPT items within the evaluation questionnaire yields different results. This study compared six different layouts using a sample of 1941 caregivers who participated in one of 96 training workshops. The layouts were compared on inattentiveness, unexpected decline in perceived knowledge, and the degree of before-now change. Findings show that design matters. The best performing layout is where items are placed in the center with before response options on the left of the page and the now response options on the right. Results point to the need for evaluators to pay attention to RPT layout, and for the field to establish criteria for assessing survey layout quality. The unexpectedly high rate of inattentiveness calls for evaluators to pay more attention identifying and addressing this in their survey data.

Suggested Citation

  • Hwalek, Melanie & Pierce, Kate & Straub, Victoria, 2024. "Designing a questionnaire with retrospective pre-post items: Format matters," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:103:y:2024:i:c:s0149718924000120
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102411
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924000120
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102411?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:epplan:v:103:y:2024:i:c:s0149718924000120. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    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.