IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i6p673-682.html

Reducing “I Don’t Know†Responses and Missing Survey Data: Implications for Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Deanna C. Denman

    (Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA)

  • Austin S. Baldwin

    (Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA)

  • Andrea C. Betts

    (Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
    Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, USA
    Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health, Dallas, TX, USA)

  • Amy McQueen

    (Division of General Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Institute for Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA)

  • Jasmin A. Tiro

    (Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
    Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, USA)

Abstract

Background. “I don’t know†(DK) responses are common in health behavior research. Yet analytic approaches to managing DK responses may undermine survey validity and researchers’ ability to interpret findings. Objective. Compare the usefulness of a methodological strategy for reducing DK responses to 3 analytic approaches: 1) excluding DKs as missing data, 2) recoding them to the neutral point of the response scale, and 3) recoding DKs with the mean. Methods. We used a 4-group design to compare a methodological strategy, which encourages use of the response scale after an initial DK response, to 3 methods of analytically treating DK responses. We examined 1) whether this methodological strategy reduced the frequency of DK responses, and 2) how the methodological strategy compared to common analytic treatments in terms of factor structure and strength of correlations between measures of constructs. Results. The prompt reduced DK response frequency (55.7% of 164 unprompted participants vs. 19.6% of 102 prompted participants). Factorial invariance analyses suggested equivalence in factor loadings for all constructs throughout the groups. Compared to excluding DKs, recoding strategies and use of the prompt improved the strength of correlations between constructs, with the prompt resulting in the strongest correlations (.589 for benefits and intentions, .446 for perceived susceptibility and intentions, and .329 for benefits and perceived susceptibility). Limitations. This study was not designed a priori to test methods for addressing DK responses. Our analysis was limited to an interviewer-administered survey, and interviewers did not probe about reasons for DK responses. Conclusion. Findings suggest that use of a prompt to reduce DK responses is preferable to analytic approaches to treating DK responses. Use of such prompts may improve the validity of health behavior survey research.

Suggested Citation

  • Deanna C. Denman & Austin S. Baldwin & Andrea C. Betts & Amy McQueen & Jasmin A. Tiro, 2018. "Reducing “I Don’t Know†Responses and Missing Survey Data: Implications for Measurement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 673-682, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:673-682
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18785159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18785159
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18785159?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Paul S. Fischbeck & Neil A. Stiber & Baruch Fischhoff, 2002. "What Number is “Fifty‐Fifty”?: Redistributing Excessive 50% Responses in Elicited Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 713-723, August.
    2. William Foddy, 1995. "Probing: A dangerous practice in social surveys?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 73-86, February.
    3. Ian Savage, 1993. "Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 413-420, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jane Greve & Morten Saaby & Anders Rosdahl & Vibeke Tornhøj Christensen, 2021. "Uncertain occupational expectations at age 19 and later educational and labour market outcomes," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 35(2), pages 163-191, June.
    2. Agnieszka Janik & Adam Ryszko & Marek Szafraniec, 2021. "Determinants of the EU Citizens’ Attitudes towards the European Energy Union Priorities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-32, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joan Costa-Font & Cristina Vilaplana-Prieto, 2022. "Biased survival expectations and behaviours: Does domain specific information matter?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 285-317, December.
    2. Foster, Gigi & Frijters, Paul & Schaffner, Markus & Torgler, Benno, 2018. "Expectation formation in an evolving game of uncertainty: New experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 379-405.
    3. Baker, Gregory A., 2003. "Food Safety And Fear: Factors Affecting Consumer Response To Food Safety Risk," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 6(01), pages 1-11.
    4. Craig Landry & Dylan Turner, 2020. "Risk Perceptions and Flood Insurance: Insights from Homeowners on the Georgia Coast," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Nadine Lehrer & Gretchen Sneegas, 2018. "Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in Washington State’s tree fruit industry," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 131-147, March.
    6. Cherng G. Ding & York Y. Woo & Her‐Jiun Sheu & Hui‐Chen Chien & Shu‐Fen Shen, 1996. "An Effective Statistical Approach for Comparative Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 411-419, June.
    7. Deana GROBE & Robin DOUTHITT & Lydia ZEPEDA, 1997. "CONSUMER RISK PERCEPTION PROFILES FOR THE FOOD-RELATED BIOTECHNOLOGY, RECOMBINANT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE (rbGH)," Department of Resource Economics Regional Research Project 9613, University of Massachusetts.
    8. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1994. "Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1101-1108, December.
    9. Richard C. Stedman, 2004. "Risk and Climate Change: Perceptions of Key Policy Actors in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1395-1406, October.
    10. Jesper Akesson & Sam Ashworth-Hayes & Robert Hahn & Robert Metcalfe & Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Fatalism, beliefs, and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 147-190, April.
    11. Dürnberger, Andrea & Drasch, Katrin & Matthes, Britta, 2010. "Kontextgestützte Abfrage in Retrospektiverhebungen: Ein kognitiver Pretest zu Erinnerungsprozessen bei Weiterbildungsereignissen," IAB-Discussion Paper 201020, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    12. Henrik Andersson, 2011. "Perception of Own Death Risk: An Assessment of Road‐Traffic Mortality Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1069-1082, July.
    13. Charles Godfred Ackah & Enoch Randy Aikins & Thomas Twene Sarpong & Derek Asuman, 2019. "Gender Differences In Attitudes Toward Risk: Evidence From Entreprenuers In Ghana And Uganda," Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (JDE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(01), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Deana Grobe & Robin Douthitt & Lydia Zepeda, 1999. "A Model of Consumers' Risk Perceptions Toward Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rbGH): The Impact of Risk Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 661-673, August.
    15. Andersson, Henrik & Lundborg, Petter, 2006. "Perception of Own Death Risk: An Analysis of Road-Traffic and Overall Mortality Risks," Working Papers 2006:1, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).
    16. Jocelyn Raude & Patrick Peretti-Watel & Jeremy Ward & Claude Flamand & Pierre Verger, 2018. "Are Perceived Prevalences of Infection also Biased and How? Lessons from Large Epidemics of Mosquito-Borne Diseases in Tropical Regions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 377-389, April.
    17. Michael R. Greenberg & Dona F. Schneider, 1995. "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Effects Differ in Stressed vs. Non‐Stressed Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 503-511, August.
    18. Kim Nguyen & Anny Francis, 2019. "Confidence in Australian Banknotes," RBA Research Discussion Papers rdp2019-12, Reserve Bank of Australia.
    19. Tullio Jappelli & Luigi Pistaferri, 2020. "Reported MPC and Unobserved Heterogeneity," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 275-297, November.
    20. Anna Alberini & Stefania Tonin & Margherita Turvani & Aline Chiabai, 2007. "Paying for permanence: Public preferences for contaminated site cleanup," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 155-178, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:673-682. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.