IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v48y2019i2p263-295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Survey Item Characteristics Relevant to Measurement Error Be Coded Reliably? A Case Study on 11 Dutch General Population Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Bais
  • Barry Schouten
  • Peter Lugtig
  • Vera Toepoel
  • Judit Arends-Tòth
  • Salima Douhou
  • Natalia Kieruj
  • Mattijn Morren
  • Corrie Vis

Abstract

Item characteristics can have a significant effect on survey data quality and may be associated with measurement error. Literature on data quality and measurement error is often inconclusive. This could be because item characteristics used for detecting measurement error are not coded unambiguously. In our study, we use a systematic coding procedure with multiple coders to investigate the extent to which the coding of item characteristics could be done reliably. For this purpose, we constructed an item characteristics scheme that is based on typologies of characteristics. High intercoder reliability indicates a clear relation between item characteristic, item content, and measurement error. Our results show that intercoder reliability is often low, especially for item characteristics that are hard to code due to subjectivity. Low intercoder reliability complicates comparisons between studies about item characteristics and measurement error. We give suggestions for coping with low intercoder reliability.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Bais & Barry Schouten & Peter Lugtig & Vera Toepoel & Judit Arends-Tòth & Salima Douhou & Natalia Kieruj & Mattijn Morren & Corrie Vis, 2019. "Can Survey Item Characteristics Relevant to Measurement Error Be Coded Reliably? A Case Study on 11 Dutch General Population Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 48(2), pages 263-295, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:48:y:2019:i:2:p:263-295
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124117729692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124117729692
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124117729692?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. Wander Vaart & Johannes Zouwen & Wil Dijkstra, 1995. "Retrospective questions: data quality, task difficulty, and the use of a checklist," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 299-315, 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. Timbrook Jerry & Olson Kristen & Smyth Jolene D., 2022. "Your Best Estimate is Fine. Or is It?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 38(4), pages 1097-1123, December.
    2. Henning Silber & Joss Roßmann & Tobias Gummer & Stefan Zins & Kai Willem Weyandt, 2021. "The effects of question, respondent and interviewer characteristics on two types of item nonresponse," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 1052-1069, July.

    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. Mouter, Niek & de Geest, Auke & Doorn, Neelke, 2018. "A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 639-648.
    2. Tina Glasner & Wander Vaart, 2009. "Applications of calendar instruments in social surveys: a review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 333-349, May.

    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:48:y:2019:i:2:p:263-295. 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.