IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v52y2023i4p1981-2015.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open-ended versus Closed Probes: Assessing Different Formats of Web Probing

Author

Listed:
  • Cornelia E. Neuert
  • Katharina Meitinger
  • Dorothée Behr

Abstract

The method of web probing integrates cognitive interviewing techniques into web surveys and is increasingly used to evaluate survey questions. In a usual web probing scenario, probes are administered immediately after the question to be tested (concurrent probing), typically as open-ended questions. A second possibility of administering probes is in a closed format, whereby the response categories for the closed probes are developed during previously conducted qualitative cognitive interviews. Using closed probes has several benefits, such as reduced costs and time efficiency, because this method does not require manual coding of open-ended responses. In this article, we investigate whether the insights gained into item functioning when implementing closed probes are comparable to the insights gained when asking open-ended probes and whether closed probes are equally suitable to capture the cognitive processes for which traditionally open-ended probes are intended. The findings reveal statistically significant differences with regard to the variety of themes, the patterns of interpretation, the number of themes per respondent, and nonresponse. No differences in number of themes across formats by sex and educational level were found.

Suggested Citation

  • Cornelia E. Neuert & Katharina Meitinger & Dorothée Behr, 2023. "Open-ended versus Closed Probes: Assessing Different Formats of Web Probing," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 52(4), pages 1981-2015, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:52:y:2023:i:4:p:1981-2015
    DOI: 10.1177/00491241211031271
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00491241211031271
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00491241211031271?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:sae:somere:v:52:y:2023:i:4:p:1981-2015. 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.