IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rcitxx/v28y2025i16p2570-2581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying data quality after removing respondents who fail data quality checks

Author

Listed:
  • Ross H. Taplin

Abstract

Check Questions (CQs) are used to scrutinise whether respondents are providing quality data and these are becoming more important to ensure data quality, especially with the use of online panels. Often the proportion of people passing these questions are used as a summary of data quality, but this is flawed and of limited value when assessing the quality of a study. This paper introduces a new statistic, the data quality index $\hat{Q}$Qˆ, to measure the quality of data after respondents who fail CQs are removed. This index is interpretable as the estimated proportion of respondents (after excluding respondents who fail the CQs) who answer the survey conscientiously. The index is derived using simple probability, its properties explored, and directions provided on how it should be used and interpreted. The use of $\hat{Q}$Qˆ in published research will increase transparency and confidence in the quality of research findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Ross H. Taplin, 2025. "Quantifying data quality after removing respondents who fail data quality checks," Current Issues in Tourism, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(16), pages 2570-2581, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rcitxx:v:28:y:2025:i:16:p:2570-2581
    DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2024.2378611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13683500.2024.2378611
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13683500.2024.2378611?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

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:taf:rcitxx:v:28:y:2025:i:16:p:2570-2581. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rcit .

    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.