IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/dk9bc.html

Are Smileys Valid Answers? Survey Data Quality with Innovative Item Formats

Author

Listed:
  • Brauner, Jacob

Abstract

Introduction: Survey research is often designed based on multiple-choice questions although many other formats, also referred to as innovative item formats (IIF) exist, such as ranking, sorting, questions with pictures or smileys as response options. Research has suggested that IIF in a broad sense can strengthen data quality, but research is needed on a more specific level. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to present research for separate IIFs about the data quality for that type of item. Method: A literature study was conducted to identify articles that test the data quality of IIF. For each IIF research was discussed regarding aspects of data quality, such as reliability, validity and response rate. Results: A total of 166 research articles were identified with data from 218,532 participants revealing aspects of 22 IIFs with 13 subcategories. The type of evidence on data quality is quite varied and for some IIFs the evidence is supportive, for some it is not and for some it is inconclusive. With 6 IIFs the evidence was estimated in favour hereof, for 11 IIFs the evidence was inconclusive, 1 unfavoured and for 3 there was no evidence. With 6 IIFs potential confounders were identified. Discussion: The study suggests further research is needed where evidence is scarce. The present study could initiate more extensive systematic reviews within specific categories of IIF.

Suggested Citation

  • Brauner, Jacob, 2020. "Are Smileys Valid Answers? Survey Data Quality with Innovative Item Formats," SocArXiv dk9bc, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:dk9bc
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/dk9bc
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5fa808f5d1894f00b068b49a/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/dk9bc?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. Bob Thompson, 2008. "Liveability," ERES eres2008_275, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    2. Toepoel, V. & Das, J.W.M. & van Soest, A.H.O., 2006. "Design of Web Questionnaires : The Effect of Layout in Rating Scales," Discussion Paper 2006-30, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    3. Vera Toepoel & Corrie Vis & Marcel Das & Arthur van Soest, 2009. "Design of Web Questionnaires," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 371-392, February.
    4. Israel, Glenn D. & Taylor, C. L., 1990. "Can response order bias evaluations?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 365-371, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dana Garbarski & Nora Cate Schaeffer & Jennifer Dykema, 2019. "The Effects of Features of Survey Measurement on Self-Rated Health: Response Option Order and Scale Orientation," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 14(2), pages 545-560, April.
    2. Bart Buelens & Jan A. van den Brakel, 2015. "Measurement Error Calibration in Mixed-mode Sample Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 44(3), pages 391-426, August.
    3. Anna DeCastellarnau, 2018. "A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1523-1559, July.
    4. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    5. Leah Melani Christian & Nicholas L. Parsons & Don A. Dillman, 2009. "Designing Scalar Questions for Web Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 393-425, February.
    6. Chatpong Tangmanee & Phattharaphong Niruttinanon, 2019. "Web Survey’s Completion Rates: Effects of Forced Responses, Question Display Styles, and Subjects’ Attitude," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 8(1), pages 20-29, January.
    7. Tim Klopries, 2018. "Discussion of “Working from Home—What is the Effect on Employees’ Effort?”," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 70(1), pages 57-62, February.
    8. Natalja Menold & Vera Toepoel, 2024. "Do Different Devices Perform Equally Well with Different Numbers of Scale Points and Response Formats? A test of measurement invariance and reliability," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 53(2), pages 898-939, May.
    9. Couwenberg Oscar, 2008. "Corporate Architecture and Limited Liability," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 621-640, December.
    10. Mark B. Taylor, 2021. "Counter Corporate Litigation: Remedy, Regulation, and Repression in the Struggle for a Just Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-24, September.
    11. de Bruijne, M.A., 2015. "Designing web surveys for the multi-device internet," Other publications TiSEM 19e4d446-a62b-4a95-8691-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Tobias Gummer & Tanja Kunz, 2022. "Relying on External Information Sources When Answering Knowledge Questions in Web Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(2), pages 816-836, May.
    13. Neuert Cornelia E. & Roßmann Joss & Silber Henning, 2023. "Using Eye-Tracking Methodology to Study Grid Question Designs in Web Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 39(1), pages 79-101, March.
    14. Toepoel, V. & Das, J.W.M. & van Soest, A.H.O., 2008. "Design Effects in Web Surveys : Comparing Trained and Fresh Respondents," Discussion Paper 2008-51, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    15. En-Chi Chiu & Yen Lee & Kuan-Yu Lai & Chian-Jue Kuo & Shu-Chun Lee & Ching-Lin Hsieh, 2015. "Construct Validity of the Chinese Version of the Activities of Daily Living Rating Scale III in Patients with Schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-12, June.
    16. David F. Holland & Amanda Kraha & Linda R. Zientek & Kim Nimon & Julia A. Fulmore & Ursula Y. Johnson & Hector F. Ponce & Mariya Gavrilova Aguilar & Robin K. Henson, 2018. "Reliability Generalization of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire: A Meta-Analytic View of Reliability Estimates," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(3), pages 21582440188, September.
    17. Carina Cornesse & Annelies G. Blom, 2023. "Response Quality in Nonprobability and Probability-based Online Panels," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 52(2), pages 879-908, May.
    18. Niclas Dürst & Jennifer Kunz, 2025. "How to conduct effective risk culture assessments," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 269-314, June.
    19. Joseph A. McCAHERY & Erik P.M. VERMEULEN & Masato HISATAKE & Jun SAITO, 2007. "Traditional and Innovative Approaches to Legal Reform: 'The New Company Law'," Discussion papers 07033, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    20. Caroline Buhl & Nadia Lund Olsen & Lotte Stig Nørgaard & Linda Aagaard Thomsen & Ramune Jacobsen, 2023. "Community Pharmacy Staff’s Knowledge, Educational Needs, and Barriers Related to Counseling Cancer Patients and Cancer Survivors in Denmark," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-14, January.

    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:osf:socarx:dk9bc. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.