Home Computer Science OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being.
Order and presentation of response categories
The order of response categories may affect which category is selected by default if respondents are satisficing rather than optimising their answers. This could have an impact on the comparability of scores if the order in which response categories are presented varies between surveys. The impact that the ordering of responses has may also vary according to survey mode, thus affecting the inter-mode comparability of the data collected.
The presentation of response categories, and particularly the practice of splitting more complex questions into two distinct steps to simplify them for verbal and telephone interviews, may have also an impact on the comparability of results obtained via different methods.
According to Krosnick (1991, 1999), when response alternatives are presented visually, such as on a self-administered questionnaire, satisficing respondents9 can have a tendency to select earlier response alternatives in a list (sometimes referred to as a primacy effect). Krosnick suggests that this is due to a confirmatory bias that leads respondents to seek information that supports response alternatives, and to the fact that after detailed consideration of one or two alternatives, fatigue can set in quite rapidly. This fatigue could in turn then lead respondents to satisfice and opt for the first response category that seems reasonable rather than carefully considering all the possible response alternatives.
By contrast, when response alternatives are read aloud by an interviewer, recency effects (where respondents have a tendency to select later response alternatives in a list) are thought to be more likely. This is because the earliest-presented response options can fade out of working memory (or get replaced by new information), and as such they are no longer accessible to respondents.
The key message in both cases seems to be that only a limited number of response categories should be presented to respondents if primacy and recency effects are to be avoided. Where these limits lie is discussed in the section above concerning the number of response options to offer. In addition, study mode can influence the expected direction of effects - and thus, for lengthy questions with a relatively large number of response options, data may be distributed differently among respondents interviewed in different modes. Krosnick (1999) also cites a number of studies indicating that response category order effects are stronger among respondents with lower cognitive skills, and that order effects become stronger as a function of both item difficulty and respondent fatigue.
Bradburn et al. (2004) also argue that if more socially desirable response options are presented first in a list - particularly in the physical presence of an interviewer - respondents may select one of these by default rather than attending to the full list of response choices.
In converting long or complex visual scales for use in telephone and face-to-face interviewing, measures are sometimes divided into two steps, with the question branching into different response categories, depending on how the first step is answered. A practical example of a branching question, drawn from telephone interviews described in Pudney (2010), is as follows:
Step i): How dissatisfied or satisfied are you with your life overall?
Would you say you are: (1. Dissatisfied; 2. Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 3. Satisfied).
Step ii): [if dissatisfied or satisfied...]
Are you Somewhat, Mostly or Completely [satisfied/dissatisfied] with your life overall? (1. Somewhat; 2. Mostly; 3. Completely).
Pudney (2010) provides evidence to suggest that 2-step branching questions may significantly alter response distributions to satisfaction questions. In survey data examining overall life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and satisfaction in health, household income and leisure time, response distributions among women were significantly different for every domain except income when the 2-step branching procedure was used. Among men, the branching format only had a significant impact on the distribution of responses on the job satisfaction measure. In general, the 2-step branching questions tended to result in higher overall satisfaction assessments - with a higher frequency of extreme values selected. There were also some significant differences in the relationships between life circumstances and the health, income and leisure satisfaction scores when these outcomes were assessed using a 2-step question structure, as compared to the 1-step structure. In particular, the coefficient for household income, which was large and significantly different from zero when income satisfaction was measured using the 2-step procedure, became very small and insignificant when income satisfaction was measured using a 1-step approach.
While Pudney found that responses differed between 1-step or 2-step questions, it is not clear from this research which question structure is best in terms of either the accuracy or reliability of the measure. As noted earlier, it has been hypothesised that a 2-step question structure may actually make it easier to measure positive and negative aspects of affect independently from one another (Russell and Carroll, 1999; Schimmack et al., 2002), which is of theoretical interest, even if it is longer and more cumbersome for both respondents and interviewers. These trade-offs need to be better understood.
A further issue for the presentation of response categories is where a battery of several questions requires some mental switching on the part of respondents between positive and negative normative outcomes. For example, if a 0-10 response scale, anchored with 0 = not at all and 10 = completely, is used to assess happiness yesterday, a high score represents a normatively “good” outcome, and a low score represents a normatively “bad” one. If the same response format is then used immediately afterwards to measure anxiety yesterday, a high score represents a normatively “bad” outcome, and a low score represents a normatively “good” one. Rapid serial presentation of such items risks causing some degree of confusion for respondents, particularly in the absence of visual aids or showcards.
One initial piece of evidence from cognitive testing has suggested that respondents can sometimes struggle to make the mental switch between questions that are framed positively and negatively. The ONS (2011c) looked at this issue using the 0-10 happiness yesterday and anxiety yesterday response format described above. In the experimental subjective well-being question module tested by the ONS, the two affect questions are preceded by two positively-framed questions about life evaluations and eudaimonia, making anxiety yesterday the only question where 0 is a normatively “good” outcome. Their findings indicated that some respondents treated the scale as if 0 = “bad outcome”,
10 = “good outcome”, regardless of the item in question. Further research is needed to see whether alternative response formats, question ordering or a greater balance between positively- and negatively- framed items can alleviate this difficulty without overburdening respondents. The impact of question order more generally will be examined in detail in Section 3.
|< Prev||CONTENTS||Next >|