The empirical literature addressing response errors specifically among the low-income or welfare population is limited. However, if we couple those limited findings with results based on studies of the general population, some principles of questionnaire design to minimize response error emerge. At the risk of appearing to provide simple solutions to complex problems, we speculate on some guidelines to assist in the construction of questionnaires targeted at the low-income or welfare populations.
- Complex versus simple behavioral experience. One finding that is consistent throughout the literature indicates that complex behavioral experiences are more difficult to retrieve and report accurately than simple behavioral experiences. Despite this, questionnaire designers tend to treat all potential respondents the same, opting for a single set of questions for many questions, such as a single question or set of questions concerning annual earnings or amount of program support. One means by which to attempt to improve the reporting for those persons for whom the task is most difficult is to adopt, as suggested by Schaeffer (1994), the use of filter questions to determine the complexity of the experience, offering different follow-up questions for those with simple and complex behavior. For example, the person who has been employed continuously at a single job or unemployed continuously during a particular reference period easily can be identified and directed toward a different set of questions concerning earnings than the individual who has held several jobs, either concurrently or sequentially. Similarly, one can ask the respondent whether the amount of income from a particular income support program varies from month to month, with follow-up questions based on the response. Although this approach to questionnaire design deviates from the desire to "standardized" the measurement process, it acknowledges the need to be flexible within a standardized measurement process so as to maximize the quality of the final productr
- Simple, single-focus items often are more effective than complex, compound items. Whenever possible, a question should attempt to address a single concept. Questions that include the use of "and" or "or" or that end with exclusion or inclusion clauses often can be confusing to respondents. Although these questions often are constructed so as to minimize the number of questions read to the respondent (and therefore minimize administration time), we speculate that the use of several shorter questions is more effective, both from the perspective of administration time as well as the quality of the data. As an example, let's return to an earlier example:
Since your welfare benefits ended in (FINAL BENEFIT MONTH), did you take part for at least one month in any Adult Basic Education (ABE) classes for improving your basic reading and math skills, or GED classes to help you prepare for the GED test, or classes to prepare for a regular high school diploma?
One means to improve this item would be as follows:
Since (FINAL BENEFIT MONTH) have you taken any of the following classes?
- An Adult Basic Education class for improving basic reading and math skills? YES/NO
- A GED class to prepare for the GED test? YES/NO
- A class or classes to prepare for a regular high school diploma? YES/NO
If the "one month" qualifier offered in the original question was important analytically, each "yes" response could be followed up with a probe directed at the length of the class.
- Reduce cognitive burden whenever possible. Regardless of the population of interest, we know that, from a cognitive perspective, some tasks are easier to perform than others. Several means by which this can be accomplished include:
- Phrase tasks in the form of recognition rather than free recall. For example, asking the respondent to answer the question "Did you receive income from any of the following sources?" followed by a list of income sources is easier than asking the respondent to identify all income sources for the reference period of interest. Note that in asking a recognition question such as the one described, the ideal format would be to have the respondent respond "yes/no" to each income source, so only one item needs to be processed.
- Request information that requires estimation rather than episodic recall. For example, asking for the total number of jobs held during the reference period of interest requires less cognitive effort than asking for the starting and ending date of each job. If the latter information is needed to address analytic needs, preceding the request with an estimation question may aid the respondent's retrieval of individual episodes.
- Request information in the format or metric used by the respondent. For example, earning information may be best reported when the most salient or most rehearsed metric is used by the respondent. For example, the findings by Borus (1970) and Smith (1997) that indicated a single broad-based question yielded a more accurate reporting by low-income respondents than a series of questions that required event-history type reconstruction of earnings simply may indicate that annual earnings are well rehearsed and more easily accessible to respondents than earnings related to any one job. One means by which to determine whether to ask the respondent about annual earnings, monthly earnings, or hourly earnings is to ask the respondent how he or she is best able to respond. Once again, this implies that tailoring the questionnaire to the respondent's circumstances may result in higher quality data.
- Focus on reference periods that are salient to the respondent. The 6-month period prior to exiting welfare may not necessarily be a particularly salient reference period, even though the date of termination of benefits may be quite salient. For reference periods that may not be salient to the respondent, the use of calendars or other records coupled with the identification of landmark events within the reference period may aid retrieval of information and the dating of events and behaviors.
- Provide the respondent with assistance in how to perform the task. For the most part, respondents rarely perform the task we are asking them to tackle. Instructions and feedback throughout the process can clarify the task for the respondent as well as provide feedback for appropriate respondent behavior. Instructions indicating that the questionnaire designer is interested in all spells of unemployment, including short spells lasting less than a week, provides an instruction to the respondent as well as additional time for the respondent to search his or her memory. Should the respondent provide such information, appropriate feedback would indicate that such detailed information is important to the study. Other forms of instruction could focus the respondent on the use of a calendar or other types of records.
In addition, we know from the literature that use of additional probes or cues stimulates the reporting of additional information. When there is interest in eliciting information from the respondent concerning short spells of employment or unemployment or odd or sporadic sources of income, repeated retrieval attempts by the respondent in response to repeated questions may be the most effective approach.
In some cases, the provision of some information may be preferable to no information from the respondent. Consider the case in which the respondent reports "don't know" in response to a question concerning earnings. One approach that has been effective is the use of broad-based followup questions in response to "don't know" items, for example, asking the respondent if his or her earnings were more than or less than a specific amount, with subsequent followup items until the respondent can no longer make a distinction (see Hurd and Rodgers, 1998).
- Comprehension. The concepts of interest for many surveys of the low-income and welfare populations are fairly complex, for example, distinguishing among the various income support programs or determining whether sporadic odd jobs count as being employed. As indicated in several of the studies reviewed, research directed toward improving the comprehension of survey questions is greatly needed. For those developing questionnaires, this implies the need for iterative testing and pretesting, focusing on the interpretation of questions among members of the population of interest.
The empirical literature provides evidence of both reasonably accurate reporting of earnings, other sources of income, and employment as well as extremely poor reporting of these characteristics on the part of household respondents. The magnitude of measurement error in these reports is in part a function of the task as framed by the question. Careful questionnaire construction and thorough testing of questions and questionnaires can effectively identify question problems and reduce sources of error.
"01.pdf" (pdf, 472.92Kb)
"02.pdf" (pdf, 395.41Kb)
"03.pdf" (pdf, 379.04Kb)
"04.pdf" (pdf, 381.73Kb)
"05.pdf" (pdf, 393.7Kb)
"06.pdf" (pdf, 415.3Kb)
"07.pdf" (pdf, 375.49Kb)
"08.pdf" (pdf, 475.21Kb)
"09.pdf" (pdf, 425.17Kb)
"10.pdf" (pdf, 424.33Kb)
"11.pdf" (pdf, 392.39Kb)
"12.pdf" (pdf, 386.39Kb)
"13.pdf" (pdf, 449.86Kb)