{"id":94,"date":"2019-09-17T12:19:34","date_gmt":"2019-09-17T16:19:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/chapter\/constructing-survey-questionnaires\/"},"modified":"2019-09-17T12:25:50","modified_gmt":"2019-09-17T16:25:50","slug":"constructing-survey-questionnaires","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/chapter\/constructing-survey-questionnaires\/","title":{"raw":"Constructing Survey Questionnaires","rendered":"Constructing Survey Questionnaires"},"content":{"raw":"\n<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-highlight\">\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n<ol class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_121-0 start\" start=\"1\">\n\t<li class=\"c7 c23 c36\"><span class=\"c13 c1\">Describe the cognitive processes involved in responding to a survey item.<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c7 c23 c36\"><span class=\"c13 c1\">Explain what a context effect is and give some examples.<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c33 c23 c36\"><span class=\"c13 c1\">Create a simple survey questionnaire based on principles of effective item writing and organization.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">The heart of any survey research project is the survey questionnaire itself. Although it is easy to think of interesting questions to ask people, constructing a good survey questionnaire is not easy at all. The problem is that the answers people give can be influenced in unintended ways by the wording of the items, the order of the items, the response options provided, and many other factors. At best, these influences add noise to the data. At worst, they result in systematic biases and misleading results. In this section, therefore, we consider some principles for constructing survey questionnaires to minimize these unintended effects and thereby maximize the reliability and validity of respondents\u2019 answers.<\/span><\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c18 c1\">Survey Responding as a Psychological Process<\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Before looking at specific principles of survey questionnaire construction, it will help to consider survey responding as a psychological process.<\/span><\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c2 c1\">A Cognitive Model<\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c22\">Figure 9.1<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;presents a model of the cognitive processes that people engage in when responding to a survey item (Sudman, Bradburn, &amp; Schwarz, 1996)<\/span><span class=\"c22\">[footnote]Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., &amp; Schwarz, N. (1996). <em>Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology<\/em>. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.[\/footnote]. <\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c1\">Respondents must interpret the question, retrieve relevant information from memory, form a tentative judgment, convert the tentative judgment into one of the response options provided (e.g., a rating on a 1-to-7 scale), and finally edit their response as necessary.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n[caption id=\"attachment_393\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<a href=\"http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/researchmethods\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/37\/2015\/09\/9.1.png\"><img src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/834\/2019\/09\/9.1.png\" alt=\"Figure 9.1 Model of the Cognitive Processes Involved in Responding to a Survey Item\" class=\"wp-image-393\" height=\"103\" width=\"800\"><\/a> Figure 9.1 Model of the Cognitive Processes Involved in Responding to a Survey Item[\/caption]\n\nConsider, for example, the following questionnaire item:\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">How many alcoholic drinks do you consume in a typical day?<\/span><\/p>\n\n<ul class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_122-0 start\">\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ a lot more than average<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ somewhat more than average<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ average<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ somewhat fewer than average<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ a lot fewer than average<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Although this item at first seems straightforward, it poses several difficulties for respondents. First, they must interpret the question. For example, they must decide whether \u201calcoholic drinks\u201d include beer and wine (as opposed to just hard liquor) and whether a \u201ctypical day\u201d is a typical weekday, typical weekend day, or both<\/span><span class=\"c1\">. Even though Chang and Krosnick (2003)[footnote]Chang, L., &amp; Krosnick, J.A. (2003). Measuring the frequency of regular behaviors: Comparing the \u2018typical week\u2019 to the \u2018past week\u2019. <em>Sociological Methodology, 33<\/em>, 55-80.[\/footnote] found that asking about \u201ctypical\u201d behaviour has been shown to be more valid than asking about \u201cpast\u201d behaviour, their study compared \u201ctypical week\u201d to \u201cpast week\u201d and may be different when considering typical weekdays or weekend days)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c1\"> <\/span><span class=\"c1\">. Once they have interpreted the question, they must retrieve relevant information from memory to answer it. But what information should they retrieve, and how should they go about retrieving it? They might think vaguely about some recent occasions on which they drank alcohol, they might carefully try to recall and count the number of alcoholic drinks they consumed last week, or they might retrieve some existing beliefs that they have about themselves (e.g., \u201cI am not much of a drinker\u201d). Then they must use this information to arrive at a tentative judgment about how many alcoholic drinks they consume in a typical day. For example, this<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;mental calculation<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;might mean dividing the number of alcoholic drinks they consumed last week by seven to come up with an average number per day. Then they must format this tentative answer in terms of the response options actually provided. In this case, the options pose additional problems of interpretation. For example, what does \u201caverage\u201d mean, and what would count as \u201csomewhat more\u201d than average? Finally, they must decide whether they want to report the response they have come up with or whether they want to edit it in some way. For example, if they believe that they drink much more than average, they might not want to report th<\/span><span class=\"c1\">e higher number<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;for fear of looking bad in the eyes of the researcher.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">From this perspective, what at first appears to be a simple matter of asking people how much they drink (and receiving a straightforward answer from them) turns out to be much more complex.<\/span><\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c2 c1\">Context Effects on Questionnaire Responses<\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Again, this complexity can lead to unintended influences on respondents\u2019 answers. These are often referred to as&nbsp;<\/span><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">context&nbsp;effects<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;because they are not related to the content of the item but to the context in which the item appears (Schwarz &amp; Strack, 1990)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\">[footnote]Schwarz, N., &amp; Strack, F. (1990). Context effects in attitude surveys: Applying cognitive theory to social research. In W. Stroebe &amp; M. Hewstone (Eds.), <em>European review of social psychology<\/em> (Vol. 2, pp. 31\u201350). Chichester, UK: Wiley.[\/footnote].<\/span><span class=\"c1\"> For example, there is an&nbsp;<\/span><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">item-order&nbsp;effect<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;when the order in which the items are presented affects people\u2019s responses. One item can change how participants interpret a later item or change the information that they retrieve to respond to later items. For example, researcher Fritz Strack and his colleagues asked college students about both their general life satisfaction and their dating frequency (Strack, Martin, &amp; Schwarz, 1988)<\/span><span class=\"c22\">[footnote]Strack, F., Martin, L. L., &amp; Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: The social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. <em>European Journal of Social Psychology, 18<\/em>, 429\u2013442.[\/footnote]. <\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c1\">When the life satisfaction item came first, the correlation between the two was only \u2212.12, suggesting that the two variables are only weakly related. But when the dating frequency item came first, the correlation between the two was +.66, suggesting that those who date more have a strong tendency to be more satisfied with their lives. Reporting the dating frequency first made that information more accessible in memory so that they were more likely to base their life satisfaction rating on it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">The response options provided can also have unintended effects on people\u2019s responses (Schwarz, 1999)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\">[footnote]Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. <em>American Psychologist, 54<\/em>, 93\u2013105.[\/footnote].<\/span><span class=\"c1\"> For example, when people are asked how often they are \u201creally irritated\u201d and given response options ranging from \u201cless than once a year\u201d to \u201cmore than once a month,\u201d they tend to think of major irritations and report being irritated infrequently. But when they are given response options ranging from \u201cless than once a day\u201d to \u201cseveral times a month,\u201d they tend to think of minor irritations and report being irritated frequently. People also tend to assume that middle response options represent what is normal or typical. So if they think of themselves as normal or typical, they tend to choose middle response options. For example, people are likely to report watching more television when the response options are centred on a middle option of 4 hours than when centred on a middle option of 2 hours.<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;To mitigate against order effects, rotate questions and response items when there is no natural order. Counterbalancing is a good practice for survey questions and can reduce response order effects which show that among undecided voters, the first candidate listed in a ballot receives a 2.5% boost simply by virtue of being listed first[footnote]Miller, J.M. &amp; Krosnick, J.A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. <em>Public Opinion Quarterly, 62<\/em>(3), 291-330.[\/footnote]!<\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><\/span><\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c18 c1\">Writing Survey Questionnaire Items<\/span><\/h2>\n<h2 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c2 c1\">Types of Items<\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Questionnaire items can be either open-ended or closed-ended.&nbsp;<\/span><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">Open-ended&nbsp;items<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;simply ask a question and allow participants to answer in whatever way they choose. The following are examples of open-ended questionnaire items.<\/span><\/p>\n\n<ul class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_123-0 start\">\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">\u201cWhat is the most important thing to teach children to prepare them for life?\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">\u201cPlease describe a time when you were discriminated against because of your age.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">\u201cIs there anything else you would like to tell us about?\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Open-ended items are useful when researchers do not know how participants might respond or want to avoid influencing their responses. They tend to be used when researchers have more vaguely defined research questions\u2014often in the early stages of a research project. Open-ended items are relatively easy to write because there are no response options to worry about. However, they take more time and effort on the part of participants, and they are more difficult for the researcher to analy<\/span><span class=\"c1\">z<\/span><span class=\"c1\">e because the answers must be transcribed, coded, and submitted to some form of <\/span><span class=\"c1\">qualitative analysis, such as <\/span><span class=\"c1\">content analysis.<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;The advantage to open-ended items is that they are unbiased and do not provide respondents with expectations of what the researcher might be looking for. Open-ended items are also more valid and more reliable. The disadvantage is that respondents are more likely to skip open-ended items because they take longer to answer. It is best to use open-ended questions when the answer is unsure and for quantities which can easily be converted to categories later in the analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">Closed-ended&nbsp;items<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;ask a question and provide a set of response options for participants to choose from. The alcohol item just mentioned is an example, as are the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;&nbsp;How old are you?<\/span><\/p>\n\n<ul class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_124-0 start\">\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ Under 18<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ 18 to 34<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ 35 to 49<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ 50 to 70<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ Over 70<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">On a scale of 0 (no pain at all) to 10 (worst pain ever experienced), how much pain are you in right now?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Have you ever in your adult life been depressed for a period of 2 weeks or more?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Closed-ended items are used when researchers have a good idea of the different responses that participants might make. They are also used when researchers are interested in a well-defined variable or construct such as participants\u2019 level of agreement with some statement, perceptions of risk, or frequency of a particular behaviour. Closed-ended items are more difficult to write because they must include an appropriate set of response options. However, they are relatively quick and easy for participants to complete. They are also much easier for researchers to analyze because the responses can be easily converted to numbers and entered into a spreadsheet. For these reasons, closed-ended items are much more common.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">All closed-ended items include a set of response options from which a participant must choose. For categorical variables like sex, race, or political party preference, the categories are usually listed and participants choose the one (or ones) that they belong to. For quantitative variables, a rating scale is typically provided. A&nbsp;<\/span><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">rating&nbsp;scale<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;is an ordered set of responses that participants must choose from.&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c22\">Figure 9.2<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;shows several examples. The number of response options on a typical rating scale ranges from three to 11\u2014although five and seven are probably most common. Five-point scales are best for unipolar scales where only one construct is tested, such as frequency (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always). Seven-point scales are best for bipolar scales where there is a dichotomous spectrum, such as liking (Like very much, Like somewhat, Like slightly, Neither like nor dislike, Dislike slightly, Dislike somewhat, Dislike very much). For bipolar questions, it is useful to offer an earlier question that branches them into an area of the scale; if asking about liking ice cream, first ask \u201cDo you generally like or dislike ice cream?\u201d Once the respondent chooses like or dislike, refine it by offering them one of choices from the seven-point scale. &nbsp;Branching improves both reliability and <\/span><span class=\"c1\">validity<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;(Krosnick &amp; Berent, 1993)[footnote]Krosnick, J.A. &amp; Berent, M.K. (1993). Comparisons of party identification and policy preferences: The impact of survey question format. <em>American Journal of Political Science, 27<\/em>(3), 941-964.[\/footnote]. &nbsp;Although you often see scales with numerical labels, it is best to only present verbal labels to the respondents but convert them to numerical values in the analyses. Avoid partial labels or length or overly specific labels. In some cases, the verbal labels can be supplemented with (or even replaced by) meaningful graphics. The last rating scale shown in&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c22\">Figure 9.2<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;is a visual-analog scale, on which participants make a mark somewhere along the horizontal line to indicate the magnitude of their response.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n[caption id=\"attachment_392\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"900\"]<a href=\"http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/researchmethods\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/37\/2015\/09\/9.2.png\"><img src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/834\/2019\/09\/9.2.png\" alt=\"Figure 9.2 Example Rating Scales for Closed-Ended Questionnaire Items\" class=\"wp-image-392 size-full\" height=\"461\" width=\"900\"><\/a> Figure 9.2 Example Rating Scales for Closed-Ended Questionnaire Items[\/caption]\n\n<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-info\">\n<h4 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c5 c60 c67 c1 c97\">What Is a Likert Scale?<\/span><\/h4>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c5 c1\">In reading about psychological research, you are likely to encounter the term&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Likert scale<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c5 c1\">. Although this term is sometimes used to refer to almost any rating scale (e.g., a 0-to-10 life satisfaction scale), it has a much more precise meaning.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c5 c1\">In the 1930s, researcher Rensis Likert (pronounced LICK-ert) created a new approach for measuring people\u2019s attitudes (Likert, 1932)<\/span><span class=\"c22 c5\">[footnote]Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. <em>Archives of Psychology,140<\/em>, 1\u201355.[\/footnote].<\/span><span class=\"c29 c22 c5\"><\/span><span class=\"c5 c1\"> It involves presenting people with several statements\u2014including both favourable and unfavourable statements\u2014about some person, group, or idea. Respondents then express their agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 5-point scale:&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Strongly Agree<\/span><span class=\"c5 c1\">,&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Agree<\/span><span class=\"c5 c1\">,&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Neither Agree nor Disagree<\/span><span class=\"c5 c1\">,&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Disagree<\/span><span class=\"c5 c1\">, <\/span><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Strongly Disagree<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c5 c1\">. Numbers are assigned to each response (with reverse coding as necessary) and then summed across all items to produce a score representing the attitude toward the person, group, or idea. The entire set of items came to be called a Likert scale.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c33 c70\"><span class=\"c5 c1\">Thus unless you are measuring people\u2019s attitude toward something by assessing their level of agreement with several statements about it, it is best to avoid calling it a Likert scale. You are probably just using a \u201crating scale.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"c2 c1\">Writing Effective Items<\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">We can now consider some principles of writing questionnaire items that minimize unintended context effects and maximize the reliability and validity of participants\u2019 responses. A rough guideline for writing questionnaire items is provided by the BRUSO model (Peterson, 2000)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\">[footnote]Peterson, R. A. (2000). <em>Constructing effective questionnaires<\/em>. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.[\/footnote].<\/span><span class=\"c1\"> An acronym,&nbsp;<\/span><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">BRUSO<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;stands for \u201cbrief,\u201d \u201crelevant,\u201d \u201cunambiguous,\u201d \u201cspecific,\u201d and \u201cobjective.\u201d Effective questionnaire items are&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">brief<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;and to the point. They avoid long, overly technical, or unnecessary words. This brevity makes them easier for respondents to understand and faster for them to complete. Effective questionnaire items are also&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">relevant<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;to the research question. If a respondent\u2019s sexual orientation, marital status, or income is not relevant, then items on them should probably not be included. Again, this makes the questionnaire faster to complete, but it also avoids annoying respondents with what they will rightly perceive as irrelevant or even \u201cnosy\u201d questions. Effective questionnaire items are also <\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">unambiguous<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">; they can be interpreted in only one way. Part of the problem with the alcohol item presented earlier in this section is that different respondents might have different ideas about what constitutes \u201can alcoholic drink\u201d or \u201ca typical day.\u201d Effective questionnaire items are also&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c8 c1\"><em>specific<\/em>,<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;so that it is clear to respondents what their response&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">should<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;be about and clear to researchers what it&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">is<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;about. A common problem here is closed-ended items that are \u201cdouble barrelled.\u201d They ask about two conceptually separate issues but allow only one response. For example, \u201cPlease rate the extent to which you have been feeling anxious and depressed.\u201d This item should probably be split into two separate items\u2014one about anxiety and one about depression. Finally, effective questionnaire items are&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">objective<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;in the sense that they do not reveal the researcher\u2019s own opinions or lead participants to answer in a particular way. <\/span><span class=\"c22\">Table 9.2<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;shows some examples of poor and effective questionnaire items based on the BRUSO criteria. The best way to know how people interpret the wording of the question is to conduct pre-tests and ask a few people to explain how they interpreted the question.<\/span><\/p>\n\n<table><caption><em>Table 9.2&nbsp;BRUSO Model of Writing Effective Questionnaire Items, Plus Examples<\/em><\/caption>\n<tbody>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\"><b><\/b><b>Criterion<\/b><\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\"><b><\/b><b>Poor<\/b><\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\"><b><\/b><b>Effective<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\">B\u2014Brief<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cAre you now or have you ever been the possessor of a firearm?\u201d<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cHave you ever owned a gun?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\">R\u2014Relevant<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cWhat is your sexual orientation?\u201d<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">Do not include this item unless it is clearly relevant to the research.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\">U\u2014Unambiguous<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cAre you a gun person?\u201d<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cDo you currently own a gun?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\">S\u2014Specific<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cHow much have you read about the new gun control measure and sales tax?\u201d<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cHow much have you read about the new sales tax?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\">O\u2014Objective<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cHow much do you support the new gun control measure?\u201d<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cWhat is your view of the new gun control measure?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">For closed-ended items, it is also important to create an appropriate response scale. For categorical variables, the categories presented should generally be mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Mutually exclusive categories do not overlap. For a religion item, for example, the categories of&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Christian<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;and <\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Catholic<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;are not mutually exclusive but&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Protestant<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;and&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Catholic<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;are. Exhaustive categories cover all possible responses. Although&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Protestant<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;and&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Catholic<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;are mutually exclusive, they are not exhaustive because there are many other religious categories that a respondent might select:&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Jewish<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">,&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Hindu<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">,&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Buddhist<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">, and so on. In many cases, it is not feasible to include every possible category, in which case an&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Other<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;category, with a space for the respondent to fill in a more specific response, is a good solution. If respondents could belong to more than one category (e.g., race), they should be instructed to choose all categories that apply.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">For rating scales, five or seven response options generally allow about as much precision as respondents are capable of. However, numerical scales with more options can sometimes be appropriate. For dimensions such as attractiveness, pain, and likelihood, a 0-to-10 scale will be familiar to many respondents and easy for them to use. Regardless of the number of response options, the most extreme ones should generally be \u201cbalanced\u201d around a neutral or modal midpoint. An example of an unbalanced rating scale measuring perceived likelihood might look like this:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Unlikely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Somewhat Likely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Likely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Very Likely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Extremely Likely<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">A balanced version might look like this:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Extremely Unlikely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Somewhat Unlikely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">As Likely as Not<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Somewhat Likely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Extremely Likely<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;Note, however, that a middle or neutral response option does not have to be included. Researchers sometimes choose to leave it out because they want to encourage respondents to think more deeply about their response and not simply choose the middle option by default. Including middle alternatives on bipolar dimensions is useful to allow people to genuinely choose an option that is neither.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"207\"]<img src=\"http:\/\/imgs.xkcd.com\/comics\/question.png\" class=\"\" height=\"198\" width=\"207\"> \"Question\" retrieved from http:\/\/imgs.xkcd.com\/comics\/question.png (CC-BY-NC 2.5)[\/caption]\n<h2><b><\/b><b>Formatting the Questionnaire<\/b><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Writing effective items is only one part of constructing a survey questionnaire. For one thing, every survey questionnaire should have a written or spoken introduction that serves two basic functions (Peterson, 2000)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\">[footnote]Peterson, R. A. (2000). <em>Constructing effective questionnaires<\/em>. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.[\/footnote].<\/span><span class=\"c1\"> One is to encourage respondents to participate in the survey. In many types of research, such encouragement is not necessary either because participants do not know they are in a study (as in naturalistic observation) or because they are part of a subject pool and have already shown their willingness to participate by signing up and showing up for the study. Survey research usually catches respondents by surprise when they answer their phone, go to their mailbox, or check their e-mail\u2014and the researcher must make a good case for why they should agree to participate. Thus the introduction should briefly explain the purpose of the survey and its importance, provide information about the sponsor of the survey (university-based surveys tend to generate higher response rates), acknowledge the importance of the respondent\u2019s participation, and describe any incentives for participating.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">The second function of the introduction is to establish informed consent. Remember that this aim means describing to respondents everything that might affect their decision to participate. This includes the topics covered by the survey, the amount of time it is likely to take, the respondent\u2019s option to withdraw at any time, confidentiality issues, and so on. Written consent forms are not typically used in survey research, so it is important that this part of the introduction be well documented and presented clearly and in its entirety to every respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">The introduction should be followed by the substantive questionnaire items. But first, it is important to present clear instructions for completing the questionnaire, including examples of how to use any unusual response scales. Remember that the introduction is the point at which respondents are usually most interested and least fatigued, so it is good practice to start with the most important items for purposes of the research and proceed to less important items. Items should also be grouped by topic or by type. For example, items using the same rating scale (e.g., a 5-point agreement scale) should be grouped together if possible to make things faster and easier for respondents. Demographic items are often presented last because they are least interesting to participants but also easy to answer in the event respondents have become tired or bored. Of course, any survey should end with an expression of appreciation to the respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n\n<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-success\">\n<h3>Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n<ul class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_125-0 start\">\n\t<li class=\"c7 c21 c36\"><span class=\"c66 c60 c1\">Responding to a survey item is itself a complex cognitive process that involves interpreting the question, retrieving information, making a tentative judgment, putting that judgment into the required response format, and editing the response.<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c7 c21 c36\"><span class=\"c66 c60 c1\">Survey questionnaire responses are subject to numerous context effects due to question wording, item order, response options, and other factors. Researchers should be sensitive to such effects when constructing surveys and interpreting survey results.<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c7 c21 c36\"><span class=\"c66 c60 c1\">Survey questionnaire items are either open-ended or closed-ended. Open-ended items simply ask a question and allow respondents to answer in whatever way they want. Closed-ended items ask a question and provide several response options that respondents must choose from.<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c7 c21 c36\"><span class=\"c66 c60 c1\">Use verbal labels instead of numerical labels although the responses can be converted to numerical data in the analyses.<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c33 c21 c36\"><span class=\"c66 c60 c1\">According to the BRUSO model, questionnaire items should be brief, relevant, unambiguous, specific, and objective.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-info\">\n<h3>Exercises<\/h3>\n<ol class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_126-0 start\" start=\"1\">\n\t<li class=\"c7 c50 c120 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">Discussion: Write a survey item and then write a short description of how someone might respond to that item based on the cognitive model of survey responding (or choose any item on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale at <\/span><span class=\"c10 c22 c71\"><a class=\"c39\" href=\"http:\/\/www.bsos.umd.edu\/socy\/research\/rosenberg.htm&amp;sa=D&amp;usg=AFQjCNGCrrHpjMR6Tv2WWk5ss02pdszRig\">http:\/\/www.bsos.umd.edu\/socy\/research\/rosenberg.htm<\/a><\/span><span class=\"c10 c1\">).<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c7 c59 c50 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">Practice: Write survey questionnaire items for each of the following general questions. In some cases, a series of items, rather than a single item, might be necessary.<\/span>\n<ol>\n\t<li class=\"c7 c59 c50 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">How much does the respondent use Facebook?<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c7 c59 c50 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">How much exercise does the respondent get?<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c7 c59 c50 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">How likely does the respondent think it is that the incumbent will be re-elected in the next presidential election?<\/span><\/li>\n\t<li class=\"c7 c59 c50 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">To what extent does the respondent experience \u201croad rage\u201d?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n","rendered":"<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-highlight\">\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n<ol class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_121-0 start\" start=\"1\">\n<li class=\"c7 c23 c36\"><span class=\"c13 c1\">Describe the cognitive processes involved in responding to a survey item.<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c7 c23 c36\"><span class=\"c13 c1\">Explain what a context effect is and give some examples.<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c33 c23 c36\"><span class=\"c13 c1\">Create a simple survey questionnaire based on principles of effective item writing and organization.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">The heart of any survey research project is the survey questionnaire itself. Although it is easy to think of interesting questions to ask people, constructing a good survey questionnaire is not easy at all. The problem is that the answers people give can be influenced in unintended ways by the wording of the items, the order of the items, the response options provided, and many other factors. At best, these influences add noise to the data. At worst, they result in systematic biases and misleading results. In this section, therefore, we consider some principles for constructing survey questionnaires to minimize these unintended effects and thereby maximize the reliability and validity of respondents\u2019 answers.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c18 c1\">Survey Responding as a Psychological Process<\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Before looking at specific principles of survey questionnaire construction, it will help to consider survey responding as a psychological process.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c2 c1\">A Cognitive Model<\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c22\">Figure 9.1<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;presents a model of the cognitive processes that people engage in when responding to a survey item (Sudman, Bradburn, &amp; Schwarz, 1996)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., &amp; Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.\" id=\"return-footnote-94-1\" href=\"#footnote-94-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a>. <\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c1\">Respondents must interpret the question, retrieve relevant information from memory, form a tentative judgment, convert the tentative judgment into one of the response options provided (e.g., a rating on a 1-to-7 scale), and finally edit their response as necessary.<\/span><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_393\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-393\" style=\"width: 800px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/researchmethods\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/37\/2015\/09\/9.1.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/834\/2019\/09\/9.1.png\" alt=\"Figure 9.1 Model of the Cognitive Processes Involved in Responding to a Survey Item\" class=\"wp-image-393\" height=\"103\" width=\"800\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-393\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Figure 9.1 Model of the Cognitive Processes Involved in Responding to a Survey Item<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Consider, for example, the following questionnaire item:<\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">How many alcoholic drinks do you consume in a typical day?<\/span><\/p>\n<ul class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_122-0 start\">\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ a lot more than average<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ somewhat more than average<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ average<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ somewhat fewer than average<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ a lot fewer than average<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Although this item at first seems straightforward, it poses several difficulties for respondents. First, they must interpret the question. For example, they must decide whether \u201calcoholic drinks\u201d include beer and wine (as opposed to just hard liquor) and whether a \u201ctypical day\u201d is a typical weekday, typical weekend day, or both<\/span><span class=\"c1\">. Even though Chang and Krosnick (2003)<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Chang, L., &amp; Krosnick, J.A. (2003). Measuring the frequency of regular behaviors: Comparing the \u2018typical week\u2019 to the \u2018past week\u2019. Sociological Methodology, 33, 55-80.\" id=\"return-footnote-94-2\" href=\"#footnote-94-2\" aria-label=\"Footnote 2\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[2]<\/sup><\/a> found that asking about \u201ctypical\u201d behaviour has been shown to be more valid than asking about \u201cpast\u201d behaviour, their study compared \u201ctypical week\u201d to \u201cpast week\u201d and may be different when considering typical weekdays or weekend days)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c1\"> <\/span><span class=\"c1\">. Once they have interpreted the question, they must retrieve relevant information from memory to answer it. But what information should they retrieve, and how should they go about retrieving it? They might think vaguely about some recent occasions on which they drank alcohol, they might carefully try to recall and count the number of alcoholic drinks they consumed last week, or they might retrieve some existing beliefs that they have about themselves (e.g., \u201cI am not much of a drinker\u201d). Then they must use this information to arrive at a tentative judgment about how many alcoholic drinks they consume in a typical day. For example, this<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;mental calculation<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;might mean dividing the number of alcoholic drinks they consumed last week by seven to come up with an average number per day. Then they must format this tentative answer in terms of the response options actually provided. In this case, the options pose additional problems of interpretation. For example, what does \u201caverage\u201d mean, and what would count as \u201csomewhat more\u201d than average? Finally, they must decide whether they want to report the response they have come up with or whether they want to edit it in some way. For example, if they believe that they drink much more than average, they might not want to report th<\/span><span class=\"c1\">e higher number<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;for fear of looking bad in the eyes of the researcher.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">From this perspective, what at first appears to be a simple matter of asking people how much they drink (and receiving a straightforward answer from them) turns out to be much more complex.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c2 c1\">Context Effects on Questionnaire Responses<\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Again, this complexity can lead to unintended influences on respondents\u2019 answers. These are often referred to as&nbsp;<\/span><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">context&nbsp;effects<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;because they are not related to the content of the item but to the context in which the item appears (Schwarz &amp; Strack, 1990)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Schwarz, N., &amp; Strack, F. (1990). Context effects in attitude surveys: Applying cognitive theory to social research. In W. Stroebe &amp; M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 31\u201350). Chichester, UK: Wiley.\" id=\"return-footnote-94-3\" href=\"#footnote-94-3\" aria-label=\"Footnote 3\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[3]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"c1\"> For example, there is an&nbsp;<\/span><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">item-order&nbsp;effect<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;when the order in which the items are presented affects people\u2019s responses. One item can change how participants interpret a later item or change the information that they retrieve to respond to later items. For example, researcher Fritz Strack and his colleagues asked college students about both their general life satisfaction and their dating frequency (Strack, Martin, &amp; Schwarz, 1988)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Strack, F., Martin, L. L., &amp; Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: The social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 429\u2013442.\" id=\"return-footnote-94-4\" href=\"#footnote-94-4\" aria-label=\"Footnote 4\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[4]<\/sup><\/a>. <\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c1\">When the life satisfaction item came first, the correlation between the two was only \u2212.12, suggesting that the two variables are only weakly related. But when the dating frequency item came first, the correlation between the two was +.66, suggesting that those who date more have a strong tendency to be more satisfied with their lives. Reporting the dating frequency first made that information more accessible in memory so that they were more likely to base their life satisfaction rating on it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">The response options provided can also have unintended effects on people\u2019s responses (Schwarz, 1999)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93\u2013105.\" id=\"return-footnote-94-5\" href=\"#footnote-94-5\" aria-label=\"Footnote 5\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[5]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"c1\"> For example, when people are asked how often they are \u201creally irritated\u201d and given response options ranging from \u201cless than once a year\u201d to \u201cmore than once a month,\u201d they tend to think of major irritations and report being irritated infrequently. But when they are given response options ranging from \u201cless than once a day\u201d to \u201cseveral times a month,\u201d they tend to think of minor irritations and report being irritated frequently. People also tend to assume that middle response options represent what is normal or typical. So if they think of themselves as normal or typical, they tend to choose middle response options. For example, people are likely to report watching more television when the response options are centred on a middle option of 4 hours than when centred on a middle option of 2 hours.<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;To mitigate against order effects, rotate questions and response items when there is no natural order. Counterbalancing is a good practice for survey questions and can reduce response order effects which show that among undecided voters, the first candidate listed in a ballot receives a 2.5% boost simply by virtue of being listed first<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Miller, J.M. &amp; Krosnick, J.A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 291-330.\" id=\"return-footnote-94-6\" href=\"#footnote-94-6\" aria-label=\"Footnote 6\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[6]<\/sup><\/a>!<\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><\/span><\/p>\n<h2 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c18 c1\">Writing Survey Questionnaire Items<\/span><\/h2>\n<h2 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c2 c1\">Types of Items<\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Questionnaire items can be either open-ended or closed-ended.&nbsp;<\/span><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">Open-ended&nbsp;items<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;simply ask a question and allow participants to answer in whatever way they choose. The following are examples of open-ended questionnaire items.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_123-0 start\">\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">\u201cWhat is the most important thing to teach children to prepare them for life?\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">\u201cPlease describe a time when you were discriminated against because of your age.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">\u201cIs there anything else you would like to tell us about?\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Open-ended items are useful when researchers do not know how participants might respond or want to avoid influencing their responses. They tend to be used when researchers have more vaguely defined research questions\u2014often in the early stages of a research project. Open-ended items are relatively easy to write because there are no response options to worry about. However, they take more time and effort on the part of participants, and they are more difficult for the researcher to analy<\/span><span class=\"c1\">z<\/span><span class=\"c1\">e because the answers must be transcribed, coded, and submitted to some form of <\/span><span class=\"c1\">qualitative analysis, such as <\/span><span class=\"c1\">content analysis.<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;The advantage to open-ended items is that they are unbiased and do not provide respondents with expectations of what the researcher might be looking for. Open-ended items are also more valid and more reliable. The disadvantage is that respondents are more likely to skip open-ended items because they take longer to answer. It is best to use open-ended questions when the answer is unsure and for quantities which can easily be converted to categories later in the analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">Closed-ended&nbsp;items<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;ask a question and provide a set of response options for participants to choose from. The alcohol item just mentioned is an example, as are the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;&nbsp;How old are you?<\/span><\/p>\n<ul class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_124-0 start\">\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ Under 18<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ 18 to 34<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ 35 to 49<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ 50 to 70<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c4 c56 c36\"><span class=\"c15 c1\">_____ Over 70<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">On a scale of 0 (no pain at all) to 10 (worst pain ever experienced), how much pain are you in right now?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Have you ever in your adult life been depressed for a period of 2 weeks or more?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Closed-ended items are used when researchers have a good idea of the different responses that participants might make. They are also used when researchers are interested in a well-defined variable or construct such as participants\u2019 level of agreement with some statement, perceptions of risk, or frequency of a particular behaviour. Closed-ended items are more difficult to write because they must include an appropriate set of response options. However, they are relatively quick and easy for participants to complete. They are also much easier for researchers to analyze because the responses can be easily converted to numbers and entered into a spreadsheet. For these reasons, closed-ended items are much more common.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">All closed-ended items include a set of response options from which a participant must choose. For categorical variables like sex, race, or political party preference, the categories are usually listed and participants choose the one (or ones) that they belong to. For quantitative variables, a rating scale is typically provided. A&nbsp;<\/span><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">rating&nbsp;scale<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;is an ordered set of responses that participants must choose from.&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c22\">Figure 9.2<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;shows several examples. The number of response options on a typical rating scale ranges from three to 11\u2014although five and seven are probably most common. Five-point scales are best for unipolar scales where only one construct is tested, such as frequency (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always). Seven-point scales are best for bipolar scales where there is a dichotomous spectrum, such as liking (Like very much, Like somewhat, Like slightly, Neither like nor dislike, Dislike slightly, Dislike somewhat, Dislike very much). For bipolar questions, it is useful to offer an earlier question that branches them into an area of the scale; if asking about liking ice cream, first ask \u201cDo you generally like or dislike ice cream?\u201d Once the respondent chooses like or dislike, refine it by offering them one of choices from the seven-point scale. &nbsp;Branching improves both reliability and <\/span><span class=\"c1\">validity<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;(Krosnick &amp; Berent, 1993)<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Krosnick, J.A. &amp; Berent, M.K. (1993). Comparisons of party identification and policy preferences: The impact of survey question format. American Journal of Political Science, 27(3), 941-964.\" id=\"return-footnote-94-7\" href=\"#footnote-94-7\" aria-label=\"Footnote 7\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[7]<\/sup><\/a>. &nbsp;Although you often see scales with numerical labels, it is best to only present verbal labels to the respondents but convert them to numerical values in the analyses. Avoid partial labels or length or overly specific labels. In some cases, the verbal labels can be supplemented with (or even replaced by) meaningful graphics. The last rating scale shown in&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c22\">Figure 9.2<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;is a visual-analog scale, on which participants make a mark somewhere along the horizontal line to indicate the magnitude of their response.<\/span><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_392\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-392\" style=\"width: 900px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/researchmethods\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/37\/2015\/09\/9.2.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/834\/2019\/09\/9.2.png\" alt=\"Figure 9.2 Example Rating Scales for Closed-Ended Questionnaire Items\" class=\"wp-image-392 size-full\" height=\"461\" width=\"900\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-392\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Figure 9.2 Example Rating Scales for Closed-Ended Questionnaire Items<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-info\">\n<h4 class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c5 c60 c67 c1 c97\">What Is a Likert Scale?<\/span><\/h4>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c5 c1\">In reading about psychological research, you are likely to encounter the term&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Likert scale<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c5 c1\">. Although this term is sometimes used to refer to almost any rating scale (e.g., a 0-to-10 life satisfaction scale), it has a much more precise meaning.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c5 c1\">In the 1930s, researcher Rensis Likert (pronounced LICK-ert) created a new approach for measuring people\u2019s attitudes (Likert, 1932)<\/span><span class=\"c22 c5\"><a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology,140, 1\u201355.\" id=\"return-footnote-94-8\" href=\"#footnote-94-8\" aria-label=\"Footnote 8\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[8]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"c29 c22 c5\"><\/span><span class=\"c5 c1\"> It involves presenting people with several statements\u2014including both favourable and unfavourable statements\u2014about some person, group, or idea. Respondents then express their agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 5-point scale:&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Strongly Agree<\/span><span class=\"c5 c1\">,&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Agree<\/span><span class=\"c5 c1\">,&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Neither Agree nor Disagree<\/span><span class=\"c5 c1\">,&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Disagree<\/span><span class=\"c5 c1\">, <\/span><span class=\"c5 c8 c1\">Strongly Disagree<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c5 c1\">. Numbers are assigned to each response (with reverse coding as necessary) and then summed across all items to produce a score representing the attitude toward the person, group, or idea. The entire set of items came to be called a Likert scale.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c33 c70\"><span class=\"c5 c1\">Thus unless you are measuring people\u2019s attitude toward something by assessing their level of agreement with several statements about it, it is best to avoid calling it a Likert scale. You are probably just using a \u201crating scale.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"c2 c1\">Writing Effective Items<\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">We can now consider some principles of writing questionnaire items that minimize unintended context effects and maximize the reliability and validity of participants\u2019 responses. A rough guideline for writing questionnaire items is provided by the BRUSO model (Peterson, 2000)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\" id=\"return-footnote-94-9\" href=\"#footnote-94-9\" aria-label=\"Footnote 9\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[9]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"c1\"> An acronym,&nbsp;<\/span><strong><span class=\"c35 c1\">BRUSO<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;stands for \u201cbrief,\u201d \u201crelevant,\u201d \u201cunambiguous,\u201d \u201cspecific,\u201d and \u201cobjective.\u201d Effective questionnaire items are&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">brief<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;and to the point. They avoid long, overly technical, or unnecessary words. This brevity makes them easier for respondents to understand and faster for them to complete. Effective questionnaire items are also&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">relevant<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;to the research question. If a respondent\u2019s sexual orientation, marital status, or income is not relevant, then items on them should probably not be included. Again, this makes the questionnaire faster to complete, but it also avoids annoying respondents with what they will rightly perceive as irrelevant or even \u201cnosy\u201d questions. Effective questionnaire items are also <\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">unambiguous<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">; they can be interpreted in only one way. Part of the problem with the alcohol item presented earlier in this section is that different respondents might have different ideas about what constitutes \u201can alcoholic drink\u201d or \u201ca typical day.\u201d Effective questionnaire items are also&nbsp;<\/span><span class=\"c8 c1\"><em>specific<\/em>,<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;so that it is clear to respondents what their response&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">should<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;be about and clear to researchers what it&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">is<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;about. A common problem here is closed-ended items that are \u201cdouble barrelled.\u201d They ask about two conceptually separate issues but allow only one response. For example, \u201cPlease rate the extent to which you have been feeling anxious and depressed.\u201d This item should probably be split into two separate items\u2014one about anxiety and one about depression. Finally, effective questionnaire items are&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">objective<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;in the sense that they do not reveal the researcher\u2019s own opinions or lead participants to answer in a particular way. <\/span><span class=\"c22\">Table 9.2<\/span><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;shows some examples of poor and effective questionnaire items based on the BRUSO criteria. The best way to know how people interpret the wording of the question is to conduct pre-tests and ask a few people to explain how they interpreted the question.<\/span><\/p>\n<table>\n<caption><em>Table 9.2&nbsp;BRUSO Model of Writing Effective Questionnaire Items, Plus Examples<\/em><\/caption>\n<tbody>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\"><b><\/b><b>Criterion<\/b><\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\"><b><\/b><b>Poor<\/b><\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\"><b><\/b><b>Effective<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\">B\u2014Brief<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cAre you now or have you ever been the possessor of a firearm?\u201d<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cHave you ever owned a gun?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\">R\u2014Relevant<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cWhat is your sexual orientation?\u201d<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">Do not include this item unless it is clearly relevant to the research.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\">U\u2014Unambiguous<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cAre you a gun person?\u201d<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cDo you currently own a gun?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\">S\u2014Specific<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cHow much have you read about the new gun control measure and sales tax?\u201d<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cHow much have you read about the new sales tax?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr class=\"-R\">\n<td class=\"-C\">O\u2014Objective<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cHow much do you support the new gun control measure?\u201d<\/td>\n<td class=\"-C\">\u201cWhat is your view of the new gun control measure?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">For closed-ended items, it is also important to create an appropriate response scale. For categorical variables, the categories presented should generally be mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Mutually exclusive categories do not overlap. For a religion item, for example, the categories of&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Christian<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;and <\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Catholic<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;are not mutually exclusive but&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Protestant<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;and&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Catholic<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;are. Exhaustive categories cover all possible responses. Although&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Protestant<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;and&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Catholic<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;are mutually exclusive, they are not exhaustive because there are many other religious categories that a respondent might select:&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Jewish<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">,&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Hindu<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">,&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Buddhist<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">, and so on. In many cases, it is not feasible to include every possible category, in which case an&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Other<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;category, with a space for the respondent to fill in a more specific response, is a good solution. If respondents could belong to more than one category (e.g., race), they should be instructed to choose all categories that apply.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">For rating scales, five or seven response options generally allow about as much precision as respondents are capable of. However, numerical scales with more options can sometimes be appropriate. For dimensions such as attractiveness, pain, and likelihood, a 0-to-10 scale will be familiar to many respondents and easy for them to use. Regardless of the number of response options, the most extreme ones should generally be \u201cbalanced\u201d around a neutral or modal midpoint. An example of an unbalanced rating scale measuring perceived likelihood might look like this:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Unlikely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Somewhat Likely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Likely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Very Likely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Extremely Likely<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">A balanced version might look like this:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Extremely Unlikely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Somewhat Unlikely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">As Likely as Not<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|&nbsp;<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Somewhat Likely<\/span><\/em><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;|<\/span><em><span class=\"c8 c1\">Extremely Likely<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">&nbsp;Note, however, that a middle or neutral response option does not have to be included. Researchers sometimes choose to leave it out because they want to encourage respondents to think more deeply about their response and not simply choose the middle option by default. Including middle alternatives on bipolar dimensions is useful to allow people to genuinely choose an option that is neither.<\/span><\/p>\n<figure style=\"width: 207px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/imgs.xkcd.com\/comics\/question.png\" class=\"\" height=\"198\" width=\"207\" alt=\"image\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">&#8220;Question&#8221; retrieved from http:\/\/imgs.xkcd.com\/comics\/question.png (CC-BY-NC 2.5)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2><b><\/b><b>Formatting the Questionnaire<\/b><\/h2>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">Writing effective items is only one part of constructing a survey questionnaire. For one thing, every survey questionnaire should have a written or spoken introduction that serves two basic functions (Peterson, 2000)<\/span><span class=\"c22\"><\/span><span class=\"c29 c22\"><a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\" id=\"return-footnote-94-10\" href=\"#footnote-94-10\" aria-label=\"Footnote 10\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[10]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"c1\"> One is to encourage respondents to participate in the survey. In many types of research, such encouragement is not necessary either because participants do not know they are in a study (as in naturalistic observation) or because they are part of a subject pool and have already shown their willingness to participate by signing up and showing up for the study. Survey research usually catches respondents by surprise when they answer their phone, go to their mailbox, or check their e-mail\u2014and the researcher must make a good case for why they should agree to participate. Thus the introduction should briefly explain the purpose of the survey and its importance, provide information about the sponsor of the survey (university-based surveys tend to generate higher response rates), acknowledge the importance of the respondent\u2019s participation, and describe any incentives for participating.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">The second function of the introduction is to establish informed consent. Remember that this aim means describing to respondents everything that might affect their decision to participate. This includes the topics covered by the survey, the amount of time it is likely to take, the respondent\u2019s option to withdraw at any time, confidentiality issues, and so on. Written consent forms are not typically used in survey research, so it is important that this part of the introduction be well documented and presented clearly and in its entirety to every respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"c4\"><span class=\"c1\">The introduction should be followed by the substantive questionnaire items. But first, it is important to present clear instructions for completing the questionnaire, including examples of how to use any unusual response scales. Remember that the introduction is the point at which respondents are usually most interested and least fatigued, so it is good practice to start with the most important items for purposes of the research and proceed to less important items. Items should also be grouped by topic or by type. For example, items using the same rating scale (e.g., a 5-point agreement scale) should be grouped together if possible to make things faster and easier for respondents. Demographic items are often presented last because they are least interesting to participants but also easy to answer in the event respondents have become tired or bored. Of course, any survey should end with an expression of appreciation to the respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-success\">\n<h3>Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n<ul class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_125-0 start\">\n<li class=\"c7 c21 c36\"><span class=\"c66 c60 c1\">Responding to a survey item is itself a complex cognitive process that involves interpreting the question, retrieving information, making a tentative judgment, putting that judgment into the required response format, and editing the response.<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c7 c21 c36\"><span class=\"c66 c60 c1\">Survey questionnaire responses are subject to numerous context effects due to question wording, item order, response options, and other factors. Researchers should be sensitive to such effects when constructing surveys and interpreting survey results.<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c7 c21 c36\"><span class=\"c66 c60 c1\">Survey questionnaire items are either open-ended or closed-ended. Open-ended items simply ask a question and allow respondents to answer in whatever way they want. Closed-ended items ask a question and provide several response options that respondents must choose from.<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c7 c21 c36\"><span class=\"c66 c60 c1\">Use verbal labels instead of numerical labels although the responses can be converted to numerical data in the analyses.<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c33 c21 c36\"><span class=\"c66 c60 c1\">According to the BRUSO model, questionnaire items should be brief, relevant, unambiguous, specific, and objective.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-info\">\n<h3>Exercises<\/h3>\n<ol class=\"c28 lst-kix_list_126-0 start\" start=\"1\">\n<li class=\"c7 c50 c120 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">Discussion: Write a survey item and then write a short description of how someone might respond to that item based on the cognitive model of survey responding (or choose any item on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale at <\/span><span class=\"c10 c22 c71\"><a class=\"c39\" href=\"http:\/\/www.bsos.umd.edu\/socy\/research\/rosenberg.htm&amp;sa=D&amp;usg=AFQjCNGCrrHpjMR6Tv2WWk5ss02pdszRig\">http:\/\/www.bsos.umd.edu\/socy\/research\/rosenberg.htm<\/a><\/span><span class=\"c10 c1\">).<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c7 c59 c50 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">Practice: Write survey questionnaire items for each of the following general questions. In some cases, a series of items, rather than a single item, might be necessary.<\/span>\n<ol>\n<li class=\"c7 c59 c50 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">How much does the respondent use Facebook?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c7 c59 c50 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">How much exercise does the respondent get?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c7 c59 c50 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">How likely does the respondent think it is that the incumbent will be re-elected in the next presidential election?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"c7 c59 c50 c36\"><span class=\"c10 c1\">To what extent does the respondent experience \u201croad rage\u201d?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/><div class=\"footnotes\"><ol><li id=\"footnote-94-1\">Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., &amp; Schwarz, N. (1996). <em>Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology<\/em>. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. <a href=\"#return-footnote-94-1\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-94-2\">Chang, L., &amp; Krosnick, J.A. (2003). Measuring the frequency of regular behaviors: Comparing the \u2018typical week\u2019 to the \u2018past week\u2019. <em>Sociological Methodology, 33<\/em>, 55-80. <a href=\"#return-footnote-94-2\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 2\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-94-3\">Schwarz, N., &amp; Strack, F. (1990). Context effects in attitude surveys: Applying cognitive theory to social research. In W. Stroebe &amp; M. Hewstone (Eds.), <em>European review of social psychology<\/em> (Vol. 2, pp. 31\u201350). Chichester, UK: Wiley. <a href=\"#return-footnote-94-3\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 3\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-94-4\">Strack, F., Martin, L. L., &amp; Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: The social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. <em>European Journal of Social Psychology, 18<\/em>, 429\u2013442. <a href=\"#return-footnote-94-4\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 4\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-94-5\">Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. <em>American Psychologist, 54<\/em>, 93\u2013105. <a href=\"#return-footnote-94-5\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 5\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-94-6\">Miller, J.M. &amp; Krosnick, J.A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. <em>Public Opinion Quarterly, 62<\/em>(3), 291-330. <a href=\"#return-footnote-94-6\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 6\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-94-7\">Krosnick, J.A. &amp; Berent, M.K. (1993). Comparisons of party identification and policy preferences: The impact of survey question format. <em>American Journal of Political Science, 27<\/em>(3), 941-964. <a href=\"#return-footnote-94-7\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 7\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-94-8\">Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. <em>Archives of Psychology,140<\/em>, 1\u201355. <a href=\"#return-footnote-94-8\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 8\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-94-9\">Peterson, R. A. (2000). <em>Constructing effective questionnaires<\/em>. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. <a href=\"#return-footnote-94-9\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 9\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-94-10\">Peterson, R. A. (2000). <em>Constructing effective questionnaires<\/em>. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. <a href=\"#return-footnote-94-10\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 10\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":65,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-94","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":90,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/94","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/65"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/94\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":188,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/94\/revisions\/188"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/90"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/94\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=94"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=94"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=94"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}