Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 194

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Split Questionnaire Survey Design

Raghunathan, Trivellore E., Grizzle, James E.·1995·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

This article develops a survey design where the questionnaire is split into components and individuals are administered the varying subsets of the components. A multiple imputation method for analyzing data from this design is developed, in which the imputations are created by random draws from the posterior predictive distribution of the missing parts, given the observed parts by using Gibbs sampling under a general location scale model. Results from two simulation studies that investigate the properties of the inferences using this design are reported. In the first study several random split questionnaire designs are imposed on the complete data from an existing survey collected using a long questionnaire, and the corresponding data elements are extracted to form split data sets. Inferences obtained using the complete data and the split data are then compared. This comparison suggests that little is lost, at least in the example considered, by administering only parts of the questionnaire to each sampled individual. The second simulation study reports on the investigation of the efficiency of the split questionnaire design and the robustness of the estimates to the distributional assumptions used to create imputations. In this study several complete and split data sets were generated under a variety of distributional assumptions, and the imputations for the split data sets were created assuming the normality of the distributions. The sampling properties of the point and interval estimates of the regression coefficient in a particular logistic regression model using both the complete and split data sets were compared. This comparison suggests that the loss in efficiency of the split questionnaire design decreases as the correlation among the variables that are within different parts increases. The proposed multiple imputation method seems to be sensitive to the skewness and relatively insensitive to the kurtosis, contrary to the assumed normality of the distribution for the observables.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476488

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 194

Metadata

Authors
Raghunathan, T. E., & Grizzle, J. E.
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
1995-03
Volume
90
Issue
429
Pages
54-63
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W1979370357
Cited by
194
References
3
FWCI
3.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Split Questionnaire Survey Design. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476488
The paper
Raghunathan, T. E., & Grizzle, J. E. (1995). A Split Questionnaire Survey Design. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476488

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.