Cited by 88Survey Methodology and NonresponseFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Comparing results from different styles of cognitive interviewing: ‘verbal probing’ vs. ‘thinking aloud’

Priede, Camilla, Farrall, Stephen·2011·International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Abstract

Two styles of cognitive interviewing exist, thinking aloud (TA) and verbal probing (VP), but there have been few studies undertaken which compare the two. This paper reports on such a comparison, which was undertaken in order to understand the merits and drawbacks of each approach. VP finds more problems than TA. TA appears to be better at examining respondents’ understandings of the underlying concepts behind each question; VP is better for exploring specific terms in each question. TA interviews appeared to generate more information about how respondents used information from their past experiences to select codes in closed‐ended questions. However, in terms of the eventual redrafting of the questions respondents were asked about, there was very little difference between the VP and TA interviews.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13645579.2010.523187

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The round 1 survey was validated in a pilot phase with three senior psychiatry residents using the 'think aloud' approach.

    “The survey was validated in a pilot phase, during which three senior psychiatry residents from the Netherlands and Belgium filled out the survey in the presence of the corresponding author using the ‘think aloud’ approach. 9”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Priede, C., & Farrall, S.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Priede, Camilla
Venue
International Journal of Social Research Methodology
Published
2011-07
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
271-287
ISSN
  • 1364-5579 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5300
OpenAlex
W2067474269
Cited by
88
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Social Research Methodology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
cognitive interviewing, think-aloud, questionnaire design, closed-ended questions

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