CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 549Survey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions

Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., Singer, E.·2004·Public Opinion Quarterly
DOI 10.1093/poq/nfh008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

An examination of survey pretesting reveals a paradox. On the one hand, pretesting is the only way to evaluate in advance whether a questionnaire causes problems for interviewers or respondents. Consequently, both elementary textbooks and experienced researchers declare pretesting indispensable. On the other hand, most textbooks offer minimal, if any, guidance about pretesting methods, and published survey reports usually provide no information about whether questionnaires were pretested and, if so, how, and with what results. Moreover, until recently there was relatively little methodological research on pretesting. Thus pretesting’s universally acknowledged importance has been honored more in the breach than in the practice, and not a great deal is known about many aspects of pretesting, including the extent to which pretests serve their intended purpose and lead to improved questionnaires. Pretesting dates to the founding of the modern sample survey in the mid-1930s or shortly thereafter. The earliest references in scholarly journals are from 1940, by which time pretests apparently were well established. In that year Katz reported, “The American Institute of Public Opinion [i.e., Gallup] and Fortune [i.e., Roper] pretest their questions to avoid phrasings which will be unintelligible to the public and to avoid issues unknown to the man on the street” (Katz 1940, p. 279).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/poq/nfh008

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 1999, JOURNAL OF OFFICIAL STATISTICS, 15, 495
  2. 1991, JOURNAL OF OFFICIAL STATISTICS, 7, 349

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 549

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., & Singer, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • RTI International (US)
  • United States Census Bureau (US)
  • Office for National Statistics (GB)
ORCID
Couper, M. P.
Venue
Public Opinion Quarterly
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2004-03-01
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
109-130
ISSN
  • 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5331
DOI
10.1093/poq/nfh008
OpenAlex
W4238241388
Cited by
546
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 17
FWCI
26.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
questionnaire evaluation, questionnaire development, respondent comprehension, history of survey research

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