Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Straightlining: Overview of Measurement, Comparison of Indicators, and Effects in Mail–Web Mixed-Mode Surveys

Kim, Yujin, Dykema, Jennifer, Stevenson, John, Black, Penny, Moberg, D. Paul·2019·Social Science Computer Review

Abstract

Straightlining occurs when survey respondents give identical (or nearly identical) answers to items in a battery of questions using the same response scale, which may reduce data quality. Despite its potential importance, research examining straightlining does not use a standard measurement technique. Further, while mixed-mode studies are increasing in prevalence, few studies compare straightlining behavior in mail versus web surveys. Our article has the following goals: (1) describe and evaluate methods for detecting straightlining and (2) examine effects of education and mode of administration on straightlining in two mail/web mixed-mode surveys. Data for Study 1 are from a 2010 survey of alcohol beliefs and consumption in which 7,200 young adults were sampled from driver’s license records in Wisconsin and randomly assigned to mail–web (mail followed by web) or web–mail (web followed by mail) treatments. Data for Study 2 are from a 2013 survey about a public university and its affiliated health organizations that used an address-based sample and randomly assigned households to one of the three experimental groups: mail-only, web-only, and web–mail. We identify and examine five methods for measuring straightlining: simple nondifferentiation, mean root of pairs, maximum identical rating, standard deviation of battery, and scale point variation. The overall results replicate previously reported findings of a negative association between education and straightlining behaviors except for the standard deviation of battery measure in Study 1. Controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and education, mode of administration was not significantly related to straightlining for any of the measures, suggesting straightlining behavior is stable across mail and web forms of self-administration.

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 · 10.1177/0894439317752406

Cites

33 of 33 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 33 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Authors
Kim, Y., Dykema, J., Stevenson, J., Black, P., & Moberg, D. P.
Venue
Social Science Computer Review
Published
2018-02-20
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
214-233
ISSN
  • 0894-4393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8286
OpenAlex
W2793051279
Cited by
258
References
33
FWCI
27.91
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: Straightlining: Overview of Measurement, Comparison of Indicators, and Effects in Mail–Web Mixed-Mode Surveys. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0894439317752406
The paper
Kim, Y., Dykema, J., Stevenson, J., Black, P., & Moberg, D. P. (2019). Straightlining: Overview of Measurement, Comparison of Indicators, and Effects in Mail–Web Mixed-Mode Surveys. Social Science Computer Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317752406

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.