The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire
Abstract
This book reviews the experimental literature on how survey questions behave as well as the lore of professional experience and culls from them those guiding principles and specific findings that have implications for writing survey questions. Mindful that the findings of experiments cannot be applied mechanically and that survey questions cannot be mass-produced they have suggested a number of ways in which to make pilot and pretest work more fruitful. The authors have arranged ideas about writing questions in 3 classes or concentric circles which progressively narrow to the specific design task and the book is written in 3 chapters to match. Chapter 1 bears on general strategies culled from examples or experience of question-crafters and the findings of empirical researchers. This material is a litany of cautions offering more general perspectives than specific procedures. Chapter 2 focuses on specific empirical findings. In recent years there has been renewed research into question design and question effects and much has been learned about how some questions tend to behave. But the implications of this research for actual practice are not always clear. Chapter 3 tries to zero in on the actual task at hand. It discusses pilot work pretesting and making use of the advice of experts--critics colleagues and especially interviewers. It is commonplace that all survey questions must be pretested but there is no commonly shared tradition about how to go about it. The authors are most familiar with questionnaires designed for use with the broad American public--national cross-sections drawn by the Institute for Social Research or samples of the greater Detroit metropolitan area by the Detroit Area Study so some of the cautions urged in chapter 1 may not apply to surveying the well educated or intensely motivated such as college students legislators social scientists political activists and medical patients.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
KESSLER, R. C., ANDREWS, G., COLPE, L. J., HIRIPI, E., MROCZEK, D. K., NORMAND, S.-L. T., WALTERS, E. E., & ZASLAVSKY, A. M. (2002) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291702006074 · Cited by 10,327
Desimone, L. M. (2009) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x08331140 · Cited by 4,862
Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006) · The Counseling Psychologist · doi:10.1177/0011000006288127 · Cited by 4,087
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23044045 · Cited by 3,165
Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing
Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfm006 · Cited by 1,615
Metadata
- Authors
- Quarm, D., Converse, J. M., & Presser, S.
- Venue
- Teaching Sociology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1988-07
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 314
- ISSN
- 0092-055X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1991425471
- Cited by
- 766
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 41.37
- 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: Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1317544
- The paper
- Quarm, D., Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1988). Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Teaching Sociology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1317544
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.