CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 81Survey Methodology and NonresponseQualitative Research Methods and EthicsReliability and Agreement in Measurement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effect of Rapport on Data Quality in Face-to-Face Interviews: Beneficial or Detrimental?

Open access
Horsfall, Melany, Eikelenboom, Merijn, Draisma, Stasja, Smit, Johannes H.·2021·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
DOI 10.3390/ijerph182010858PMC PMC8535677
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The benefits of rapport between interviewers and respondents, in terms of recruiting the latter and motiving them to participate in research, have been generally endorsed. However, there has been less clarity with regard to the association between rapport and data quality. In theory, rapport could be beneficial if it motivates people to give complete and honest responses. On the other hand, efforts to maintain rapport by exhibiting pleasing and socially desirable behaviour could well be detrimental to data quality. In a large longitudinal epidemiological sample, generalized estimating equations (GEE) analyses were used to examine the association between rapport and the following three quality indicators: missing responses, responses to sensitive questions, and consistency of responses. The results of these analyses indicate an association between a high level of rapport and fewer missing responses. In contrast, we found more socially desirable responses for the high-rapport group. Finally, the high-rapport group did not differ from the low-rapport group in terms of the consistency of their responses.

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 · 10.3390/ijerph182010858

Cites

21 of 21 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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Kahn, R.L., and Cannell, C.F. (1957). The Dynamics of Interviewing: Theory, Technique, and Cases, John Wiley & Sons.
  2. Hill, 1963, A Note on Rapport and the Quality of Interview Data, Southwest. Soc. Sci. Q., 44, 247
  3. Derksen, 1985, Critical review—Interview style and interview results, Mens En Maatsch., 60, 187
  4. Belli, R.F., Lepkowski, J.M., and Kabeto, M.U. (1999, January 24–27). The respective roles of cognitive processing difficulty and conversational rapport on the accuracy of retrospective reports of doctor’s office visits. Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Health Survey Research Methods, Williamsburg, VA, USA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Horsfall, M., Eikelenboom, M., Draisma, S., & Smit, J. H.
Affiliations
Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
Corresponding author
Horsfall, Melany
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-10-15
Volume
18
Issue
20
Pages
10858
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ijerph182010858
PMC
PMC8535677
OpenAlex
W3205061031
Cited by
41
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4
FWCI
3.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Universiteit Leiden (10‐000‐1002)
  • Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (10‐000‐1002)
  • ZonMw (10‐000‐1002)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • GGZ inGeest
  • Rivierduinen
  • GGZ Friesland
  • GGZ Drenthe
  • Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
  • Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
rapport, face-to-face interviews, data quality, missing responses, social desirability bias, sensitive questions, response consistency
MeSH terms
Data Accuracy, Humans, Interpersonal Relations

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