The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Do Our Respondents Think We're Asking? Using Cognitive Interviewing to Improve Medical Education Surveys
Open accessAbstract
Consider the last time you answered a questionnaire. Did it contain questions that were vague or hard to understand? If yes, did you answer these questions anyway, unsure if your interpretation aligned with what the survey developer was thinking? By the time you finished the survey, you were probably annoyed by the unclear nature of the task you had just completed. If any of this sounds familiar, you are not alone, as these types of communication failures are commonplace in questionnaires.1–3 And if you consider how often questionnaires are used in medical education for evaluation and educational research, it is clear that the problems described above have important implications for the field. Fortunately, confusing survey questions can be avoided when survey developers use established survey design procedures.In 2 recent Journal of Graduate Medical Education editorials,4,5 the authors encouraged graduate medical education (GME) educators and researchers to use more systematic and rigorous survey design processes. Specifically, the authors proposed a 6-step decision process for questionnaire designers to use. In this article, we expand on that effort by considering the fifth of the 6 decision steps, specifically, the following question: “Will my respondents interpret my items in the manner that I intended?” To address this question, we describe in detail a critical, yet largely unfamiliar, step in the survey design process: cognitive interviewing.Questionnaires are regularly used to investigate topics in medical education research, and it may seem a straightforward process to script standardized survey questions. However, a large body of evidence demonstrates that items the researchers thought to be perfectly clear are often subject to significant misinterpretation, or otherwise fail to measure what was intended.1,2 For instance, abstract terms like “health professional” tend to conjure up a wide range of interpretations that may depart markedly from those the questionnaire designer had in mind. In this example, survey respondents may choose to include or exclude marriage counselors, yoga instructors, dental hygienists, medical office receptionists, and so on, in their own conceptions of “health professional.” At the same time, terms that are precise but technical in nature can produce unintended interpretations; for example, a survey question about “receiving a dental sealant” could be misinterpreted by a survey respondent as “getting a filling.”2The method we describe here, termed “cognitive interviewing” or “cognitive testing,” is an evidence-based, qualitative method specifically designed to investigate whether a survey question—whether attitudinal, behavioral, or factual in nature—fulfills its intended purpose (B O X). The method relies on interviews with individuals who are specifically recruited. These individuals are presented with survey questions in much the same way as survey respondents will be administered the final draft of the questionnaire. Cognitive interviews are conducted before data collection (pretesting), during data collection, or even after the survey has been administered, as a quality assurance procedure.During the 1980s, cognitive interviewing grew out of the field of experimental psychology; common definitions of cognitive interviewing reflect those origins and emphasis. For example, Willis6 states, “Cognitive interviewing is a psychologically oriented method for empirically studying the way in which individuals mentally process and respond to survey questionnaires.” For its theoretical underpinning, cognitive interviewing has traditionally relied upon the 4-stage cognitive model introduced by Tourangeau.7 This model describes the survey response process as involving (1) comprehension, (2) retrieval of information, (3) judgment or estimation, and (4) selection of a response to the question. For example, mental processing of the question “In the past year, how many times have you participated in a formal educational program?” presumably requires a respondent to comprehend and interpret critical terms and phrases (eg, “in the past year” and “formal educational program”); to recall the correct answer; to decide to report an accurate number (rather than, for example, providing a higher value); and then to produce an answer that matches the survey requirements (eg, reporting “5 times” rather than “frequently”). Most often, comprehension problems dominate. For example, it may be found that the term “formal educational program” is variably interpreted. In other words, respondents may be unsure which activities to count and, furthermore, may not know what type of participation is being asked about (eg, participation as a student, teacher, or administrator).More recently, cognitive interviewing has to some extent been reconceptualized as a sociological/anthropological endeavor, in that it emphasizes not only the individualistic mental processing of survey items but also the background soc
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
Cites
The Psychology of Survey Response
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819322 · Cited by 4,734
Willis, G. (2005) · doi:10.4135/9781412983655 · Cited by 1,778
Self-citation
Cited by
Cascades of Care After Incidental Findings in a US National Survey of Physicians
Ganguli, I., Simpkin, A. L., Lupo, C., Weissman, A., Mainor, A. J., Orav, E. J., Rosenthal, M. B., Colla, C. H., & Sequist, T. D. (2019) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13325 · Cited by 187
Cooksey Stowers, K., Jiang, Q., Atoloye, A., Lucan, S., & Gans, K. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17197143 · Cited by 117
Abi Ramia, J., Harper Shehadeh, M., Kheir, W., Zoghbi, E., Watts, S., Heim, E., & El Chammay, R. (2018) · Global Mental Health · doi:10.1017/gmh.2018.29 · Cited by 65
Yakovchenko, V., Chinman, M. J., Lamorte, C., Powell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Merante, M., Gibson, S., Neely, B., Morgan, T. R., & Rogal, S. S. (2023) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-023-00409-3 · Cited by 38
Shala, M., Morina, N., Burchert, S., Cerga-Pashoja, A., Knaevelsrud, C., Maercker, A., & Heim, E. (2020) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2020.100339 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Willis, G. B., & Artino, A. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Graduate Medical Education
- Published
- 2013-09
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 353-356
- ISSN
- 1949-8349 (ISSN-L)
- 1949-8357
- OpenAlex
- W1970390984
- Cited by
- 685
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: What Do Our Respondents Think We're Asking? Using Cognitive Interviewing to Improve Medical Education Surveys. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4300/jgme-d-13-00154.1
- The paper
- Willis, G. B., & Artino, A. R. (2013). What Do Our Respondents Think We're Asking? Using Cognitive Interviewing to Improve Medical Education Surveys. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-13-00154.1
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.