Web Survey Bibliography
Title Collecting Eye Tracking Data to Test QUAID, A Web Facility that Helps Survey Methodologists Identify Problems with the Comprehensibility of Questions
Access date 07.05.2004
Abstract When respondents do not understand the meaning of a survey question, it is very unlikely that they will supply valid and reliable answers. Survey methodologists would therefore benefit from computer tools and other analytical schemes that help them identify problems with questions with respect to comprehension difficulty. We developed a web facility (called QUAID) that assists survey methodologists in improving the wording, syntax, and semantics of questions (www.psyc.memphis.edu/quaid.html). QUAID stands for “Question Understanding Aid.” The survey methodologist enters a question on a questionnaire, along with any context information and answer alternatives that accompany the question. QUAID quickly returns a list of potential problems with the question, including: unfamiliar technical terms, vague or imprecise relative terms, vague or ambiguous noun-phrases, complex syntax, and working memory overload. Recent advances in cognitive science, computational linguistics and discourse processing have reached the point where it possible to analyze language and meaning at these various levels. Previous published studies have reported how well QUAID diagnoses the five categories of problems with questions in a corpus of questions provided by the US Census Bureau. Experts in language and cognition rated each question as to whether it had the five problems; the expert ratings were compared with QUAID output. Analyses of hit rates, false alarm rates, and discrimination scores confirmed there is a significant correspondence between QUAID and the judgments of experts. More recently, two eye tracking experiments were conducted that collected data from respondents as they answered questions. If a question is problematic, this should be reflected in the patterns of eye movements and the amount of time that respondents focus on individual words. The proposed presentation will describe the features of QUAID, the validity of the tool with respect to comparisons with experts, and the results of the eye tracking experiments.
Access/Direct link Homepage - conference (abstract)
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Year of publication2003
Web Survey Bibliography - The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 58th Annual Conference, 2003 (46)
- Determining the Probability of Selection for a Telephone Household in a Random Digit Dial Sample Design...; 2003; Triplett, T. A., Abi-Habib, N.
- Validations in Web-based Surveys; 2003; Crawford, S. D., Peytchev, A.
- Use and non-use of clarification features in web surveys; 2003; Tourangeau, R., Baker, R. P., Couper, M. P., Conrad, F. G.
- Web Experiment: Examining the Effect of Error Prompting on Item Nonresponse and Survey Nonresponse; 2003; Mooney, G., Rogers, B., Trunzo, D.
- Mode Effects in Web-enabled, Telephone and Face-to-Face Foreign Policy Surveys; 2003; Kull, S., Wolford, M. L.
- Differences in Mode of Questionnaire Administration: Self-Administered Web vs. CATI/CAPI; 2003; Carley-Baxter, L. R.
- The Effect of Data Collection Modality on Students’ Foreign Language Survey; 2003; Shieh, Y. Y.
- How web surveys differ from other kinds of user interfaces; 2003; Ehlen, P., Schober, M. F., Conrad, F. G.
- Differences in the Political Attitudes and Behavior of Cell and Land Line Telephone Users; 2003; Traugott, M. W., Joo, S. H.
- Surveys Using Cellular Telephones: A Feasibility Study; 2003; Steeh, C. G.
- Go With the Flow: Cognitive Testing of a Multi-mode, Multi-Agency Survey about Drinking Water; 2003; Wilson, B. F., Kamimoto, L. A., Whitaker, K. R., Williams, M., Dockins, C., Kim, H., Posnick, L. M.,...
- Asking Comparative Questions: A Comparison Of Three Wording Strategies; 2003; Liu, K.
- Comparing Propensity Score Weighting with Other Weighting Methods: A Case Study; 2003; Forsman, G., Varedian, M.
- It’s Only Incidental: Effects of Response Format in Determining Behavioral or Event Occurrence; 2003; Lafond, C.R., Smith, M. R., Behnke, C. S., Thomas, R. K.
- Evaluating Unit nonresponse Rates in Web Surveys - A Meta Study; 2003; Vehovar, V., Lozar Manfreda, K., Koren, G., Dolničar, V.
- Achieving high response rates on web-based surveys of post-secondary students; 2003; Nichols, L.B., Ghadialy, R.
- The Effects of Cash, Electronic, and Paper Gift Certificates as Respondent Incentives for a Web-Based...; 2003; Birnholtz, J. P., Horn, D. B., Finholt, T. A., Bae, S. J.
- Developing a Strategy for Sampling U.S. Mobile Phone Users Based on European Models; 2003; Buskirk, T. D., Callegaro, M.
- Comparing Internet “River,” Internet; 2003; Feld, K. G.
- A Comparison between Using the Web and Using the Telephone to Survey Political Opinions; 2003; Forsman, G., Isaksson, A.
- Design implementation of a Multimode Web Survey; 2003; Wine, S.J., Cominole, M.B., Carwile, D.S., Perry, K.
- Partnering with a Newspaper to Assess Community Opinion Online; 2003; Downs, E.P., Lindley, A.M.
- Implementing a Web Survey Administration System at the GAO; 2003; Feldesman, A.G.
- Cognitive Processes in Web Surveys; 2003; Fuchs, M.
- Using Internet-Based Surveys With Physicians, What Works and What Doesn't Work; 2003; Schneiderman, M., Thran, S., Adams, C., Lerner, B.
- Exploring Online Survey Metodologies: Who are the Respondents and How to Get them to respond; 2003; Wolter-Warmerdam, K., Gardinali, A.P., Wong, R.
- Using RGI (Respondent Generated Interval) to gather factual information in a web survey; 2003; Lusinchi, P.D.
- Methodological issues in Web data collection of ego-centered networks; 2003; Vehovar, V., Lozar Manfreda, K., Koren, G., Hlebec, V.
- Can What We Don’t Know (about “Don’t Know”) Hurt Us?: Effects of Item Non-response...; 2003; Krosnick, J. A., Behnke, C. S., Lafond, C.R., Thomas, R. K.
- How Does Ranking Rate?: A Comparison of Ranking and Rating Tasks.; 2003; Krosnick, J. A., Shaeffer, E. M., Thomas, R. K.
- Web vs. IVR: Mode Effects in Structured Interviews Utilizing Rating Scales; 2003; Callegaro, M., Bhola, D. S., Yang, Y.
- What They See Is What We Get: Response Options for Web Surveys; 2003; Tourangeau, R., Crawford, S. D., Conrad, F. G., Couper, M. P.
- Measuring Visual Political Knowledge; 2003; Prior, M.
- Collecting Eye Tracking Data to Test QUAID, A Web Facility that Helps Survey Methodologists Identify...; 2003; Graesser, A., Daniel, K. F., Cai, Z., Cooper, E., Whitten, S., Louwerse, M.
- Survey content foreknowledge and response rate; 2003; Ehrlich, N. J.
- Web Survey Design: Comparing Static and Interactive Survey Instruments; 2003; Nyiri, Z., Clark L.R.
- Comparing Web-Based Survey Methods with other Approaches: An examination of health knowledge, opinion...; 2003; Greiling, K.A., McCarrier, P.K., Stringer, M.C.
- The role of issue involvement in UK public attitudes to the single European currency; 2003; Roberts, E.C.
- Using an Instructional Web Site for Respondents to Improve Response Quality; 2003; Trussell, N., Lai, J. W., Shuttles, D. C.
- Partipation in Online Surveys: Results from a Series of Experiments; 2003; Kiniorski, A. K., Smith, M. R.
- Propensity score and calibration as bias reducing techniques in surveys based on Internet panels: application...; 2003; Johansson, C., Lorenc, B.
- When Respondents Know Too Much: Limitations of Web Surveys for Electoral Research; 2003; Callum, N., J., Sturgis, P.
- Measuring Customer Satisfaction with a Salient Event: An Experimental Design Analyzing the Impact of...; 2003; Schuldt, G. R., McDevitt, P. K.
- Effects of sponsor identity and perceived data security on response rates and data quality; 2003; Davis, B., Levin, K., O'Brien, J., Wang, A., Gordon, A., Shipp, S.
- Does Order Really Make a Difference? The Impact of Respondent and Question Characteristics on Response...; 2003; O'Neill, G.E.
- An Experiment with Respondent Burden in a Pop-Up Web Survey; 2003; David, P., Horner, L. R., Diedrichs, C., Rogers, S. M., Connell, T.