COMMUNITY HEALTH SCIENCES/EPIDEMIOLOGY M218 … · CHS / Epi M218 Fall 2014 ... 31. Conrad, FG, ......

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

COMMUNITY HEALTH SCIENCES/EPIDEMIOLOGY M218

Questionnaire Design and Administration

Course web site: http://ccle.ucla.edu

Day & Time: Mon & Wed 8-10 A.M. Instructor: Linda B. Bourque

Room: CHS 41-268 Office: 41-230 CHS

ID#: 840 108 200 (CHS) Office Hrs: Mon & Wed 10:00-11:30

844 110 200 (EPI) Sign up for appointments on sheet outside office.

TEXTBOOKS:

A. Required books available for purchase in the Health Science Bookstore:

1. LuAnn Aday, Llewellyn J. Cornelius, Designing and Conducting Health Surveys,

3rd edition, Jossey-Bass, 2006.

2. Linda Bourque and Eve Fielder, How to Conduct Telephone Surveys, The Survey

Kit, Sage Publications, 2nd

Edition, 2003.

3. Materials available on course website and other UCLA web sites.

B. Recommended books available for purchase in the Health Sciences Bookstore.

1. Linda Bourque and Eve Fielder, How to Conduct Self-Administered and Mail

Surveys, 2nd

Edition, The Survey Kit, Sage Publications, 2003.

2. Linda Bourque and Virginia Clark, Processing Data: The Survey Example, Sage

Publications, 1992.

3. Jean M. Converse and Stanley Presser, Survey Questions, Sage, 1986.

4. Orlando Behling and Kenneth S. Law, Translating Questionnaires and Other

Research Instruments, Problems and Solutions, Sage Publications, 2000.

C. Recommended books available in the UCLA libraries:

1. Arlene Fink, How to Ask Survey Questions, The Survey Kit, Sage Publications,

1995, 2nd

edition, 2003.

2. Arlene Fink, How to Design Surveys, The Survey Kit, Sage Publications, 1995,

3. 2nd

edition, 2003.

4. Eleanor Singer and Stanley Presser, eds., Survey Research Methods, A Reader,

The University of Chicago Press, 1989.

5. Donald Dillman, Mail & Telephone Surveys, Wiley-Interscience, 1978.

6. Peter H. Rossi, James D. Wright, Andy B. Anderson, Handbook of Survey

Research, Academic Press, 1983.

7. Seymour Sudman & Norman M. Bradburn, Asking Questions, Jossey-Bass, 1982.

8. Robert M. Groves & Robert L. Kahn, Surveys by Telephone, Academic Press,

1979.

9. Norman M. Bradburn & Seymour Sudman, Polls & Surveys, Jossey-Bass, 1988.

10. Jean M. Converse, Survey Research in the United States, University of California

Press, 1987.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

11. Hubert O'Gorman, ed., Surveying Social Life, Wesleyan University Press, 1988.

12. Herbert H. Hyman, Taking Society's Measure, Russell Sage Foundation, 1991.

13. Judith M. Tanur, ed., Questions About Questions, Russell Sage Foundation, 1992.

D. Supplementary Materials

All of the following articles are available on the class website at http://ccle.ucla.edu.

When you use information from articles, please remember that they are under copyright.

Articles on the Web Site:

1. Adua L, JS Sharp. Examining survey participation and response quality: The significance

of topic salience and incentives. Survey Methodology 2010; 36: 95-109.

2. The American Association for Public Opinion Research, 2011. Standard Definitions:

Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 7th

edition. AAPOR.

3. Ansolabehere S, BF Schaffner. Residential mobility, family structure, and the cell-only

population. Public Opinion Quarterly 2010; 74:244-259.

4. Axinn WG, D Ghimire, NE Williams. Collecting survey data during armed conflict.

Journal of Official Statistics 2012; 28:153-171.

5. Baker R, JM Brick, NA Bates, M Battaglia, MP Couper, JA Dever, KJ Gile, R

Tourangeau. Summary Report of the AAPOR Task Force on Non-probability Sampling.

Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 2013; 1:90-143.

a. Valliant R. Comment, 105-110.

b. Rivers D. Comment, 111-117.

c. Crawford CAG. Comment, 118-123.

d. Terhanian G., Comment, 124-129.

e. Langer G. Comment, 130-136.

f. Baker R, JM Brick, NA Bates, M Battaglia, MP Couper, JA Dever, KJ Gile, R

Tourangeau. Rejoinder, 137-143.

6. Barón JD, RV Breunig, D Cobb-Clark, T Gørgens, A Sarbayeva. Does the effect of

incentive payments on survey response rates differ by income support history? Journal of

Official Statistics 2009; 25:483-507.

7. Barton, AH. Asking the Embarrassing Question. The Public Opinion Quarterly 22: 67-

68, 1958.

8. Bates N, MH Mulry. Using a geographic segmentation to understand, predict, and plan

for Census and survey mail nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics 2011; 27: 601-618.

http://ccle.ucla.edu/

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

9. Bhopal, Raj & Liam Donaldson, White, European, Western, Caucasian, or What?

Inappropriate Labeling in Research on Race, Ethnicity, and Health,” American Journal of

Public Health 88(9):1303-1307, 1998.

10. Binson, D., J.A. Canchola, J.A. Catania, “Random Selection in a National Telephone

Survey: A Comparison of the Kish, Next-Birthday, and Last-Birthday Methods,” Journal

of Official Statistics 16(1):53-59, 2000.

11. Bischoping, K., J. Dykema, “Toward a Social Psychological Programme for Improving

Focus Group Methods of Developing Questionnaires,” Journal of Official Statistics

15(4):495-516, 1999.

12. Blair, E.A., G.K. Ganesh, “Characteristics of Interval-based Estimates of

Autobiographical Frequencies,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5:237-250, 1991.

13. Blumberg SJ, JV Luke, N Ganesh, ME Davern, MH Boudreaux. Wireless Substitution:

State-level estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010-2011. National

Health Statistics Reports 61; October 12, 2012.

14. Bourque, L.B. “Coding.” In M.S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, T.F. Liao, Editors, The Sage

Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Volume 1, Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage

Publications, 2003, pp. 132-136.

15. Bourque, L.B. “Coding Frame.” In M.S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, T.F. Liao, Editors, The

Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Volume 1, Thousand Oaks, Ca:

Sage Publications, 2003, pp. 136-137.

16. Bourque, L.B. “Cross-Sectional Design.” In M.S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, T.F. Liao,

Editors, The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Volume 1,

Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, 2003, pp. 229-230.

17. Bourque, L.B. “Self-Administered Questionnaire.” In M.S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, T.F.

Liao, Editors, The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Volume 3,

Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, 2003, pp. 1012-1013.

18. Bourque, L.B. “Transformations.” In M.S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, T.F. Liao, Editors,

The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Volume 3, Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, 2003, pp. 1137-1138.

19. Bradburn, NM, The Seventh Morris Hansen Lecture on “The Future of Federal Statistics

in the Information Age,” with commentary by TerriAnn Lowenthal, Journal of Official

Statistics 15(3):351-372, 1999.

20. Bradburn, N.M. “Understanding the Question-Answer Process,” Survey Methodology

30:5-15, 2004.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

21. Bradburn, N.M., L.J. Rips, S.K. Shevell, “Answering Autobiographical Questions: The

Impact of Memory and Inference on Surveys,” Science 236:157-161, 1987.

22. Brick, J.M., J. Waksberg, S. Keeter, “Using Data on Interruptions in Telephone Service

as Coverage Adjustments,” Survey Methodology 22(2):185-197, 1996.

23. Brick JM, PD Brick, S Dipko, S Presser, C Tucker, Y Yuan. Cell phone survey feasibility

in the U.S.: Sampling and calling cell numbers versus landline numbers. Public Opinion

Quarterly 2007; 71: 23-39.

24. Brick JM, WS Edwards, S Lee. Sampling telephone numbers and adults, interview

length, and weighting in the California Health Interview Survey cell phone pilot study.

Public Opinion Quarterly 2007; 71:793-813.

25. Brick JM, D Williams, JM Montaquila. Address-based sampling for subpopulation

surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2011; 75:409-428.

26. Caplow, T., H.M. Bahr, V.R.A. Call. “The Polls--Trends, The Middletown Replications:

75 Years of Change in Adolescent Attitudes, 1924-1999,” Public Opinion Quarterly

68:287-313, 2004.

27. Chang L, JA Krosnick. Comparing oral interviewing with self-administered computerized

questionnaires: An experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 2010; 74: 154-167.

28. Chang L, JA Krosnick. National surveys via rdd telephone interviewing versus the

internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion

Quarterly 2009; 73: 641-678.

29. Childs J, P Goerman. Bilingual questionnaire evaluation and development through mixed

pretesting methods: The case of the U.S. Census nonresponse followup instrument.

Journal of Official Statistics 2012; 26: 535-557.

30. Christian, L.M., D.A. Dillman. “The Influence of Graphical and Symbolic Language

Manipulations on Response to Self-Administered Questions,” Public Opinion Quarterly

68:57-80, 2004.

31. Conrad, FG, MF Schober. Promoting Uniform Question Understanding in Today’s and

Tomorrow’s Surveys, Journal of Official Statistics 21: 215-231, 2005.

32. Conrad FG, J Blair. Sources of error in cognitive interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly

2009; 73: 32-55.

33. Converse, Philip E. & Michael W. Traugott, “Assessing the Accuracy of Polls &

Surveys,” Science 234:1094-1098, November 28, 1986.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

34. Couper, M.P., “Survey Introductions and Data Quality,” Public Opinion Quarterly

61:317-338, 1997.

35. Couper, Mick P., Johnny Blair & Timothy Triplett, “A Comparison of Mail & E-mail for

a Survey of Employees in U.S. Statistical Agencies,” Journal of Official Statistics

15(1):39-56, 1999.

36. Couper, Mick P., “Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches,” Public Opinion

Quarterly 64:464-494, 2000.

37. Couper MP, C Kennedy, FG Conrad, R Tourangeau. Designing input fields for non-

narrative open-ended responses in web surveys. Journal of Official Statistics 2011; 27:65-

85.

38. Couper, M.P., R. Tourangeau. “Picture This! Exploring Visual Effects in Web Surveys,”

Public Opinion Quarterly 68:255-266, 2004.

39. Couper MP, E Singer, FG Conrad, RM Groves. Experimental studies of disclosure risk,

disclosure harm, topic sensitivity, and survey participation. Journal of Official Statistics

2010; 26:287-300.

40. Couper MP, MB Ofstedal, S Lee. Encouraging record use for financial asset questions in

a web survey. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 2013; 1:171-182.

41. Curtin, R, S Presser, E Singer. “Changes in Telephone Survey Nonresponse Over the Past

Quarter Century,” Public Opinion Quarterly 69:87-98, 2005.

42. de Leeuw, ED. “To Mix or Not to Mix Data Collection Modes in Surveys,” Journal of

Official Statistics 21: 233-255, 2005.

43. Dengler, R., H. Roberts, L. Rushton, “Lifestyle Surveys--The Complete Answer?”

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 51:46-51, 1997.

44. Dillman, DA, A Gertseva, T Mahon-Haft. “Achieving Usability in Establishment Surveys

Through the Application of Visual Design Principles,” Journal of Official Statistics 21:

183-214, 2005.

45. Driscoll J, N Lidow. Representative surveys in insecure environments: A case study of

Mogadishu, Somalia. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 2014; 2:78-95.

46. Durrant GB, RM Groves, L Staetsky, F Steele. Effects of interviewer attitudes and

behaviors on refusal in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2010; 74:1-36.

47. Dykema, Jennifer, Nora Cate Schaeffer. “Events, Instruments, and Reporting Errors,”

American Sociological Review 65:619-629, 2000.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

48. Elliott MN, WS Edwards, DJ Klein, A Heller. Differences by survey language and mode

among Chinese respondents to a CAHPS health plan survey. Public Opinion Quarterly

2012; 76:238-264.

49. Erosheva EA, TA White. Issues in survey measurement of chronic disability: An example

from the national long term care survey. Journal of Official Statistics 2010; 26:317-339.

50. Fitzgerald R, S Widdop, M Gray, D Collins. Identifying sources of error in cross-national

questionnaires: Application of an error source typology to cognitive interview data.

Journal of Official Statistics 2011;27:569-599

51. Frankenberg, E, NR Jones. “Self-Rated Health and Mortality: Does the Relationship

Extend to a Low Income Setting?” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45: 441-452,

2004.

52. Fricker, S, M Galesic, R Tourangeau, T Yan. “An Experimental Comparison of Web and

Telephone Surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly 69:370-392, 2005.

53. Fullilove, Mindy Thompson, “Comment: Abandoning 'Race' as a Variable in Public

Health Research--An Idea Whose Time Has Come,” American Journal of Public Health

88(9): 1297-1298, 1998.

54. Galesic M, M Bosnjak. Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of

response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 2009; 73: 349-360.

55. Ganz, P., Hays, R.D., Kaplan, R.M., & Litwin, M.S. Measuring health-related quality of

life and other outcomes, Chapter 11, pp. 307-341. In G.G. Kominski & T.H. Rice (eds),

Changing the U.S. Health Care System: key issues in health services policy and

management 4th

edition, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014.

56. Gardner, W., B.L. Wilcox, “Political Intervention in Scientific Peer Review,” American

Psychologist 48:972-983, 1993.

57. Gaziano, C. “Comparative Analysis of Within-Household Respondent Selection

Techniques,” Public Opinion Quarterly 69:124-157, 2005.

58. Groen JA. Sources of error in survey and administrative data: The importance of

reporting procedures. Journal of Official Statistics 2012; 28: 173-198.

59. Groves, R.M., M.P. Couper, “Contact-Level Influences on Cooperation in Face-to-Face

Surveys,” Journal of Official Statistics 12(1):63-83, 1996.

60. Groves RM, E Peytcheva. The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-

analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 2008; 72: 167-189.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

61. Iannacchione VG. Research Synthesis: The changing role of address-based sampling in

survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly 2011; 75:556-575.

62. ICPSR, Guidelines for Effective Data Management Plans, no date.

63. Israel GD. Effects of answer space size on responses to open-ended questions in mail

surveys. Journal of Official Statistics 2010; 26: 271-285.

64. Iverson J. Metadata-Driven Survey Design. IASSIST Quarterly, Summer 2009.

65. Keeter S, C Miller, A Kohut, RM Groves, S Presser. Consequences of reducing

nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 2000; 64:125-148.

66. Khanna D, E Krishnan, EM Dewitt, PP Khanna, B Spiegel, RD Hays. The future of

measuring patient-reported outcomes in rheumatology. Arthritis Care and Research

2011; 63:S486-S490.

67. Kornhauser, Arthur, and Paul B. Sheatsley, “Questionnaire Construction and Interview

Procedure,” Appendix B, in Claire Selltiz, Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Stuart W. Cook

(eds.), Research Methods in Social Relations, 3rd Edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

1976, pp. 541-573.

68. Krenzke T, L Li, K Rust. Evaluating within household selection rules under a multi-stage

design. Survey Methodology 2010; 36:111-119

69. Krosnick, Jon A., Allyson L. Holbrook, Matthew K. Berent, Richard T. Carson, W.

Michael Hanemann, Raymond J. Kopp, Robert Cameron Mitchell, Stanley Presser, Paul

A. Ruud, V. Kerry Smith, Windy R. Moody, Melanie C. Green, Michael Conaway, “The

Impact of ‘No Opinion’ Response Options on Data Quality, Non-Attitude Reduction or

an Invitation to Satisfice?” Public Opinion Quarterly 66:371-403, 2002.

70. Krosnick, Jon A., “Survey Research,” Annual Review of Psychology 50:537-67, 1999.

71. Krosnick JA, N Malhotra, U Mittal. Public misunderstanding of political facts: How

question wording affected estimates of partisan differences in birtherism. Public Opinion

Quarterly 2014; 78:147-165.

72. Lavin, Daniele, Douglas W. Maynard. “Standardization vs. Rapport: Respondent

Laughter and Interviewer Reaction During Telephone Surveys,” American Sociological

Review 66:453-479, 2001.

73. Lee S, HA Nguyen, M Jawad, J Kurata. Linguistic minorities in a health survey. Public

Opinion Quarterly 2008; 72:470-486.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

74. Lee S, N Schwarz. Question context and priming meaning of health: Effect on differences

in self-rated health between Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites. American Journal of

Public Health 2014; 104:179-185.

a. Kawada T. Question context, ethnic difference, and self-rated health. Letter to the

editor. American Journal of Public Health 2014; 104:e3.

b. Lee S, N Schwarz. Lee and Schwarz respond. American Journal of Public Health

2014; 104:e3-e4.

75. Lind LH, MF Schober, FG Conrad, H Reichert. Why do survey respondents disclose

more when computers ask the questions? Public Opinion Quarterly 2013; 77:888-935.

76. Link MW, JW Lai. Cell-phone-only households and problems of differential nonresponse

using an address-based sampling design. Public Opinion Quarterly 2011; 75:613-635.

77. Link MW, J Murphy, MF Schober, TD Buskirk, JH Childs, CL Tesfaye. Mobile

Technologies for Conducting, Augmenting and Potentially Replacing Surveys: Report of

the AAPOR Task Force on Emerging Technologies in Public Opinion Research.

American Association for Public Opinion Research, April 25, 2014.

78. Lynn P. Alternative sequential mixed-mode designs: Effects on attrition rates, attrition

bias, and costs. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 2013; 1:183-205.

79. Macera, Caroline, Sandra Ham, Deborah A. Jones, Dexter Kinsey, Barbara Ainsworth,

Linda J. Neff. “Limitations on the Use of a Single Screening Question to Measure

Sedentary Behavior,” American Journal of Public Health 91:2010-2012, 2001.

80. Martin, E., T.J. DeMaio, P.C. Campanelli, “Context Effects for Census Measures of Race

and Hispanic Origin,” Public Opinion Quarterly 54:551-566, 1990.

81. Maxwell SE, K Kelley, JR Rausch. Sample size planning for statistical power and

accuracy in parameter estimation. Annual Review of Psychology 2008; 59:537-63/

82. McGonagle KA, RF Schoeni, MP Couper. The Effects of a Between-Wave Incentive

Experiment on Contact Update and Production Outcomes in a Panel Study. Journal of

Official Statistics 2013; 29(2):261-276.

83. Messer BL, DA Dillman. Surveying the general public over the internet using address-

based sampling and mail contact procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly 2011; 75:429-

457.

84. Millar MM, DA Dillman. Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys. Public

Opinion Quarterly 2011; 75:249-269.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

85. Mohorko A, de Leeuw E, Hox J. Coverage bias in European telephone surveys:

Developments of landline and mobile phone coverage across countries and over time.

Survey Methods: Insights from the Field 2013; Retrieved from

http://surveyinsights.org/?p=828.

86. Mohorko A, de Leeuw E, Hox J. Internet coverage and coverage bias in Europe:

Developments across countries and over time. Journal of Official Statistics 2013; 29:609-

622.

87. Montaquila JM, JM Brick, D Williams, K Kim, D Han. A study of two-phase mail survey

data collection methods. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 2013; 1:66-87.

88. Morrison RL, DA Dillman, LM Christian. Questionnaire design guidelines for

establishment surveys. Journal of Official Statistics 2010; 26:43-85.

89. Olsen, Jørn on behalf of the IEA European Questionnaire Group, “Epidemiology

Deserves Better Questionnaires,” International Journal of Epidemiology 27:935, 1998.

90. Olson K, RM Groves. An examination of within-person variation in response propensity

over the data collection field period. Journal of Official Statistics 2012; 28:29-51.

91. Peter J, PM Valkenburg. The impact of “forgiving” introductions on the reporting of

sensitive behavior in surveys: The role of social desirability response style and

developmental status. Public Opinion Quarterly 2011; 75:779-787.

92. Petrolia DR, S Bhattacharjee. Revisiting incentive effects: Evidence from a random-

sample mail survey on consumer preferences for fuel ethanol. Public Opinion Quarterly

2009; 73: 537-550.

93. Pew Research Center. Assessing the Representativeness of Public Opinion Surveys.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012. Author.

94. Peytchev A. Survey breakoff. Public Opinion Quarterly 2009; 73: 74-97.

95. Peytchev A. Breakoff and unit nonresponse across web surveys. Journal of Official

Statistics 2011; 27:33-47.

96. Peytchev A, RK Baxter, LR Carley-Baxter. Not all survey effort is equal: Reduction of

nonresponse bias and nonresponse error. Public Opinion Quarterly 2009; 73: 785-806.

97. Preisendörfer, F Wolter. Who is telling the truth: A validation study on determinants of

respons behavior in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2014; 78:126-146

http://surveyinsights.org/?p=828

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

98. Presser, S., M.P. Couper, J.T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, J.M. Rothgeb, E. Singer,

“Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions,” Public Opinion Quarterly

68:109-130, 2004.

99. Reline C. Clarifying categorical concepts in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly

2013; 77:89-105.

100. Rizzo, L., J. M. Brick, I. Park, “A Minimally Intrusive Method for Sampling

Persons in Random Digit Dial Surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly 68:267-274, 2004.

101. Sayles H, RF Belli, E Serrano. Interviewer variance between event history

calendar and conventional questionnaire interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly 2010; 74:

140-153.

102. Scheuren F. What is a Survey?: American Statistical Association; 2004.

103. Schräpler JP, J Schupp, GG Wagner. Changing from PAPI to CAPI: Introducing

CAPI in a longitudinal study. Journal of official Statistics 2010; 233-269.

104. Shaeffer, EM, JA Krosnick. GE Langer, DM Merkle. “Comparing the Quality of

Data Obtained by Minimally Balanced and Fully Balanced Attitude Questions,” Public

Opinion Quarterly 69: 417-428, 2005.

105. Sigelman, L, S.A. Tuck, JK Martin. “What’s In a Name? Preference for ‘Black’

Versus ‘African-American’ Among Americans of African Descent,” Public Opinion

Quarterly 69: 429-438, 2005.

106. Singer E, J Van Hoewyk, MP Maher. Experiments with incentives in telephone

surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2000; 64:171-188.

107. Singer E, editor. Special Issue: Nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public

Opinion Quarterly 2006; 70 (5).

a. Groves RM. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys, 646-

675.

b. Abraham KG, A Maitland, SM Bianchi. Nonresponse in the American time use

survey: Who is missing from the data and how much does it matter? 676-703.

c. Johnson TP, YI Cho, RT Campbell, AL Holbrook. Using community-level

correlates to evaluate nonresponse. 704-719.

d. Groves RM, MP Couper, S Presser, E Singer, R Tourangeau, GP Acosta, L

Nelson. Experiments in producing nonresponse bias. 720-736.

e. Olson K. Survey participation, nonresponse bias, measurement error bias and total

bias. 737-758.

f. Keeter S, C Kennedy, M Dimock, J Best, P Craighill. Gauging the impact of

growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. 759-

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

779.

g. Brick JM, S Dipko, S Presser, C Tucker, Y Yuan. Nonresponse bias in a dual

frame sample of cell and landline numbers. 780-793.

h. Link MW, AH Mokdad, D Kulp, A Hyon. Has the national do not call registry

helped or hurt state-level response rates? A time series analysis. 794-809.

108. Sikkel d, R Steenbergen, S Gras. Clicking vs. dragging: Different uses of the

mouse and their implications for online surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2014; 78:177-

190.

109. Skalland B, M Khare. Geographic inaccuracy of cell phone samples and the effect

on telephone survey bias, variance, and cost. Journal of Survey Statistics and

Methodology 2013; 1:45-65.

110. Small ML. How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly

growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology 2011; 37:57-86.

111. Smyth JD, DA Dillman, LM Christian, M McBride. Open-ended questions in web

surveys: Can increasing the size of answer boxes and providing extra verbal instructions

improve response quality? Public Opinion Quarterly 2009: 73: 325-337.

112. Stevens, Gillian & David L. Featherman, “A Revised Socioeconomic Index of

Occupational Status,” Social Science Research 10:364-395, 1981.

113. Stevens, Gillian & Joo Hyun Cho, “Socioeconomic Indexes and the New 1980

Census Occupational Classification Scheme,” Social Science Research 14:142-168, 1985.

114. Suchman, L., B. Jordan, “Interactional Troubles in Face-to-Face Survey

Interviews,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 85(409):232-253, 1990, with

Commentary by Stephen E. Fienberg, Mary Grace Kovar and Patricia Royston, Emanuel

A. Schegloff, and Roger Tourangeau, and Rejoinder by Lucy Suchman and Brigitte

Jordan.

115. Tambor, E.S., G.A. Chase, R.R. Faden et al, “Improving Response Rates Through

Incentive and Follow-up: The Effect on a Survey of Physicians' Knowledge of Genetics,”

American Journal of Public Health 83:1599-1603, 1993.

116. Thompson KJ, BE Oliver. Response rates in business surveys: Going beyond the

usual performance measure. Journal of Official Statistics 2012;28:221-237.

117. Todorov, A., C. Kirchner, Bias in Proxies’ Reports of Disability: Data from the

National Health Interview Survey on Disability, American Journal of Public Health

90(8):1248-1253, 2000.

118. Toepoel V, M Das, A van Soest. Design of web questionnaires: The effect of

layout in rating scales. Journal of Official Statistics 2009; 25:509-528.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

119. Tourangeau R, T Yan. Sensitive Questions in Surveys, Psychological Bulletin

2007; 133(5):859-883.Tourangeau R, MP Couper, F Conrad. Color, labels, and

interpretive heuristics for response scales. Public Opinion Quarterly 2007; 71: 91-112.

120. Tourangeau R, RM Groves, C Kennedy, T Yan. The presentation of a web survey,

nonresponse and measurement error among members of web panel. Journal of Official

Statistics 2009; 25:299-321.

121. Tourangeau R, MP Couper, FG Conrad. “Up means good” The effect of screen

position on evaluative ratings in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2013; 77:69-88.

122. Tourangeau R, FG Conrad, MP Couper, C Ye. The effects of providing examples

in survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly 2014; 78:100-125.

123. Tucker, C., J. M. Brick, B. Meekins, Household Telephone Service and Usage

Patterns in the United States in 2004: Implications for Telephone Samples. Public

Opinion Quarterly 2007; 71: 3-22.

124. van Tuinen HK. Innovative statistics to improve our notion of reality. Journal of

Official Statistics 2009; 25: 431-465.

125. Vercruyssen A, B van de Putte, IAL Stoop. Are they really too busy for survey

participation? The evolution of busyness and busyness claims in Flanders. Journal of


126. Wang, J.J., P. Mitchell, W. Smith, “Vision and Low Self-Rated Health: The Blue

Mountains Eye Study,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 41(1):49-54,

2000.

127. Weinberg DH. Management challenges of the 2010 U.S. Census. Journal of


128. Willis, G.B., P. Royston, D. Bercini, “The Use of Verbal Report Methods in the

Development and Testing of Survey Questionnaires,” Applied Cognitive Psychology

5:251-267, 1991.

129. Yan T, R Curtin, M Jans. Trends in income nonresponse over two decades.

Journal of Official Statistics 2010; 26: 145-164.

130. Ye C, J Fulton, R Tourangeau. Research Synthesis: More positive or more

extreme? A meta-analysis of mode differences in response choice. Public Opinion

Quarterly 2011; 75:349-365.

131. Yeager DS, JA Krosnick, L Chang, HS Javitz, MS Levendusky, A Simpser, R

Wang. Comparing the accuracy of rdd telephone surveys and internet surveys conducted

with probability and non-probability samples.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

132. Yeager DS, JA Krosnick. Does mentioning “some people” and “other people” in

an opinion question improve measurement quality? Public Opinion Quarterly 2012; 131-

141.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

Course Materials Available on Course Web Site

Information about Institutional Review Boards

1. OPRR Reports, Protection of Human Subjects, Title 45, Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 46, Revised June 18, 1991, Reprinted March 15, 1994.

2. Siegel, Judith, Linda Bourque, Example of Submission, Questions Raised by the

IRB and Responses, 2002.

Materials developed at the UCLA Institute for Social Science Research

Engelhart, Rita, “The Kish Selection Procedure”

Codebooks

Example of a Codebook, December 1, 2002.

Also on earthquake web site:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/issr/da/earthquake/erthqkstudies2.index.htm

The construction of scales and indices

1. Inkelas, Moira, Laurie A. Loux, Linda B. Bourque, Mel Widawski, Loc H.

Nguyen, “Dimensionality and Reliability of the Civilian Mississippi Scale for

PTSD in a Postearthquake Community,” Journal of Traumatic Stress 13, 149-167,

2000.

2. McKennel, A.C., Chapter 7, “Attitude Scale Construction,” in C.A.

O'Muircheataugh & C. Payne (eds.), Exploring Data Structures, Vol. 1, The

Analysis of Survey Data, John Wiley & Sons, 1977, pp. 183-220.

3. Bourque, L.B, H. Shen. “Psychometric Characteristics of Spanish and English

Versions of the Civilian Mississippi Scale,” Journal of Traumatic Stress 2005;

18:719-728.


CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

Materials related to the administration and analysis of data collected with

questionnaires

1. Questionnaire for Assignment #1

2. Record for Non-respondents

3. Enlistment Letters

4. Call Record

5. Formatting Questionnaires

6. Income Questions

7. Calculating Response Rates

8. Examples of Grids

9. Codebook and Specifications

10. Constructing a Code Frame

11. Scale Construction Example

Questionnaires, Specifications and Codebooks are also available at:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/issr/da/earthquake/erthqkstudies2.index.htm and

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/sciprc/3_projects.htm under Disasters.

The books and articles listed above will give you a background on and an introduction to

surveys and questionnaires. Each book has different strengths and weaknesses. They should be

considered resources. The required books are available in the Health Sciences Bookstore. The

Recommended books are available in the various UCLA libraries. The decision as to which

books you buy and the order in which you read them is yours. I recommend reading all the

material you buy or check out as soon as possible. It will then be available to you as a resource

as we go through the quarter.

The articles on the web site provide you with examples of some of the journals where

research about questionnaires, their administration, and surveys can be found. They also provide

information about some of the “cutting-edge” issues of concern. Currently, a major focus is on

response rates, particularly for telephone interviews, and web-based administration of

questionnaires.


http://www.ph.ucla.edu/sciprc/3_projects.htm

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING

Subjects and Site:

Each student selects a topic on which s/he wants to design questionnaires, and the site(s)

at which s/he will conduct the interviews needed in pretesting the questionnaire. You are free to

select any site and any sample of persons with the following exceptions:

1. All respondents MUST be at least 18 years of age.

2. DO NOT collect information from respondents such as name, address, and phone

number which would enable them to be identified.

3. DO NOT interview persons in the Center for Health Sciences or persons

connected with the Center for Health Sciences.

4. DO NOT interview your fellow students, your roommates, your friends, your

relatives, or persons with whom you interact within another role (e.g., employees,

patients).

5. DO NOT ask about topics which would require the administration of a formal

Human Consent Form.

Should you violate these requirements, the data collected will not fulfill the requirements

for an assignment in this class. Only interviews, not self-administered questionnaires, can be

used for pretesting the questionnaires developed in this class.

Course Objectives and Assignments:

The objective of this course is to learn how to design respectable questionnaires.

Research data can be collected in many ways. Questionnaires represent one way data is

collected. Although usually found in descriptive, cross-sectional surveys, questionnaires can be

used in almost any kind of research setting. Questionnaires can be administered in different ways

and the questions within a particular questionnaire can assume an infinite variety of formats.

As is true of any research endeavor, there are no absolutes in questionnaire design. There

are no recipes and no cookbooks. The context of the research problem you set for yourself will

determine the variety of questionnaire strategies that are appropriate in trying to reach your

research objective; the context will not tell you the absolutely “right” way to do it.

The final “product” for the quarter is a questionnaire designed in segments and pretested

at least three times. The questionnaire will be designed to collect data to test a research objective

specified by you during the second week of the quarter. The final version of the questionnaire is

due Wednesday, December 17th

at 5:00 PM. All assignments must be typed; handwritten

materials are not accepted. Every version of your questionnaire must be typed, but final versions

should be as close to “picture-ready” copy as you can manage. For Assignment 6, due on

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

December 17th

, you will provide the final copy of your questionnaire, a full copy of

Interviewer/Administrator Specifications, a Codebook and/or coding instructions, a summary of

data collected in your last pretest, a tentative protocol that could be used to analyze data collected

with your questionnaire, and what, if anything, further you would like to do if time allowed.

The following six assignments will move you toward the final product.

ASSIGNMENTS

Assignment 1: Practice Interviewing (5% of Final Grade) Due October 13

This assignment is designed to expose you to the process of interviewing. Questionnaires

will be handed out on the first day of class (October 6). You are to conduct 9 interviews. On

October 13, turn in both the completed interviews and a brief write-up describing where you

went, what happened and a brief description of the data you collected. These materials are also

on the course web site.

In selecting respondents, go to a central public location such as a shopping area, the

beach, or a park. In conducting your interviews, try to obtain a range of ages, sexes, and ethnic

groups. You will be given identification letters to carry in case anybody asks who you are.

DO NOT INTERVIEW ON PRIVATE PROPERTY UNLESS YOU HAVE PERMISSION.

THIS AFFECTS MANY SHOPPING CENTERS.

Keep track of the characteristics of refusals on the “Record for Non-respondents.” A

refusal is a person you approach for an interview who turns you down.

Assignment 2: Statement of Your Research Question (5% of Final Grade)

Due October 15

Questionnaires are designed to get data that can be used to answer one or more research

questions. To help you get started, state a research question. Remember it should be relevant to

the interviewing sites available to this class. Is your research question, as written, testable?

What concepts are included in or implied by your question? Can your concepts be

operationalized into working definitions and variables for which a questionnaire is a viable data

collection procedure?

Assignment 3: Completion of Human Subjects Protection Certification (5% of final

grade) Due October 29

All UCLA faculty, staff, students and administrators who conduct research with human

subjects are required to complete the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI)

Training Program prior to conducting research. This is required for both funded and unfunded

research. For Assignment 3, complete the CITI Training Program and turn in a copy of the

certificate that documents that you completed the training on October 29.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

Some of you may already have completed CITI training as part of a job or other activity at

UCLA. If you have completed training, you do not have to redo it. Please turn in a copy of your

certificate on October 29.

For those who have not completed training, go to the main web site for the Human

Research Protection Program at http://ohrpp.research.ucla.edu/. Click on “Education and

Training” at http://ohrpp.research.ucla.edu/pages/certification. Read through the section on

Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. You will be completing the training program for

Social and Behavioral researchers and staff. If, in fact, you were submitting an application to one

of the Institutional Review Boards, your application would go to the South General Campus IRB.

I recommend that you read through the questions and answers at “Frequently Asked

Questions and Answers” at http://ohrpp.research.ucla.edu/faq/one-faq?faq_id=7602. These give

you information about the certification process. Then click on “Collaborative Institutional

Training Initiative” at https://www.citiprogram.org/default.asp to start the training program.

After you are finished, you can click on http://www.citiprogram.org to get a copy of your

certificate.

Assignment 4: “Mini-Questionnaire” #1. (20% of Final Grade) Due November 5

Part 1

Prepare and test “Mini-Questionnaire” #1. This represents your first attempt at designing

a questionnaire to test your “Research Question.” The substantive content of the questionnaire

should focus on current status, behaviors or knowledge. You can choose any topic that interests

you, but since our focus is on “health,” you may want to consider asking about: 1) Current acute

and chronic diseases, accidents, injuries, disabilities, and impairments; and 2) Knowledge and

use of health services.

In addition to substantive content, all questionnaires must collect some demographic

information on such things as:

1. Respondent age

2. Respondent education

3. Individual, family or household income

4. Occupation

5. Respondent marital status

There is no limit to the number of questions you may include. However, you must

provide a minimum of 6 questions in addition to the demographic questions discussed above. I

expect your questionnaire to include a mixture of open-ended and closed-ended questions.

Open-ended questions are particularly useful when you are in the process of exploring an area of

research or in the initial stages of designing a questionnaire.

In preparing the questions in your questionnaire, keep in mind the problems of survey

research design which have been discussed in class and in the readings. Pay particular attention

to the following:

http://ohrpp.research.ucla.edu/

http://ohrpp.research.ucla.edu/pages/certification

http://ohrpp.research.ucla.edu/faq/one-faq?faq_id=7602

https://www.citiprogram.org/default.asp

http://www.citiprogram.org/

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

1. Respondent frame of reference--will it be the same as yours?

2. Level of concreteness/abstraction.

3. Question referent--is it clear, and is it what you intend?

4. Tone of question--will it stimulate yea-saying? Or nay-saying?

5. Balance--within the question and across the set of questions.

6. Problems of bias induced by wording--watch out for leading, loaded terms, etc.

7. Screening questions to reduce noise due to non-attitudes.

Indicate explicitly the format of the questions. How will it look? Present the questions in

the order you want them to appear in the questionnaire. Pay particular attention to the following:

1. Problems of preservation due to fatigue.

2. Problems of bias induced by contamination of responses due to ordering of

questions.

3. Problems of threatening material/invasion of privacy.

4. Skip patterns to tailor questionnaire for various respondent types.

In sum, your questionnaire should look as much as possible like a finished product, ready

to be fielded or at least pre-tested.

Part 2

In addition to your questionnaire you must provide a justification for each question. This

is the beginning of writing Specifications. For each question or set of related questions there

should be a brief statement as to why the question is included/necessary, and the rationale behind

the format selected. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SAY “IT'S SELF-EVIDENT.” It is

NEVER self-evident to someone else--like me! Specifications should also include the research

question being tested and information about how your sample was selected and from where.

Part 3

Test your questionnaire by interviewing a convenience sample of at least five

respondents.

On November 5, turn in:

1. All the completed interviews you did.

2. One copy of your specifications for me.

3. One copy of the blank questionnaire for me.

4. Fifteen copies of the blank questionnaire; these are to share with your classmates.

5. A brief report (5-7 typed pages) describing the instrument you constructed, the

data collected with it, the respondents from whom the data was collected, what

you think worked well and what you think did not, and how you would change it.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

Assignment 5: “Mini-Questionnaire” #2. (25% of Final Grade) Due November 26

Revise the questionnaire you designed in Assignment 4 in accordance with your accrued

wisdom and the succinct observations from me and your classmates.

Add a new set of questions that collects at least one of the following: sensitive behaviors,

retrospective data, or attitudes and opinions. For example, you might design questions that will

elicit information about substance abuse (e.g., use of alcohol), the use of non-traditional health

practices (e.g., faith healers, curanderos, over-the-counter drugs, other people's drugs, etc.),

threatening behaviors (e.g., abortion, etc.). Retrospective data might be collected about past

health care experienced by the respondent over his/her lifetime. Finally, you might find out the

respondents' opinions of their current or past health care. If you have a good reason, you could

adopt or adapt sets of questions from other studies if they help you get to your objective.

Explicitly indicate the format of the questions. Will there be a checklist? How should it

look if presented to the respondent? Do you need a card to cue the respondent? What should be

on the card? Are other visual aids needed?

Start designing a codebook that can be used with your questionnaire. The codebook

should include information on how verbal answers are converted to numbers, where the variables

are located in the data set, and the names of the variables in the data set. I recommend using

your questionnaire as the basis for your codebook.

Whenever you write a question, you should have in mind the probable responses--if you

cannot think of the responses, then you have not thought about the question enough!! The

process of setting up categories for expected (and finally actual) responses is called code

construction. Closed-ended, pre-coded questions have already had codes constructed for them;

the respondent is presented with a specified set of alternatives which are the codes used later in

data analysis. The only additional coding problem presented by pre-codes is how to handle

residuals. For the code construction assignment, you must consider each of your pre-coded

questions, assign numbers to the alternatives following the procedures outlined in class

discussions and readings, and solve the residual problem.

For open-ended questions, you have to consider all possible responses and list these along

with code numbers. Include instructions for the coder to follow regarding how many responses

are to be coded, any precedence rules to follow and any other problems you think might arise.

Remember in this case also to provide a way of handling residual categories.

Remember to include codes for the required questions on age, education, income and

marital status. Do not attempt to set up a code for occupation; do write a paragraph outlining

your thoughts about how one would go about coding occupational data.

You do not have to write specifications for this assignment. You may want to start

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

revising your old ones and writing new ones in anticipation of Assignment 5.

Test your questionnaire by interviewing at least five respondents.

On November 26, turn in:

1. A report (7-10 typed pages) describing the development of the instrument--why

items were selected, how and why they were revised; the data collected with this

instrument; the sample of respondents from whom the data were collected.

2. Sixteen copies of the blank questionnaire; one for me and 15 to share with your

classmates.

3. The codebook.

Assignment 6: Your Magnum Opus! (40% of the final grade) Due December 17 by 5:00 PM

This is the culmination of all your work! Revise your earlier questionnaires consistent

with your vastly increased wisdom. Remember that you should have a “final product” that is as

close to “picture-ready copy” as you can manage. This questionnaire should include variable

names for coding. Turned in with the questionnaire are a final set of Specifications and a final

Codebook, along with a write-up that summarizes your pretest interviews of this version of the

questionnaire with 8-10 respondents, a proposed analysis plan, and discussion of any further

changes that might be considered were you to actually use this instrument in a study.

On December 17, turn in:

1. A 7-10 page report that summarizes your pretest interviews, a proposed analysis

plan, and a discussion of any further changes that should be considered were you

to actually use this instrument in a study.

2. One blank questionnaire.

3. One set of final specifications.

4. One final codebook.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

GENERAL STATEMENTS ON GRADING AND

PRESENTATION OF ASSIGNMENTS

When you enter M218, it is assumed that you will exit with a grade of “B.” A “B” is a

good, respectable grade. I write lots of letters of recommendation for people who get “B’s” in

M218. An “A” grade is earned by doing a really exceptional job. If you end up with a “C”

grade, it is probably because you did not make a serious effort in this class: you did not do the

reading, you never came to class, you left all the assignments for the night before, etc. In other

words, it is hard to get a “C” in this class, BUT if that is what you earn, then that is what you will

get.

It is expected that all assignments will be turned in on the date due. There are no

extensions. Incompletes are not given in this course.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

CLASS SCHEDULE

WEEK/DATE, ASSIGNMENTS TOPIC, RELEVANT READINGS

WEEK 1: October 6 & 8 STARTING A RESEARCH STUDY

1. Overview of M 218

2. Research Questions

3. Hypotheses, Concepts, and Working Definitions

4. Variables: Independent, dependent, control

5. Levels of Measurement

Relevant Readings: Aday, Chapters 1-5; Bourque &

Fielder, Chapter 1.

WEEK 2: October 13 CONTEXT FOR & TYPES OF QUESTIONNAIRES

ASSIGNMENT 1 DUE 1. Data Collection Options

2. Administrative Types

3. Surveys & Cross Sectional Studies

4. Question Types: Open/Closed

5. Information Obtainable by Questionnaire:

Facts, Behaviors, Attitudes

Relevant Readings: Aday, Chapters 1-5; Bourque &

Fielder, Chapter 1; Bourque in Lewis Beck, Bryman, Liao,

pp. 229-230; Curtin, Presser, Singer; Fricker et al.; Chang,

Krosnick, 2009, 2010; Krosnick, 1999.

October 15 MANAGING DATA USING AVAILABLE SOFTWARE

ASSIGNMENT 2 DUE Elizabeth Stephenson, Director,

UCLA Social Science Archive

Relevant Readings: Iverson, J. Metadata-Driven Survey

Design, IASSIST Quarterly, Summer 2009.

ICPSR, Guidelines for Effective Data Management Plans,

No date.

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/deposit/guide

/index.html

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/deposit/guide/index.html

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/deposit/guide/index.html

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

WEEK 3: October 20 HUMAN SUBJECTS PROTECTION AND FORMS

http://ohrpp.research.ucla.edu. See information on pages

15-16.

Relevant Readings: OPRS web site and materials on class

web site.

“BEGINNINGS” AND “ENDS” OF QUESTIONNAIRES

1. Call Record Sheet

2. Enlistment Letters

3. Questions to Interviewer

4. Selecting the respondent

Relevant Readings: Bourque & Fielder, Chapter 6; Binson;

Couper, 1997; Gaziano; Engelhart; Krenzke, Li, Rust;

examples on websites.

October 22 QUESTIONS TO OBTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC

INFORMATION

1. Why?

2. How much?

3. How?

4. Location?

5. Household Roster

6. Selecting Questions from Other Studies

Relevant Readings: Aday, Chapters 8, 10; Bourque &

Fielder, Chapters 2, 3; Bhopal, Donaldson; Fullilove;

Kornhauser, Sheatsley; Sigelman, Tuck, Martin; Martin et

al, 1990; Yan, Curtin, Jans; examples on course web site

and earthquake web site.

http://ohrpp.research.ucla.edu/

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

WEEK 4: October 27 & 29 QUESTIONNAIRE SPECIFICATIONS

1. Functions

2. Format

Relevant Readings: Bourque and Fielder, Chapter 3;

Kornhauser, Sheatsley.

October 29 ASSIGNMENT 3 DUE

WEEK 5 November 3 ASCERTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT

RETROSPECTIVE BEHAVIORS

1. Grids

2. Histories

3. Aided Recall

4. Use of Records

Relevant Readings: Aday, Chapter 11; Blair, Ganesh;

Bradburn et al, 1987; Bradburn, 2004; Presser et al, 2004.

November 5 MEASURING ATTITUDES

ASSIGNMENT 4 DUE 1. Beginning

2. Developing Composite Measures

3. Use of Existent Measures

4. Adopting and Adapting

Relevant Readings: Aday, Chapter 11; Inkelas et al;

McKennel; Bourque, Shen; Krosnick et al, 2002; Shaeffer

et al, 2005; Yeager, Krosnick, 2012; examples on websites.

WEEK 6: November 10 & 12 WORKSHOP ON ASSIGNMENT 4

WEEK 7: November 17 & 19 CODEBOOKS AND CODE CONSTRUCTION

1. Objective

2. Types

3. Content Analysis

Relevant Readings: Aday, Chapter 13; Bourque & Fielder,

Chapter 3; Bourque and Clark; Bourque, Coding, Code

Frames; examples on web sites.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

WEEK 8: November 24 CONDUCTING THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH

INTERVIEW SURVEY (CHIS)

Questionnaire Design, Sampling and Contracting

Matt Jans, Ph.D., Survey Methodologist & Data Quality

and Survey Methodology Manager, CHIS

November 26 MEASURING HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE

ASSIGNMENT 5 DUE Ronald Hays, Ph.D., Professor, General Internal Medicine,

and Health Policy and Management

Relevant Readings: Ganz, P., Hays, R.D., Kaplan, R.M., &

Litwin, M.S. Measuring health-related quality of life and

other outcomes, pp. 307-341. In G.G. Kominski & T.H.

Rice (eds), Changing the U.S. Health Care System 4th

edition, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014.

Khanna D, E Krishnan, EM Dewitt, PP Khanna, B Spiegel,

RD Hays. The future of measuring patient-reported

outcomes in rheumatology. Arthritis Care and Research

2011; 63:S486-S490.

WEEK 9: December 1 & 3 WORKSHOP ON ASSIGNMENT 5

WEEK 10: December 8 EFFECTS OF INCENTIVES & LANGUAGE

Relevant Readings: Adua, Sharp 2010; Baron et al 2009;

Petrolia, Bhattacharjee 2009; Tambor et al 1993; Lee et al

2008; Elliott et al 2012; McGonagle, Schoeni, Couper

2013.

SENSITIVE BEHAVIORS Relevant Readings:

Tourangeau, Yan 2007; Peter, Valkenburg 2011; Barton

1958; Couper et al 2010.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

WEEK 10, continued

December 10 ADMINISTRATION OF SURVEYS, DATA

PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE

DATA

1. Raw Data vs. Processed File

2. Coding

3. Data Entry/Keypunching

4. Cleaning

5. Raw vs. Actual Variables

6. Data Quality, Missing Data, etc.

Relevant Readings: Aday, Chapters 13, 14, 15; Bourque &

Fielder, Chapter 6.

FORMATTING QUESTIONNAIRES

1. Order/Location

2. Grouping

3. Spacing

Relevant Readings: Aday, Chapter 12; Bourque & Fielder,

Chapter 4; Couper, Tourangeau, Kenyon, 2004; Krosnick

1999; Shaeffer et al; Dillman et al 2005; Christian, Dillman

2004; Macera et al 2004; Morrison et al 2010; Smythe,

Dilman; Couper et al 2004, 2011; Toepoel et al 2009;

Tourgeau et al 2007, 2009.

WEEK 11: December 17 ASSIGNMENT 6 DUE AT 5:00 PM

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

OBJECTIVES ASPH COMPENTENCIES RELEVANT MATERIALS

Upon completing this course…

Know how to design, develop,

administer and document

questionnaires.

E.2. Identify the causes of

social and behavioral factors

that affect health of

individuals and populations.

E.5. Describe steps and

procedures for the planning,

implementation and evaluation

of public health programs,

policies and interventions.

E.6. Describe the role of social

and community factors in both

the onset and solution of

public health problems.

E.8. Apply evidence-based

approaches in the development

and evaluation of social and

behavioral science

interventions.

C.1. Identify key sources of

data for epidemiologic

purposes.

C.10. Evaluate the strengths

and limitations of

epidemiologic reports.

Communication and

Informatics: The ability to

collect, manage and organize

data to produce information

and meaning that is exchanged

by use of signs and symbols;

to gather process, and present

information to different

audiences in-person, through

information technologies, or

through media channels; and

to strategically design the

information and knowledge

exchange process to achieve

specific objectives.

Program Planning: The ability

All textbooks, readings,

lectures and assignments.

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

to plan for the design,

development, implementation,

and evaluation of strategies to

improve individual and

community health.

Know how to write

questionnaire specifications.

K.3. Explain how the findings

of a program evaluation can be

used.

K.7. Differentiate among

goals, measurable objectives,

related activities, and expected

outcomes for a public health

program.

Communication and















Assignments 4 and 6

Lectures on 10/27 & 10/29

Know how to develop

codebooks.

Communication and















Assignments 5 and 6

Lectures on 11/17 & 11/19

CHS / Epi M218

Fall 2014

Know how to submit research

proposals for review by

Institutional Review Boards.

E.9. Apply ethical principles

to public health program

planning, implementation and

evaluation.

J.2. Apply basic principles of

ethical analysis (e.g. the Public

Health Code of Ethics, human

rights framework, other moral

theories) to issues of public

health practice and policy.

Assignment 3

Lecture on 10/20

COMMUNITY HEALTH SCIENCES/EPIDEMIOLOGY M218 … · CHS / Epi M218 Fall 2014 ... 31. Conrad, FG, ......

Documents

Transcript of COMMUNITY HEALTH SCIENCES/EPIDEMIOLOGY M218 … · CHS / Epi M218 Fall 2014 ... 31. Conrad, FG, ......