Suchergebnisse

Abstract
With the ubiquity of smartphones, it is possible to collect self-reports as well as to passively measure behaviors and states (e.g., locations, movement, activity, and sleep) with native sensors and the smartphone's operating system, both on a single device that usually accompanies participants throughout the day. This research synthesis brings structure to a rapidly expanding body of literature on the combined collection of self-reports and passive measurement using smartphones, pointing out how and why researchers have combined these two types of data and where more work is needed. We distinguish between five reasons why researchers might want to integrate the two data sources and how this has been helpful: (1) verification, for example, confirming start and end of passively detected trips, (2) contextualization, for example, asking about the purpose of a passively detected trip, (3) quantifying relationships, for example, quantifying the association between self-reported stress and passively measured sleep duration, (4) building composite measures, for example, measuring components of stress that participants are aware of through self-reports and those they are not through passively measured speech attributes, and (5) triggering measurement, for example, asking survey questions contingent on certain passively measured events or participant locations. We discuss challenges of collecting self-reports and passively tracking participants' behavior with smartphones from the perspective of representation (e.g., who owns a smartphone and who is willing to share their data), measurement (e.g., different levels of temporal granularity in self-reports and passively collected data), and privacy considerations (e.g., the greater intrusiveness of passive measurement than self-reports). While we see real potential in this approach it is not yet clear if its impact will be incremental or will revolutionize the field.

Contrasts two interviewing techniques that reflect different tacit assumptions about communication. With strictly standardized interviewing, interviewers leave the interpretation of questions up to respondents (Rs). With conversational interviewing, interviewers say whatever it takes to make sure that questions are interpreted uniformly & as intended. A US national sample of 227 adults were interviewed twice regarding housing & recent purchases. The first interview was strictly standardized; the second was standardized for 50% of Rs & conversational for the others. Rs in a second conversational interview answered differently than in the first interview more often & for reasons that conformed more closely to official definitions than dis Rs in a second standardized interview. This suggests that conversational interviewing improved comprehension, although it also lengthened interviews. It is concluded that Rs in a national sample may misinterpret certain questions frequently enough to compromise data quality, & such misunderstandings cannot easily be eliminated by pretesting & rewording questions alone. More standardized comprehension may require less standardized interviewer behavior. 1 Table, 2 Appendixes, 36 References. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract
Audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) has been widely used to collect sensitive information from respondents in face-to-face interviews. Interviewers ask questions that are not sensitive or only moderately sensitive and then allow respondents to self-administer more sensitive questions, listening to audio recordings of the questions and typically entering their responses directly into the same device that the interviewer has used. According to the conventional thinking, ACASI is taken as independent of the face-to-face interaction that almost always precedes it. Presumably as a result of this presumed independence, the respondents' prior interaction with the interviewer is rarely considered when assessing the quality of ACASI responses. There is no body of existing research that has experimentally investigated how the preceding interviewer–respondent interaction may create sufficient social presence to affect responses in the subsequent ACASI module. The study reported here, a laboratory experiment with eight professional interviewers and 125 respondents, explores the carryover effects of preceding interactions between interviewer and respondent on responses in the subsequent ACASI. We evaluated the impact of the similarity of the live and recorded interviewer's voice for each respondent as well as respondents' rapport with interviewers in the preceding interview. We did not find significant main effects of vocal similarity on disclosure in ACASI. However, we found significant interaction effects between vocal similarity and respondents' rapport ratings in the preceding interview on disclosure in ACASI. When the ACASI voice was similar to the interviewer's voice in the preceding interaction, respondent-rated rapport led to more disclosure but, when the ACASI voice is clearly different from the interviewer's voice, respondent-rated rapport in the prior interaction did not affect disclosure.

Abstract
Interviewer-respondent rapport is generally considered to be beneficial for the quality of the data collected in survey interviews; however, the relationship between rapport and data quality has rarely been directly investigated. We conducted a laboratory experiment in which eight professional interviewers interviewed 125 respondents to see how the rapport between interviewers and respondents is associated with the quality of data—primarily disclosure of sensitive information—collected in these interviews. It is possible that increased rapport between interviewers and respondents might motivate respondents to be more conscientious, increasing disclosure; alternatively, increased rapport might inhibit disclosure because presenting oneself unfavorably is more aversive if respondents have a positive relationship with the interviewer. More specifically, we examined three issues: (1) what the relationship is between rapport and the disclosure of information of varying levels of sensitivity, (2) how rapport is associated with item nonresponse, and (3) whether rapport can be similarly established in video-mediated and computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs). We found that (1) increased respondents' sense of rapport increased disclosure for questions that are highly sensitive compared with questions about topics of moderate sensitivity; (2) increased respondents' sense of rapport is not associated with a higher level of item nonresponse; and (3) there was no significant difference in respondents' rapport ratings between video-mediated and CAPI, suggesting that rapport is just as well established in video-mediated interviews as it is in CAPI.