Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 6/2015

01-06-2015

The effects of response option order and question order on self-rated health

Auteurs: Dana Garbarski, Nora Cate Schaeffer, Jennifer Dykema

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to assess the impact of response option order and question order on the distribution of responses to the self-rated health (SRH) question and the relationship between SRH and other health-related measures.

Methods

In an online panel survey, we implement a 2-by-2 between-subjects factorial experiment, manipulating the following levels of each factor: (1) order of response options (“excellent” to “poor” versus “poor” to “excellent”) and (2) order of SRH item (either preceding or following the administration of domain-specific health items). We use Chi-square difference tests, polychoric correlations, and differences in means and proportions to evaluate the effect of the experimental treatments on SRH responses and the relationship between SRH and other health measures.

Results

Mean SRH is higher (better health) and proportion in “fair” or “poor” health lower when response options are ordered from “excellent” to “poor” and SRH is presented first compared to other experimental treatments. Presenting SRH after domain-specific health items increases its correlation with these items, particularly when response options are ordered “excellent” to “poor.” Among participants with the highest level of current health risks, SRH is worse when it is presented last versus first.

Conclusion

While more research on the presentation of SRH is needed across a range of surveys, we suggest that ordering response options from “poor” to “excellent” might reduce positive clustering. Given the question order effects found here, we suggest presenting SRH before domain-specific health items in order to increase inter-survey comparability, as domain-specific health items will vary across surveys.
vorige artikel Evaluating quality of life and response shift from a couple-based perspective: a study among patients with colorectal cancer and their partners
volgende artikel Measurement properties of the 13-item sense of coherence scale using Rasch analysis
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
Question 2, about alcohol consumption, is excluded from the index of current health risks. This question was included as part of the corpus to prime respondents in the conditions in which SRH is presented last to think of a range of health behaviors, conditions, and limitations, but cannot be used to reliably estimate behavioral risk given that the complex relationship between alcohol consumption and health cannot be assessed without additional data on the number of alcoholic drinks consumed daily [28].
 
Literatuur
1.
Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38(1), 21–37.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Benyamini, Y., Idler, E. L., Leventhal, H., & Leventhal, E. A. (2000). Positive affect and function as influences on self-assessments of health. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55(2), P107–P116.CrossRef
4.
Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, E. A., & Leventhal, H. (1999). Self-assessments of health. Research on Aging, 21(3), 477–500.CrossRef
5.
Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, E. A., & Leventhal, H. (2000). Gender differences in processing information for making self-assessments of health. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62(3), 354–364.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, E. A., & Leventhal, H. (2003). Elderly people’s ratings of the importance of health-related factors to their self-assessments of health. Social Science and Medicine, 56(8), 1661–1667.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Canfield, B., Miller, K., Beatty, P., Whitaker, K., Calvillo, A., & Wilson, B. (2003). Adult questions on the health interview survey—results of cognitive testing interviews conducted April–May 2003. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, Cognitive Methods Staff., pp. 1–41.
8.
DeSalvo, K. B., Bloser, N., Reynolds, K., He, J., & Muntner, P. (2006). Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(3), 267–275.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
Garbarski, D., Schaeffer, N. C., & Dykema, J. (2011). Are interactional behaviors exhibited when the self-reported health question is asked associated with health status? Social Science Research, 40(4), 1025–1036.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
10.
Groves, R. M., Fultz, F. N., & Martin, E. (1992). Direct questioning about comprehension in a survey setting. In J. M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 49–61). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
11.
Krause, N. M., & Jay, G. M. (1994). What do global self-rated health items measure? Medical Care, 32(9), 930–942.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Carp, F. M. (1974). Position effects on interview responses. Journal of Gerontology, 29(5), 581–587.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Chan, J. C. (1991). Response-order effects in Likert-type scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(3), 531–540.CrossRef
14.
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236.CrossRef
15.
Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(2), 201–219.CrossRef
16.
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions. New Jersey: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Means, B., Nigam, A., Zarrow, M., Loftus, E. F., & Donaldson, M. S. (1989). Autobiographical memory for health-related events. Cognition and Survey Research, 6, 2, DHHS (PHS) 89-1077, 6(2), 1–38.
18.
Keller, S. D., & Ware, J. E. (1996). Questions and answers about SF-36 and SF-12. Medical Outcomes Trust Bulletin, 4(3), 1–13.
19.
Lee, S., & Schwarz, N. (2014). 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, 104(1), 179–185.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
20.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
21.
Hopkins, D. J., & King, G. (2010). Improving anchoring vignettes designing surveys to correct interpersonal incomparability. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(2), 201–222.CrossRef
22.
Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K. A., & Bradburn, N. (1991). Measuring happiness in surveys: A test of the subtraction hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(2), 255–266.CrossRef
23.
Schwarz, N., Strack, F., & Mai, H.-P. (1991). Assimilation and contrast effects in part-whole question sequences: A conversational logic analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(1), 3–23.CrossRef
24.
Bowling, A., & Windsor, J. (2008). The effects of question order and response-choice on self-rated health status in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(1), 81–85.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Crossley, T. F., & Kennedy, S. (2002). The reliability of self-assessed health status. Journal of Health Economics, 21(4), 643–658.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Lee, S., & Grant, D. (2009). The effect of question order on self-rated general health status in a multilingual survey context. American Journal of Epidemiology, 169(12), 1525–1530.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
27.
Callegaro, M., & DiSogra, C. (2008). Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 1008–1032.CrossRef
28.
National Institute on Alcohol, A., & Alcoholism. (2007). Helping patients who drink too much. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.
29.
Krosnick, J. A. (2012). Improving question design to maximize reliability and validity. Conference on the Future of Survey Research, Arlington, VA.
30.
Perneger, T., Gayet-Ageron, A., Courvoisier, D., Agoritsas, T., & Cullati, S. (2013). Self-rated health: Analysis of distances and transitions between response options. Quality of Life Research, 22(10), 2761–2768.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Preacher, K. J. (2002). Calculation for the test of the difference between two independent correlation coefficients [computer software]. Available from http://​quantpsy.​org.
32.
Holbrook, A. L., Krosnick, J. A., Carson, R. T., & Mitchell, R. C. (2000). Violating conversational conventions disrupts cognitive processing of attitude questions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(5), 465–494.CrossRef
33.
Lee, S., Schwarz, N., & Goldstein, L. S. (2014). Culture-sensitive question order effects of self-rated health between older Hispanic and non-Hispanic adults in the United States. Journal of Aging and Health, 26(5), 860–883.
34.
Bailis, D. S., Segall, A., & Chipperfield, J. G. (2003). Two views of self-rated general health status. Social Science and Medicine, 56(2), 203–217.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Huisman, M., & Deeg, D. J. H. (2010). A commentary on Marja Jylhä’s “What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model” (69:3, 2009, 307–316). Social Science and Medicine, 70(5), 652–654.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Jylhä, M. (2009). What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model. Social Science and Medicine, 69(3), 307–316.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Jylhä, M. (2010). Self-rated health between psychology and biology. A response to Huisman and Deeg. Social Science and Medicine, 70(5), 655–657.CrossRef
38.
Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., & Conrad, F. G. (2013). “Up means good”: The effect of screen position on evaluative ratings in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(S1), 69–88.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
The effects of response option order and question order on self-rated health
Auteurs
Dana Garbarski
Nora Cate Schaeffer
Jennifer Dykema
Publicatiedatum
01-06-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0861-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2015

Quality of Life Research 6/2015 Naar de uitgave

Brief Communication

The Dutch Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI): a reliability and validation study

Acknowledgement

Thank you to Dennis Revicki

OriginalPaper

Integrating health-related quality of life findings from randomized clinical trials into practice: an international study of oncologists’ perspectives

OriginalPaper

Evaluating quality of life and response shift from a couple-based perspective: a study among patients with colorectal cancer and their partners

OriginalPaper

Defining novel health-related quality of life domains in lung transplantation: a qualitative analysis

OriginalPaper

Identifying key domains of health-related quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: interviews with healthcare professionals