Search

Your search keyword '"TOURANGEAU, ROGER"' showing total 428 results
Start Over Author "TOURANGEAU, ROGER"
428 results on '"TOURANGEAU, ROGER"'

6. The Survey Response Process from a Cognitive Viewpoint

Author

Tourangeau, Roger

Abstract

Purpose: This paper aims to examine the cognitive processes involved in answering survey questions. It also briefly discusses how the cognitive viewpoint has been challenged by other approaches (such as conversational analysis). Design/methodology/approach: The paper reviews the major components of the response process and summarizes work examining how each of these components can contribute to measurement errors in surveys. Findings: The Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology (CASM) model of the survey response process is still generating useful research, but both the satisficing model and the conversational approach provide useful supplements, emphasizing motivational and social sources of error neglected in the CASM approach. Originality/value: The paper provides an introduction to the cognitive processes underlying survey responses and how these processes can explain why survey responses may be inaccurate.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99) Methodology Report, 1999. Technical Report.

Author

Gallup Organization, Inc., Princeton, NJ., National Center for Education Statistics (ED), Washington, DC., Abraham, Sameer Y., Steiger, Darby Miller, Montgomery, Margrethe, Kuhr, Brian D., Tourangeau, Roger, Montgomery, Bob, and Chattopadhyay, Manas

Abstract

This report describes the methods and procedures used for the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99). As did the first 2 cycles of this survey, NSOPF:99 serves the continuing need for data on faculty and other instructional personnel. NSOPF:99 used a sample of 960 institutions and 28,576 full- and part-time faculty employed at these institutions. The sample was designed to allow detailed comparisons and high levels of precision at both the institution and faculty levels. The sampled institutions represent all public and private not-for-profit Title IV-participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Both the sample of institutions and that of faculty were stratified, systematic samples. In addition to the institution and faculty samples, a third sample of 19,123 faculty members was selected from the initial sample for intensive follow-up. NSOPF:99 involved a multistage effort to collect data from the sampled faculty, with faculty sampled in 7 waves. This report also discusses issues of quality control, item nonresponse, and discrepancies in faculty counts. Eleven appendixes contain supplemental information and instruments used in the surveys. (Contains 57 tables and 11 figures.) (SLD)

Published
2002

10. Report on the NLSY Round 16 Recall Experiment. Discussion Paper.

Author

Ohio State Univ., Columbus. Center for Human Resource Research., Dugoni, Bernard, Lee, Lisa, and Tourangeau, Roger

Abstract

During round 16 of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), 900 NLSY sample members were randomly assigned to be interviewed about the period since their round 14 interview. Their responses were compared to those of approximately 8,000 NLSY sample members who were assigned to be interviewed about the 1-year period since their round 15 interview. The interviews covered the following: number of jobs reported by respondents; number of gaps between jobs; and reported receipt of unemployment benefits, Food Stamps, or Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments. The 2-year recall period had little discernible effect on means and proportions for the sample as a whole; however, a closer examination of the results revealed substantial errors in the reports covering the 2-year period. The discrepancies in reports concerning the material covered in both rounds 15 and 16 were especially marked among respondents with complicated job and receipt histories. On average, such respondents reported fewer jobs and lower receipt of benefits/payments in their round 16 interview than in their round 15 interview. (Contains 12 references. Appended are 19 tables detailing the following: standard errors; subgroup results; and logistic regression models.) (MN)

Published
1997

19. Response

Author

Bishop, Richard C., Boyle, Kevin J., Carson, Richard T., Chapman, David, Hanemann, W. Michael, Kanninen, Barbara, Kopp, Raymond J., Krosnick, Jon, List, John, Meade, Norman, Paterson, Robert, Presser, Stanley, Smith, V. Kerry, Tourangeau, Roger, Welsh, Michael, Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., De Bell, Matthew, Donovan, Colleen, Konopka, Matthew, and Scherer, Nora

Published
2017

20. Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies

Author

Johnston, Robert J., Boyle, Kevin J., Adamowicz, Wiktor (Vic), Bennett, Jeff, Brouwer, Roy, Cameron, Trudy Ann, Hanemann, W. Michael, Hanley, Nick, Ryan, Mandy, Scarpa, Riccardo, Tourangeau, Roger, and Vossler, Christian A.

Published
2017

21. Putting a value on injuries to natural assets : The BP oil spill

Author

Bishop, Richard C., Boyle, Kevin J., Carson, Richard T., Chapman, David, Hanemann, W. Michael, Kanninen, Barbara, Kopp, Raymond J., Krosnick, Jon A., List, John, Meade, Norman, Paterson, Robert, Presser, Stanley, Smith, V. Kerry, Tourangeau, Roger, Welsh, Michael, Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., DeBell, Matthew, Donovan, Colleen, Konopka, Matthew, and Scherer, Nora

Published
2017

36. Sensitive Questions in Surveys

Author

Tourangeau, Roger and Yan, Ting

Abstract

Psychologists have worried about the distortions introduced into standardized personality measures by social desirability bias. Survey researchers have had similar concerns about the accuracy of survey reports about such topics as illicit drug use, abortion, and sexual behavior. The article reviews the research done by survey methodologists on reporting errors in surveys on sensitive topics, noting parallels and differences from the psychological literature on social desirability. The findings from the survey studies suggest that misreporting about sensitive topics is quite common and that it is largely situational. The extent of misreporting depends on whether the respondent has anything embarrassing to report and on design features of the survey. The survey evidence also indicates that misreporting on sensitive topics is a more or less motivated process in which respondents edit the information they report to avoid embarrassing themselves in the presence of an interviewer or to avoid repercussions from third parties.

Published
2007

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results