| Title |
On the comprehensibility and perceived privacy protection of indirect questioning techniques
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-016-0804-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adrian Hoffmann, Berenike Waubert de Puiseau, Alexander F. Schmidt, Jochen Musch |
| Abstract |
On surveys that assess sensitive personal attributes, indirect questioning aims at increasing respondents' willingness to answer truthfully by protecting confidentiality. However, the assumption that subjects understand questioning procedures fully and trust them to protect their privacy is rarely tested. In a scenario-based design, we compared four indirect questioning procedures in terms of their comprehensibility and perceived privacy protection. All indirect questioning techniques were found to be less comprehensible by respondents than a conventional direct question used for comparison. Less-educated respondents experienced more difficulties when confronted with any indirect questioning technique. Regardless of education, the crosswise model was found to be the most comprehensible among the four indirect methods. Indirect questioning in general was perceived to increase privacy protection in comparison to a direct question. Unexpectedly, comprehension and perceived privacy protection did not correlate. We recommend assessing these factors separately in future evaluations of indirect questioning. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 23% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,980
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,889
of 342,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#28
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.