Panel Conditioning in a German Probability-Based Longitudinal Study: A Comparison of Respondents with Different Levels of Survey Experience

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2022-02-22 DOI:10.31235/osf.io/vd5xp
Fabienne Kraemer, Henning Silber, Bella Struminskaya, M. Bošnjak, J. Kossmann, Bernd Weiss
{"title":"Panel Conditioning in a German Probability-Based Longitudinal Study: A Comparison of Respondents with Different Levels of Survey Experience","authors":"Fabienne Kraemer, Henning Silber, Bella Struminskaya, M. Bošnjak, J. Kossmann, Bernd Weiss","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/vd5xp","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Learning effects due to repeated interviewing, which are referred to as panel conditioning, are a major threat to response quality in later waves of a panel study. Up to date, research has not provided a clear picture regarding the circumstances, mechanisms, and dimensions of potential panel conditioning effects. Especially the effects of conditioning frequency, that is, different levels of experience within a panel, on response quality are underexplored. Against this background, we investigated the effects of panel conditioning by using data from the GESIS Panel, a German mixed-mode probability-based panel study. Using two refreshment samples, we compared three panel cohorts with differing levels of experience with respect to several response quality indicators related to the mechanisms of reflection, satisficing, and social desirability. Overall, we find evidence for both negative (i.e., disadvantageous for response quality) as well as positive (i.e., advantageous for response quality) panel conditioning. Highly experienced respondents were more likely to satisfice by selecting mid-point responses or by speeding through the questionnaire. They also had a higher probability of refusing to answer sensitive questions than less experienced panel members. However, more experienced respondents were also more likely to optimize the response processes by needing less time compared to panelists with lower experience levels (when controlling for speeding). In contrast, we did not find significant differences with respect to the number of “don’t know” responses, non-differentiation, the selection of first response categories, and the number of non-triggered filter questions. Of the observed differences, speeding showed the highest magnitude with an average increase of 5.9 percentage points for highly experienced panel members compared to low experienced panelists.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/vd5xp","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Learning effects due to repeated interviewing, which are referred to as panel conditioning, are a major threat to response quality in later waves of a panel study. Up to date, research has not provided a clear picture regarding the circumstances, mechanisms, and dimensions of potential panel conditioning effects. Especially the effects of conditioning frequency, that is, different levels of experience within a panel, on response quality are underexplored. Against this background, we investigated the effects of panel conditioning by using data from the GESIS Panel, a German mixed-mode probability-based panel study. Using two refreshment samples, we compared three panel cohorts with differing levels of experience with respect to several response quality indicators related to the mechanisms of reflection, satisficing, and social desirability. Overall, we find evidence for both negative (i.e., disadvantageous for response quality) as well as positive (i.e., advantageous for response quality) panel conditioning. Highly experienced respondents were more likely to satisfice by selecting mid-point responses or by speeding through the questionnaire. They also had a higher probability of refusing to answer sensitive questions than less experienced panel members. However, more experienced respondents were also more likely to optimize the response processes by needing less time compared to panelists with lower experience levels (when controlling for speeding). In contrast, we did not find significant differences with respect to the number of “don’t know” responses, non-differentiation, the selection of first response categories, and the number of non-triggered filter questions. Of the observed differences, speeding showed the highest magnitude with an average increase of 5.9 percentage points for highly experienced panel members compared to low experienced panelists.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德国基于概率的纵向研究中的面板调节:不同调查经验水平的受访者的比较
重复访谈产生的学习效应被称为小组条件反射,是对小组研究后期反应质量的主要威胁。到目前为止,研究还没有提供一个关于潜在面板条件作用的环境、机制和维度的清晰画面。特别是调节频率,即一个面板内不同水平的经验,对响应质量的影响还没有得到充分的研究。在这种背景下,我们使用GESIS面板的数据研究了面板条件的影响,GESIS面板是一项基于德国混合模式概率的面板研究。使用两个刷新样本,我们比较了三个具有不同经验水平的小组队列的几个反应质量指标,这些指标与反思、满足和社会期望的机制有关。总的来说,我们发现了负面(即对响应质量不利)和正面(即对反应质量有利)面板条件反射的证据。经验丰富的受访者更有可能通过选择中点回答或快速完成问卷来获得满意。与经验不足的小组成员相比,他们拒绝回答敏感问题的概率也更高。然而,与经验水平较低的小组成员(在控制超速时)相比,经验丰富的受访者也更有可能通过更少的时间来优化响应过程。相比之下,我们在“不知道”回答的数量、非差异化、第一回答类别的选择和非触发过滤问题的数量方面没有发现显著差异。在观察到的差异中,经验丰富的小组成员与经验不足的小组成员相比,超速表现出最高的幅度,平均增加5.9个百分点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1