Questionnaire Design: Strengths And Weaknesses

Questionnaire Designthere Are Strengths And Weaknesses In Des

There are inherent strengths and weaknesses in designing questionnaires for program evaluation. Some weaknesses include bias or poorly worded questions. This paper discusses biased or poorly worded questions, identifies the weaknesses of each, and explores methods to reduce such questions in program reviews, using the Bridge Program evaluation as a case example.

Paper For Above instruction

Questionnaire design is a critical component in program evaluation, providing valuable insights into the effectiveness and areas for improvement of initiatives like the Bridge Program. However, the process is vulnerable to certain biases and pitfalls, particularly when questions are poorly worded or biased, which can impair the validity and reliability of the data collected. In this paper, we examine common examples of biased or poorly constructed questions and discuss strategies to minimize these issues in future assessments.

First, an illustrative biased question might be: "Don’t you think the Bridge Program is an effective way to help at-risk youth?" This question is leading because it presumes the program's effectiveness, nudging respondents to agree. The weakness here lies in the potential for social desirability bias, as respondents may answer more positively than their true opinions because of the phrasing.

Second, a poorly worded question such as: "How often do you find the program sessions useless?" is problematic because it embeds a negative assumption and is vague regarding what "useless" means. This can confuse respondents and lead to inconsistent answers, with the weakness being the ambiguous and negatively framed language which might influence responses to favor the questioner's assumed perspective.

Third, an example of a biased question: "Would you agree that the staff in the Bridge Program are highly qualified and dedicated?" This question is leading because it presumes high qualification and dedication, possibly causing respondents to agree to reflect positively, which can result in inflated positive responses and bias the evaluation outcome. The weakness here is the assumption built into the question itself, which can distort reality and oversimplify complex perceptions.

Fourth, a poorly designed question could be: "Do you think the program has improved your child's behavior?" This question biases respondents because it implies a positive outcome and assumes an improvement without providing factual basis or considering other perspectives, which can lead to skewed responses based on the assumption embedded in the question.

Finally, a question such as: "How satisfied are you with the program, given that it is the best option available?" introduces bias by suggesting that the program is the best option, thus influencing respondents to respond favorably, regardless of their true satisfaction levels. The weakness here is the presumption that skews responses towards positivity, masking genuine feedback.

To lessen the occurrence of biased or poorly worded questions, several strategies can be employed. First, using neutral language that does not suggest a preferred answer helps reduce social desirability bias. Second, questions should be clear, concise, and free from double negatives or embedded assumptions to prevent confusion. Third, pilot testing questionnaires with a small, representative sample allows for the identification and correction of biased or confusing items before final deployment. Fourth, employing balanced question formats, such as offering a range of responses with equal positive and negative options, helps capture a more accurate picture of respondents' perspectives. Finally, involving expert review during questionnaire development can help identify and eliminate potential biases or ambiguities.

Applying these strategies in the mock review of the Bridge Program involves designing surveys that invite honest and unbiased feedback from stakeholders, including students, staff, and community members. This process ensures the evaluation results are valid, reliable, and reflective of the true impact of the program, leading to more informed decision-making and program improvements.

References

• Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.
• Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. In P. V. Kline (Ed.), The handbook of social measurement (pp. 266–319). Sage.
• Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design. Jossey-Bass.
• Groves, R. M., et al. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Wiley.
• Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-report studies of personality: Is there complexity in the simple self-report? American Psychologist, 54(2), 105–116.
• Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2014). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. Jossey-Bass.
• Oppenheim, A. N. (2000). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. Continuum.
• Petscher, Y., et al. (2018). The art of question design: Tips for reducing bias and improving data quality. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(2), 10–21.
• Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Sage Publications.