Publication:
Using cognitive interviewing and behavioral coding to determine measurement equivalence across linguistic and cultural groups: An example from the international tobacco control policy evaluation project

dc.contributor.authorJames F. Thrasheren_US
dc.contributor.authorAnne C.K. Quahen_US
dc.contributor.authorGregory Dominicken_US
dc.contributor.authorRon Borlanden_US
dc.contributor.authorPete Driezenen_US
dc.contributor.authorRahmat Awangen_US
dc.contributor.authorMaizurah Omaren_US
dc.contributor.authorWarwick Hoskingen_US
dc.contributor.authorBuppha Sirirassameeen_US
dc.contributor.authorMarcelo Boadoen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of South Carolinaen_US
dc.contributor.otherInstituto Nacional de Salud Publicaen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Waterlooen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Delawareen_US
dc.contributor.otherCancer Council Victoriaen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversiti Sains Malaysiaen_US
dc.contributor.otherVictoria University Melbourneen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversidad de la Republicaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-03T08:45:13Z
dc.date.available2018-05-03T08:45:13Z
dc.date.issued2011-11-01en_US
dc.description.abstractThis study examined and compared results from two questionnaire pretesting methods (i.e., behavioral coding and cognitive interviewing [CI]) to assess systematic measurement bias in survey questions for adult smokers across six countries (United States, Australia, Uruguay, Mexico, Malaysia, and Thailand). Protocol development and translation involved multiple bilingual partners in each linguistic/cultural group. The study was conducted with convenience samples of 20 adult smokers in each country. Behavioral coding and CI methods produced similar conclusions regarding measurement bias for some questions; however, CI was more likely to identify potential response errors than behavioral coding. Coordinated qualitative pretesting of survey questions (or postsurvey evaluation) is feasible across cultural groups and can provide important information on comprehension and comparability. The CI appears to be a more robust technique than behavioral coding, although combinations of the two might be even better. © The Author(s) 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citationField Methods. Vol.23, No.4 (2011), 439-460en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1525822X11418176en_US
dc.identifier.issn15523969en_US
dc.identifier.issn1525822Xen_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84555178527en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/12872
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84555178527&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.titleUsing cognitive interviewing and behavioral coding to determine measurement equivalence across linguistic and cultural groups: An example from the international tobacco control policy evaluation projecten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84555178527&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections