James F. ThrasherAnne C.K. QuahGregory DominickRon BorlandPete DriezenRahmat AwangMaizurah OmarWarwick HoskingBuppha SirirassameeMarcelo BoadoUniversity of South CarolinaInstituto Nacional de Salud PublicaUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of DelawareCancer Council VictoriaUniversiti Sains MalaysiaVictoria University MelbourneMahidol UniversityUniversidad de la Republica2018-05-032018-05-032011-11-01Field Methods. Vol.23, No.4 (2011), 439-460155239691525822X2-s2.0-84555178527https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/12872This 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.Mahidol UniversitySocial SciencesArticleSCOPUS10.1177/1525822X11418176