Thrasher James, Quah Anne C K, Dominick Gregory, Borland Ron, Driezen Pete, Awang Rahmat, Omar Maizurah, Hosking Warwick, Sirirassamee Buppha, Boado Marcelo, Miller Kristen
Department of Health Promotion, University of South Carolina, USA.
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, México.
Field methods. 2011;23(4):439-460. doi: 10.1177/1525822X11418176. Epub 2011 Aug 25.
The present study aimed to examine and compare results from two questionnaire pretesting methods (i.e., behavioral coding and cognitive interviewing) in order to assess systematic measurement bias in survey questions for adult smokers across six countries (USA, 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 cognitive interviewing methods produced similar conclusions regarding measurement bias for some questions; however, cognitive interviewing was more likely to identify potential response errors than behavioral coding. Coordinated survey qualitative pretesting (or post-survey evaluation) is feasible across cultural groups, and can provide important information on comprehension and comparability. Cognitive interviewing appears a more robust technique than behavioral coding, although combinations of the two might be even better.
本研究旨在检验和比较两种问卷预测试方法（即行为编码和认知访谈）的结果，以评估六个国家（美国、澳大利亚、乌拉圭、墨西哥、马来西亚和泰国）成年吸烟者调查问题中的系统测量偏差。方案制定和翻译在每个语言/文化群体中涉及多个双语合作伙伴。该研究以每个国家20名成年吸烟者的便利样本进行。行为编码和认知访谈方法对某些问题的测量偏差得出了相似的结论；然而，认知访谈比行为编码更有可能识别潜在的回答错误。跨文化群体进行协调的调查定性预测试（或调查后评估）是可行的，并且可以提供有关理解和可比性的重要信息。认知访谈似乎是比行为编码更可靠的技术，尽管两者结合可能会更好。
