• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Health Services Research & Policy >Using questionnaires in qualitative interviews
【24h】

Using questionnaires in qualitative interviews

机译：在定性访谈中使用问卷

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

At the simplest level (although this is perhaps notnexactly what was intended), the paper in this issue onnQuesterviews (p.139–145) reads as something of ancautionary tale about the limitations of questionnaires,neven those that have well-established psychometricnproperties and a strong history of validation.1 Thenexamples of the ways in which people respond tonstandardized questions in a qualitative interview are verynrevealing and pander to some prejudices about questionnaires:nsuch as, they tend to be at best rathernsimplistic and at worst full of distortions. The respondentsnin the authors’ studies were led astray by all thenproblems of measuring perceptions documented in thenliterature.2 They misinterpreted questions, attempted tonguess the answers that the researchers were looking for,npresented themselves in ways that increased their ownnself-esteem, provided their own contextual anchors thatndistorted the meanings of the questions and madensimple mistakes that resulted in responses that were thenexact opposite of what was intended. The verbalnprotocols collected by the authors should disturb somenfondly held but entirely fallacious beliefs that as long asnyou have obtained a number on a Likert scale, yournresearch data are objective.
机译：在最简单的水平上（尽管这可能并非是故意的），本期nQuesterviews上的论文（第139-145页）读作是关于问卷的局限性的告诫故事，即使是那些具有完善的心理计量学特性和验证历史的悠久历史。1然后，人们在定性访谈中回答标准化问题的方式的例子是非常揭示和顺应关于问卷的一些偏见：例如，它们往往充其量是简单化的，而最坏的情况是充满失真的。作者研究中的被调查者被当时文学中记录的所有衡量感知的问题误入歧途。2他们误解了问题，试图说出研究人员正在寻找的答案，以增加他们自己的自尊的方式表现了自己，提供了他们自己的语境锚定了问题的含义，犯了简单的错误，使错误的答案与预期的相反。作者收集的口头协议应该打扰一些公认但完全谬误的信念，即只要您获得了李克特量表的数字，您的研究数据就是客观的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号