Christopher Helms1, Anne Gardner1, Elizabeth McInnes2,3. 1. Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Australian Catholic University, Watson, ACT, Australia. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Australia (Sydney) and Australian Catholic University (ACU), St Vincents Hospital, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: A discussion of the application of metadata, paradata and embedded data in web-based survey research, using two completed Delphi surveys as examples. BACKGROUND: Metadata, paradata and embedded data use in web-based Delphi surveys has not been described in the literature. The rapid evolution and widespread use of online survey methods imply that paper-based Delphi methods will likely become obsolete. Commercially available web-based survey tools offer a convenient and affordable means of conducting Delphi research. Researchers and ethics committees may be unaware of the benefits and risks of using metadata in web-based surveys. DESIGN: Discussion paper. DATA SOURCES: Two web-based, three-round Delphi surveys were conducted sequentially between August 2014 - January 2015 and April - May 2016. Their aims were to validate the Australian nurse practitioner metaspecialties and their respective clinical practice standards. Our discussion paper is supported by researcher experience and data obtained from conducting both web-based Delphi surveys. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Researchers and ethics committees should consider the benefits and risks of metadata use in web-based survey methods. Web-based Delphi research using paradata and embedded data may introduce efficiencies that improve individual participant survey experiences and reduce attrition across iterations. Use of embedded data allows the efficient conduct of multiple simultaneous Delphi surveys across a shorter timeframe than traditional survey methods. CONCLUSION: The use of metadata, paradata and embedded data appears to improve response rates, identify bias and give possible explanation for apparent outlier responses, providing an efficient method of conducting web-based Delphi surveys.
AIM: A discussion of the application of metadata, paradata and embedded data in web-based survey research, using two completed Delphi surveys as examples. BACKGROUND: Metadata, paradata and embedded data use in web-based Delphi surveys has not been described in the literature. The rapid evolution and widespread use of online survey methods imply that paper-based Delphi methods will likely become obsolete. Commercially available web-based survey tools offer a convenient and affordable means of conducting Delphi research. Researchers and ethics committees may be unaware of the benefits and risks of using metadata in web-based surveys. DESIGN: Discussion paper. DATA SOURCES: Two web-based, three-round Delphi surveys were conducted sequentially between August 2014 - January 2015 and April - May 2016. Their aims were to validate the Australian nurse practitioner metaspecialties and their respective clinical practice standards. Our discussion paper is supported by researcher experience and data obtained from conducting both web-based Delphi surveys. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Researchers and ethics committees should consider the benefits and risks of metadata use in web-based survey methods. Web-based Delphi research using paradata and embedded data may introduce efficiencies that improve individual participant survey experiences and reduce attrition across iterations. Use of embedded data allows the efficient conduct of multiple simultaneous Delphi surveys across a shorter timeframe than traditional survey methods. CONCLUSION: The use of metadata, paradata and embedded data appears to improve response rates, identify bias and give possible explanation for apparent outlier responses, providing an efficient method of conducting web-based Delphi surveys.
Authors: Chiara Biasoli; Erminia Baldacci; Antonio Coppola; Raimondo De Cristofaro; Matteo N D Di Minno; Giuseppe Lassandro; Silvia Linari; Maria E Mancuso; Mariasanta Napolitano; Gianluigi Pasta; Angiola Rocino Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2021-10-15 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Aurélie Najm; Benoît Le Goff; Carl Orr; Rogier Thurlings; Juan D Cañete; Frances Humby; Stefano Alivernini; Antonio Manzo; Søren Andreas Just; Vasco C Romão; Veit Krenn; Ulf Müller-Ladner; Olga Addimanda; Sander W Tas; Maria Stoenoiu; Laurent Meric de Bellefon; Patrick Durez; Vibeke Strand; Mihir D Wechalekar; Joao E Fonseca; Bernard Lauwerys; Ursula Fearon; Douglas J Veale Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Joy E Lawn; Hannah Blencowe; Vladimir Sergeevich Gordeev; Joseph Akuze; Angela Baschieri; Sanne M Thysen; Francis Dzabeng; M Moinuddin Haider; Melanie Smuk; Michael Wild; Michael M Lokshin; Temesgen Azemeraw Yitayew; Solomon Mokonnen Abebe; Davis Natukwatsa; Collins Gyezaho; Seeba Amenga-Etego Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2021-02-08
Authors: Grace Yeeun Lee; Ian Bernard Hickie; Jo-An Occhipinti; Yun Ju Christine Song; Salvador Camacho; Adam Skinner; Kenny Lawson; Samuel J Hockey; Adriane Martin Hilber; Louise Freebairn Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 3.390