Meredith Massey1. 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, USA. Electronic address: MMassey2@cdc.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper is part of a series of articles documenting the development of a module on child functioning by UNICEF in collaboration with the Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG). This paper documents the contribution of Cognitive Interview (CI) question evaluation methods to the development of the final module. OBJECTIVE: The overall goal of this project was to develop a cross-nationally comparable module to measure child functioning and disability. Specifically, the goals of the question evaluation study were to investigate question interpretation, sources of error and bias and to use the results iteratively in the development of the final module. METHODS: As is standard in CI studies, data were gathered through one-one-one, in-depth interviews. A total of four rounds of testing, comprising 385 Cognitive Interviews, were conducted across six countries. Qualitative data analysis methods were used to identify patterns of question interpretation and areas of potential error and bias among sub-groups of respondents. RESULTS: Through an iterative process of testing and revision, analytic findings from these interviews were used to guide decisions on question inclusion, revision and deletion. Four types of revisions were made: 1) changing, deleting or adding specific words; 2) moving, deleting or adding clarifying phrases; 3) revising or deleting items for conceptual clarity; and 4) adding examples. CONCLUSIONS: These efforts to reduce error and bias resulted in a validated module that can provide cross-nationally comparable measures of child functioning. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: This paper is part of a series of articles documenting the development of a module on child functioning by UNICEF in collaboration with the Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG). This paper documents the contribution of Cognitive Interview (CI) question evaluation methods to the development of the final module. OBJECTIVE: The overall goal of this project was to develop a cross-nationally comparable module to measure child functioning and disability. Specifically, the goals of the question evaluation study were to investigate question interpretation, sources of error and bias and to use the results iteratively in the development of the final module. METHODS: As is standard in CI studies, data were gathered through one-one-one, in-depth interviews. A total of four rounds of testing, comprising 385 Cognitive Interviews, were conducted across six countries. Qualitative data analysis methods were used to identify patterns of question interpretation and areas of potential error and bias among sub-groups of respondents. RESULTS: Through an iterative process of testing and revision, analytic findings from these interviews were used to guide decisions on question inclusion, revision and deletion. Four types of revisions were made: 1) changing, deleting or adding specific words; 2) moving, deleting or adding clarifying phrases; 3) revising or deleting items for conceptual clarity; and 4) adding examples. CONCLUSIONS: These efforts to reduce error and bias resulted in a validated module that can provide cross-nationally comparable measures of child functioning. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Child functioning; Cognitive interviewing; Disability; Washington group
Authors: Rebecca H Bitsko; Angelika H Claussen; Jesse Lichstein; Lindsey I Black; Sherry Everett Jones; Melissa L Danielson; Jennifer M Hoenig; Shane P Davis Jack; Debra J Brody; Shiromani Gyawali; Matthew J Maenner; Margaret Warner; Kristin M Holland; Ruth Perou; Alex E Crosby; Stephen J Blumberg; Shelli Avenevoli; Jennifer W Kaminski; Reem M Ghandour Journal: MMWR Suppl Date: 2022-02-25
Authors: Nukhba Zia; Abdulgafoor M Bachani; Dan Kajungu; Edward Galiwango; Mitchell Loeb; Marie Diener-West; Stephen Wegener; George Pariyo; Adnan A Hyder Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Nambusi Kyegombe; Lena Morgon Banks; Susan Kelly; Hannah Kuper; Karen M Devries Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-08-17 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kwok Ng; Pasi Koski; Nelli Lyyra; Sanna Palomaki; Kaisu Mononen; Minna Blomqvist; Tommi Vasankari; Sami Kokko Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Nukhba Zia; Abdulgafoor M Bachani; Dan Kajungu; Edward Galiwango; Mitchell Loeb; Marie Diener-West; Stephen Wegener; George Pariyo; Adnan A Hyder Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2020-11-14 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: Nukhba Zia; Mitchell Loeb; Dan Kajungu; Edward Galiwango; Marie Diener-West; Stephan Wegener; George Pariyo; Adnan A Hyder; Abdulgafoor M Bachani Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 3.295