Using Cognitive Interviewing and Behavioral Coding to Determine Measurement Equivalence across Linguistic and Cultural Groups: An Example from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project

Thrasher J; Quah ACK; Dominick G; Borland R; Driezen P; Awang R; Omar M; Hosking W; Sirirassamee B; Boado M; Miller K

doi:10.1177/1525822X11418176

Using Cognitive Interviewing and Behavioral Coding to Determine Measurement Equivalence across Linguistic and Cultural Groups: An Example from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project

Thrasher J ¹ , Quah ACK ² , Dominick G ¹ , Borland R ³ , Driezen P ⁴ , Awang R ⁵ Show all authors , Omar M ⁵ , Hosking W ⁶ , Sirirassamee B ⁷ , Boado M ⁸ , Miller K ⁹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Health Promotion, University of South Carolina, USA
² Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Canada
³ Cancer Council of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
⁴ Population Health Research, University of Waterloo, Canada
⁵ National Poison Centre, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
⁶ School of Psychology, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
⁷ Institute for Population and Social Research, Mahidol University, Thailand
⁸ Departamento de Sociología, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay
⁹ National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, USA

Field methods, 2011;23(4):439-460.

PMID: 30867657 DOI: 10.1177/1525822X11418176

Abstract

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.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.