An official website of the United States government
Ethnoracial identity refers to the racial and ethnic categories that people use to classify themselves and others. How it is measured in surveys has implications for understanding inequalities. Yet how people self-identify may not conform to the categories standardized survey questions use to measure ethnicity and race, leading to potential measurement error. In interviewer-administered surveys, answers to survey questions are achieved through interviewer–respondent interaction. An analysis of interviewer–respondent interaction can illuminate whether, when, how, and why respondents experience problems with questions. In this study, we examine how indicators of interviewer–respondent interactional problems vary across ethnoracial groups when respondents answer questions about ethnicity and race. Further, we explore how interviewers respond in the presence of these interactional problems. Data are provided by the 2013–2014 Voices Heard Survey, a computer-assisted telephone survey designed to measure perceptions of participating in medical research among an ethnoracially diverse sample of respondents.
more »
« less
Correlates of Differences in Interactional Patterns among Black and White Respondents
Features of the survey measurement process may affect responses from respondents in various racial, ethnic, or cultural groups in different ways. When responses from multiethnic populations are combined, such variability in responding could increase variable error or bias results. The current study examines the survey response process among Black and White respondents answering questions about trust in medical researchers and participation in medical research. Using transcriptions from telephone interviews, we code a rich set of behaviors produced by respondents that past research has shown to be associated with measurement error, including long question-answer sequences, uncodable answers, requests for repetition or clarification, affective responses, and tokens. In analysis, we test for differences between Black and White respondents in the likelihood with which behaviors occur and examine whether the behaviors vary by specific categorizations of the questions, including whether the questions are racially focused. Overall, we find that White respondents produce more behaviors that indicate cognitive processing problems for racially focused questions, which may be interpreted as demonstrating a “cultural” difference in the display of cognitive processing and interaction. Data are provided by the 2013–2014 Voices Heard Survey, a computer-assisted telephone survey designed to measure respondents’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to participating in medical research.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1853094
- PAR ID:
- 10292703
- Editor(s):
- Brenner, P. S.
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Understanding Survey Methodology. Frontiers in Sociology and Social Research
- Volume:
- 4
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 277-304
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Response time (RT) – the time elapsing from the beginning of question reading for a given question until the start of the next question – is a potentially important indicator of data quality that can be reliably measured for all questions in a computer-administered survey using a latent timer (i.e., triggered automatically by moving on to the next question). In interviewer-administered surveys, RTs index data quality by capturing the entire length of time spent on a question–answer sequence, including interviewer question-asking behaviors and respondent question-answering behaviors. Consequently, longer RTs may indicate longer processing or interaction on the part of the interviewer, respondent, or both. RTs are an indirect measure of data quality; they do not directly measure reliability or validity, and we do not directly observe what factors lengthen the administration time. In addition, either too long or too short RTs could signal a problem (Ehlen, Schober, and Conrad 2007). However, studies that link components of RTs (interviewers’ question reading and response latencies) to interviewer and respondent behaviors that index data quality strengthen the claim that RTs indicate data quality (Bergmann and Bristle 2019; Draisma and Dijkstra 2004; Olson, Smyth, and Kirchner 2019). In general, researchers tend to consider longer RTs as signaling processing problems for the interviewer, respondent, or both (Couper and Kreuter 2013; Olson and Smyth 2015; Yan and Olson 2013; Yan and Tourangeau 2008). Previous work demonstrates that RTs are associated with various characteristics of interviewers (where applicable), questions, and respondents in web, telephone, and face-to-face interviews (e.g., Couper and Kreuter 2013; Olson and Smyth 2015; Yan and Tourangeau 2008). We replicate and extend this research by examining how RTs are associated with various question characteristics and several established tools for evaluating questions. We also examine whether increased interviewer experience in the study shortens RTs for questions with characteristics that impact the complexity of the interviewer’s task (i.e., interviewer instructions and parenthetical phrases). We examine these relationships in the context of a sample of racially diverse respondents who answered questions about participation in medical research and their health.more » « less
-
Abstract Interviewers’ postinterview evaluations of respondents’ performance (IEPs) are paradata, used to describe the quality of the data obtained from respondents. IEPs are driven by a combination of factors, including respondents’ and interviewers’ sociodemographic characteristics and what actually transpires during the interview. However, relatively few studies examine how IEPs are associated with features of the response process, including facets of the interviewer-respondent interaction and patterns of responding that index data quality. We examine whether features of the response process—various respondents’ behaviors and response quality indicators—are associated with IEPs in a survey with a diverse set of respondents focused on barriers and facilitators to participating in medical research. We also examine whether there are differences in IEPs across respondents’ and interviewers’ sociodemographic characteristics. Our results show that both respondents’ behaviors and response quality indicators predict IEPs, indicating that IEPs reflect what transpires in the interview. In addition, interviewers appear to approach the task of evaluating respondents with differing frameworks, as evidenced by the variation in IEPs attributable to interviewers and associations between IEPs and interviewers’ gender. Further, IEPs were associated with respondents’ education and ethnoracial identity, net of respondents’ behaviors, response quality indicators, and sociodemographic characteristics of respondents and interviewers. Future research should continue to build on studies that examine the correlates of IEPs to better inform whether, when, and how to use IEPs as paradata about the quality of the data obtained.more » « less
-
Medical research literacy (MRL) is a facet of health literacy that measures a person’s understanding of informed consent and other aspects of participation in medical research. While existing research on MRL is limited, there are reasons to believe MRL may be associated with a willingness to participate in medical research. We use data from a racially balanced sample of survey respondents (n = 410): (1) to analyze how MRL scores vary by respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics; (2) to examine how MRL relates to respondents’ expressed likelihood to participate in a clinical trial; and (3) to provide considerations on the measurement of MRL. The results indicate no differences in MRL scores by race or gender; younger (p < 0.05) and more educated (p < 0.001) individuals have significantly higher MRL scores. Further, higher MRL scores are associated with significantly lower levels of expressed likelihood to participate in a clinical trial. Additionally, the MRL scale included both true and false statements, and analyses demonstrate significant differences in how these relate to outcomes. Altogether, the results signal that further research is needed to understand MRL and how it relates to socio-demographic characteristics associated with research participation and can be measured effectively.more » « less
-
International faculty have a strong presence in STEM university educational programming. They represent the second largest demographic, after White faculty, among STEM faculty in US universities, the majority of which are from Asian countries such as China, South Korea, and India, surpassing by large margins racially minoritized domestic faculty including Black Americans, Latine, Native Americans, Native Pacific Islanders, and Native Alaskans (NSF, 2022). These demographics mirror that of STEM doctoral students with White students occupying the largest share, followed by Asian students (international and domestic). Because of this, the National Science Foundation determined that Black Americans, Latine, Native Americans, Native Pacific Islanders, and Native Alaskans were underrepresented in STEM education and occupations. It should come as no surprise that the majority of these racially minoritized students engage in cross-cultural mentoring. While much attention has been devoted to cross-cultural mentoring with White faculty, less has been paid to cross-cultural mentoring with international faculty. International faculty, especially Asian, often occupy a peculiar space as they are often viewed through the model minority lens while also being cast as sufficiently different based on white hegemonic norms (Author, 2021). They are subjected to acceptance for their presumed STEM gifts and talents on one hand, while on the other hand being subjected to marginalization emanating from their home language, accents, and culture (Herget, 2016). International faculty may face isolation and bias in ways similar to their racially minoritized students. Literature is relatively silent on international faculty's doctoral mentoring perceptions and if shared experiences of marginalization are leveraged to enhance the quality of cross-cultural doctoral mentorships between international faculty and Black and Brown students and This paper explores the perceptions of mentoring of international STEM doctoral faculty at three US universities in the southeast. Data were extracted from a larger multiple embedded qualitative case study (Yin, 2018) utilizing interviews with 18 international faculty from three US institutions in the southeast and a survey. Constant comparative inductive analysis was employed to develop findings. The findings suggest that international faculty often share cultural attitudes not much different than their White faculty counterparts, attitudes that reflect anti-Black racism (Gordon, 1995; Dumas & ross, 2016). The findings also reveal an assumption of science neutrality, lacking criticality in understanding science from broader epistemological foundations. Finally, the findings indicate that pragmatic concerns are prioritized over sociocultural and sociopolitical ones that may impact US racially minoritized doctoral students, resulting in international faculty failing to appreciate how their experiences of marginalization can result in empathic connections to their marginalized students. The implications implore STEM education to reimagine STEM doctoral education and mentoring as "holistic and embedded in and accountable to cultural imperatives" (Author, 2022). International faculty should become more aware of ways in which implicit bias fueled by anti-Black racism negatively impacts their Black and Brown doctoral mentees. STEM faculty development education should consider ways to assist international faculty with better connecting with racially minoritized and marginalized students to improve the cross-cultural doctoral mentoring experience.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47256-6_12
