Better to get 5 questions from a respondent when they are in the supermarket than 20 a week later

The most common surveys are probably better in terms of data quality than one long survey. It raises expenses and the time needed to complete the survey, but respondent fatigue is reduced and with that the quality of the data should rise.

How can merging gaming concepts to survey research become a‘ game problems of traditional surveys. It is also true that not all surveys can be rendered into a game, which is something that will be discovered by trial and error.

What quality measures needs to be practiced to ensure optimum results for survey research?

Andrew Jeavons: With web and

them up?

Andrew Jeavons: Making surveys clearer and shorter is the best alternative. The problem with changing surveys in terms of their content is the potential for introducing biases. For instance more images may make the survey more interesting because of the content of the images, but images can introduce cognitive biases that may not be obvious.

Question texts should be made as short as possible, choice options as short as possible. Having 32 possible response choices, for instance, is too many. As few response options as possible is far better. I’ m really not convinced that surveys can be made less boring while they remain in the traditional question and answer format, but they can be made simpler. Lowering the cognitive load of a survey is probably a more realistic goal than making it more interesting. There is also the basic truth that some survey topics are just not very interesting, no matter how many images you embellish the survey with. Making this type of survey easy to complete is the best hope. Breaking up the subject matter of a survey into several surveys helps too. Two short strongly that the gamification approach as championed by Betty Adamou at Research Through Gaming is the right approach for the future( disclosure: I am a technical advisor to Research Through Gaming). True gamification allows the respondent to provide data without the rigors of an“ ask and answer” survey format. It also allows for paradata( data about how data is collected) such as response time to be measured which can provide extra insights. For instance the speed of response to a certain image may be an indicator of a non verbalized prejudice or affinity. Ultimately the game construct is held to be more engaging, they are games after all. Computer gaming has become a well established part of life for almost all age ranges, so it has a high level of familiarity. Early theories of child psychology were based on the idea that play in young children is a form of constructive cognition, albeit physical. Using games we may engage the respondent in a different sort of cognitive processing and hopefully overcome the issues of boredom. Gamification has some plausible psychological theory behind it which indicates it could solve many of the is a list of the data points that I feel are important for effective quality assurance.

( 1) Speed to complete survey. This is pretty well established now; it can weed out people taking surveys as fast as possible with no regard to their answers.

( 2) Answer completeness – this is a count of how many codes respondents use of multiple choice questions, the length of open ends and so on. It could be viewed as a loose measurement of respondent attention.

( 3) Question retry count. I am not sure if many survey systems provide this measurement. This is a measure of how many questions are submitted that are not completed correctly. An example would be where mandatory items on a grid are not all completed and the grid is submitted anyway causing the survey system to force a respondent retry of the grid. Obviously it is a measure of the cognitive load of a survey, if questions are hard to complete correctly they must be placing a high load on the respondent. Paying attention to this measure in a soft survey launch is a chance to catch significant