Abstract
Social science research is key for understanding and for predicting compliance with COVID-19 guidelines, and much of this research relies on survey data. While much focus is on the survey question stems, less is on the response alternatives presented that both constrain responses and convey information about the assumed expectations of the survey designers. The focus here is on the choice of response alternatives for the types of behavioral frequency questions used in many COVID-19 and other health surveys. We examine issues with two types of response alternatives. The first are vague quantifiers, like “rarely” and ‘frequently.” Using data from 30 countries from the Imperial COVID data hub, we show that the interpretation of these vague quantifiers (and their translations) depends on the norms in that country. If the mean amount of hand washing in your country is high, it is likely “frequently” corresponds to a higher numeric value for hand washing than if the mean in your country is low. The second type are precise numeric response alternatives and they can also be problematic. Using a US survey, respondents were randomly allocated to receive either response alternatives where most of the scale corresponds to low frequencies or where most of the scale corresponds to high frequencies. Those given the low frequency set provided lower estimates of the health behaviors. The choice of response alternatives for behavioral frequency questions can affect the estimates of health behaviors. How the response alternatives mold the responses should be taken into account for epidemiological modeling. We conclude with some recommendations for response alternatives for health behavioral frequency questions in surveys.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
British Academy award CRUSA210025 to JR, GB, JB, and DW (https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/) Dunn Family Foundation Endowment to DW, which also supports SW. (https://dunnfamilyfoundation.org/)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
UNLV IRB [1753484-2]
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Author Note The research is support by British Academy award CRUSA210025 to JR, GB, JB, and DW, and this provided funding for the first study. DW and SW are supported by an endowment from the Dunn Family Foundation and this provided funding for the second study. The second study was pre-registered at OSF: https://osf.io/b4uef/ and received IRB approval from the UNLV IRB [1753484-2]. The authors have no conflicts of interest.
The Imperial Data set is available at https://github.com/YouGov-Data/covid-19-tracker (Jones, 2020). The de-identified data file for the second study are at: https://github.com/dbrookswr/RespAlt/blob/main/WWRespAlt.csv. The code for all the analyses will appear as the final version as a reproducible knitr (Y. Xie, 2013) document on github.
Data Availability
The complete data set from Imperial College, London, is available at: https://github.com/YouGov-Data/covid-19-tracker The complete de-identified (IP addresses removed) data from the second study are available at: https://github.com/dbrookswr/RespAlt/blob/main/WWRespAlt.csv
https://github.com/YouGov-Data/covid-19-tracker
https://github.com/dbrookswr/RespAlt/blob/main/WWRespAlt.csv