Yes–no answers versus check-all in self-administered modes. A systematic review and analyses
Venue
International Journal of Market Research, vol. 57 (2015), pp. 203-223
Publication Year
2015
Authors
Mario Callegaro, Mike Murakami, Ziv Tepman, Vani Henderson
BibTeX
Abstract
When writing questions with dichotomous response options, those administering
surveys on the web or on paper can choose from a variety of formats, including a
check-all-that-apply or a forced-choice format (e.g. yes-no) in self-administered
questionnaires. These two formats have been compared and evaluated in many
experimental studies. In this paper, we conduct a systematic review and a few
meta-analyses of different aspects of the available research that compares these
two formats. We find that endorsement levels increase by a factor of 1.42 when
questions are posed in a forced-choice rather than check-all format. However, when
comparing across a battery of questions, the rank order of endorsement rates
remains the same for both formats. While most authors hypothesise that respondents
endorse more alternatives presented in a forced-choice (versus
check-all-that-apply) format because they process that format at a deeper cognitive
level, we introduce the acquiescence bias hypothesis as an alternative and
complementary explanation. Further research is required to identify which format
elicits answers closer to the ‘true level’ of endorsement, since the few validation
studies have proved inconclusive.
