The Effects of Altering the Design of Branching Instructions on Navigational Performance in Census 2000

By Redline, Cleo D.

Book Id: WPLBN0000579889
Format Type: PDF eBook
File Size: 168,123 KB.
Reproduction Date: 2005

Title:	The Effects of Altering the Design of Branching Instructions on Navigational Performance in Census 2000
Author:	Redline, Cleo D.
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Government publications, Census., Census report
Collections:	U.S. Census Bureau Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	U.S. Census Bureau Department


Citation APA MLA Chicago Redline, C. D. (n.d.). The Effects of Altering the Design of Branching Instructions on Navigational Performance in Census 2000. Retrieved from http://gutenberg.cc/

Description
Statistical Reference Document

Excerpt
Excerpt: It has been hypothesized and demonstrated that a number of languages (verbal, numeric, symbolic, and graphic) combine to affect respondents? perception and comprehension of visual information (Redline, C. and Dillman, D. 2002. ?The Influence of Alternative Visual Designs on Respondents? Performance with Branching Instructions in Self-Administered Questionnaires.? In Groves, R. Dillman, D. Eltinge, J. and Little, R. (eds.) Survey Nonresponse. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.). Verbal language refers to the words on a questionnaire; numeric refers to the numbers; symbolic refers to symbols, such as arrows; and the graphic refers to the color, brightness, shape, and location of the information. Branching instructions were used as an initial test of this hypothesis because they yield objective measures of performance. A classroom experiment with college students, in which three of the languages (the verbal, symbolic, and graphic) were altered in two distinct ways (the Prevention and Detection methods) and tested against the Census 2000 method of branching, provided initial evidence in support of this hypothesis (Redline and Dillman 2002). In the Prevention method of branching, the response categories and check boxes were reversed. In the Detection method, a left-hand arrow came off the non-branching response option(s) and pointed to a parenthetical feedback phrase. This report documents an experiment conducted in Census 2000 in which the two branching instructions from the classroom experiment were revised, and two additional instructions were developed (reverse printing the instruction and substituting the words ?go to? for ?skip to?) and tested against the Census 2000 version.

Table of Contents
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii 1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Implementation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3 Analytic Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 Commission Error Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3 Omission Error Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1 Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2 Commission Error Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3 Omission Error Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4 Questionnaire Design Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.5 Question And Respondent Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.6 Effects of Cue from Follow-up Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 1: Illustration of the Five Branching Instruction Treatments . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 1: Response Rates by Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 2: Commission Error Rates for All Census Long-Form Items With Branching Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 3: Omission Error Rates For All Census Long-Form Items With Branching Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16