No abstract

Collecte des données dans un panel Internet basé sur les probabilités - Comment le panel LISS a été construit et comment il peut être utilisé: Dans cet article nous présentons la méthodologie pour la mise en place d’un panel qui combine les normes scientifiques pour un panel longitudinal avec les avantages des entretiens par Internet comme méthode de collecte de données. Un panel qui est destiné à la recherche scientifique exige un échantillon probabiliste, couvrant toute la population d’intérêt et donc y compris les personnes sans accès à Internet et les personnes qui ne sont pas volontaires pour répondre aux questions. Nous montrons comment un tel panel peut être construit et entretenu, et comment les chercheurs peuvent l’utiliser et travailler à partir de leurs données gratuites.

Inspired by the research of Frank Andrews on the reliability and validity of survey questions, a large-scale research project was conducted in the Netherlands. The project was comprised of two different stages. For this project, more than 600 survey questions were included in different surveys according to a multitrait-multimethod design. The resulting data were analyzed in two steps. In the first step, estimates of validity and reliability were obtained for each question. The second step was a meta-analysis of the variation in data quality found in the first step. This variation was related to question-specific characteristics, response scale characteristics, context characteristics, and design characteristics. The article describes how the results of this study can be of practical use. In addition, the authors compare them to results of similar studies in the United States, Austria, and other Western, Central, and Eastern European countries.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The possible burden of participating in trauma research is an important topic for Ethical Committees (EC's), Review Boards (RB's) and researchers. However, to what extent research on trauma is more burdensome than non-trauma research is unknown. Little is known about which factors explain respondents evaluations on the burden: to what extent are they trauma-related or dependent on other factors such as personality and how respondents evaluate research in general? Data of a large probability based multi-wave internet panel, with surveys on politics and values, personality and health in 2009 and 2011, and a survey on trauma in 2012 provided the unique opportunity to address these questions. Results among respondents confronted with these events in the past 2 years (N = 950) showed that questions on trauma were significantly and systematically evaluated as less pleasant (enjoyed less), more difficult, but also stimulated respondents to think about things more than almost all previous non-trauma surveys. Yet, the computed effect sizes indicated that the differences were (very) small and often meaningless. No differences were found between users and non-users of mental services, in contrast to posttraumatic stress symptoms. Evaluations of the burden of previous surveys in 2011 on politics and values, personality and health most strongly, systematically and independently predicted the burden of questions on trauma, and not posttraumatic stress symptoms, event-related coping self-efficacy and personality factors. For instance, multiple linear regression analyses showed that 30% of the variance of how (un)pleasant questions on trauma and life-events were evaluated, was explained by how (un)pleasant the 3 surveys in 2011 were evaluated, in contrast to posttraumatic stress symptoms (not significant) and coping self-efficacy (5%). Findings question why EC's, RB's and researchers should be more critical of the possible burden of trauma research than of the possible burden of other non-trauma research.

No abstract