2011
DOI: 10.1590/s0104-11692011000500025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation and revision of questionnaires for use among low-literacy immigrant Latinos

Abstract: As more Spanish speaking immigrants participate in and become the focus of research studies, questions arise about the appropriateness of existing research tools. Questionnaires have often been adapted from English language instruments and tested among college- educated Hispanic-Americans. Little has been written regarding the testing and evaluation of research tools among less educated Latino immigrants. The purpose of this study was to revise and evaluate the appropriateness of a battery of existing Spanish-… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
16
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
2
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is because certain methods that may improve participation and comprehension, such as the use of incentives and face‐to‐face interviews, may also induce ARB and/or SDB. In the present study, face‐to‐face interviews were deemed essential, as the low literacy rate of the subjects would have resulted in many of the surveys being both incompletely and incorrectly filled out [Flaskerud, ; McQuiston et al, ; D'Alonzo, ]. However, this survey methodology, in which the questions were read aloud and research assistants recorded the respondents’ answers, appear to have exacerbated the power differential between researcher and subject, and contributed to ARB and SDB [Mirowsky and Ross, ; Triandis et al, ; Hui and Triandis, ; Marin et al, ; Johnson et al, ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…This is because certain methods that may improve participation and comprehension, such as the use of incentives and face‐to‐face interviews, may also induce ARB and/or SDB. In the present study, face‐to‐face interviews were deemed essential, as the low literacy rate of the subjects would have resulted in many of the surveys being both incompletely and incorrectly filled out [Flaskerud, ; McQuiston et al, ; D'Alonzo, ]. However, this survey methodology, in which the questions were read aloud and research assistants recorded the respondents’ answers, appear to have exacerbated the power differential between researcher and subject, and contributed to ARB and SDB [Mirowsky and Ross, ; Triandis et al, ; Hui and Triandis, ; Marin et al, ; Johnson et al, ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In short, MSFWs face a variety of income, education, and social inequities that collectively contribute to their status as a vulnerable population. A growing body of literature suggests that vulnerable populations have low “research literacy.” This implies that research participants from vulnerable populations are likely unfamiliar with traditional data collection tools, such as quantitative surveys or in‐person interviews [D'Alonzo, ]. It is common for these quantitative data collection tools to employ Likert scale questions in which the subject is asked to supply a ranking along a 0–5 (or 10) point scale.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through promotora feedback on the training program. Likert scales have been reported to problematic with low‐literacy Latinos; therefore, self‐evaluatory questions regarding skills gained during the training and required for participation as a promotora were developed using “I am sure that I can” ( Estoy segura que puedo ), “Maybe I can” ( Quizas si puedo ), and “I am sure I cannot” ( Estoy segura que no puedo ) based on previous Likert‐scale research (D'Alonzo, ). Three additional open‐ended questions allowed the participants to provide feedback regarding the most helpful part of the training, which parts needed improvement, and suggestions to improve future training.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%