Educator&apos;s blueprint: A how‐to guide on survey administration

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

In this paper, we take the lessons learned from designing a survey and collecting validity evidence and prepare to administer the survey for research. We focus specifically on how researchers can reach individuals in the target population, methods of contact and engagement, evidence‐informed factors that enhance participation, and recommendations for follow‐up with nonrespondents. We also discuss the challenges of survey administration and provide guidance for navigating low response rates. Surveys are a common tool used to evaluate educational initiatives and collect data for all types of research. However, many clinician educators conducting survey‐based evaluation and research may struggle to efficiently administer their survey. As a result, they often struggle to obtain appropriate response rates and thus may have difficulty publishing their survey results. Previous papers in this series focused on the initial steps of survey development and validation, but it is equally important to understand how best to administer your survey to obtain meaningful responses from a representative sample.

Related collections

Most cited references 21

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)

Gunther Eysenbach (2004)

Analogous to checklists of recommendations such as the CONSORT statement (for randomized trials), or the QUORUM statement (for systematic reviews), which are designed to ensure the quality of reports in the medical literature, a checklist of recommendations for authors is being presented by the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) in an effort to ensure complete descriptions of Web-based surveys. Papers on Web-based surveys reported according to the CHERRIES statement will give readers a better understanding of the sample (self-)selection and its possible differences from a “representative” sample. It is hoped that author adherence to the checklist will increase the usefulness of such reports.

0 comments Cited 1838 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review.

Phil Edwards, Ian Roberts, Mike Clarke … (2002)

To identify methods to increase response to postal questionnaires. Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of any method to influence response to postal questionnaires. 292 randomised controlled trials including 258 315 participants INTERVENTION REVIEWED: 75 strategies for influencing response to postal questionnaires. The proportion of completed or partially completed questionnaires returned. The odds of response were more than doubled when a monetary incentive was used (odds ratio 2.02; 95% confidence interval 1.79 to 2.27) and almost doubled when incentives were not conditional on response (1.71; 1.29 to 2.26). Response was more likely when short questionnaires were used (1.86; 1.55 to 2.24). Personalised questionnaires and letters increased response (1.16; 1.06 to 1.28), as did the use of coloured ink (1.39; 1.16 to 1.67). The odds of response were more than doubled when the questionnaires were sent by recorded delivery (2.21; 1.51 to 3.25) and increased when stamped return envelopes were used (1.26; 1.13 to 1.41) and questionnaires were sent by first class post (1.12; 1.02 to 1.23). Contacting participants before sending questionnaires increased response (1.54; 1.24 to 1.92), as did follow up contact (1.44; 1.22 to 1.70) and providing non-respondents with a second copy of the questionnaire (1.41; 1.02 to 1.94). Questionnaires designed to be of more interest to participants were more likely to be returned (2.44; 1.99 to 3.01), but questionnaires containing questions of a sensitive nature were less likely to be returned (0.92; 0.87 to 0.98). Questionnaires originating from universities were more likely to be returned than were questionnaires from other sources, such as commercial organisations (1.31; 1.11 to 1.54). Health researchers using postal questionnaires can improve the quality of their research by using the strategies shown to be effective in this systematic review.

0 comments Cited 205 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: a meta-analysis of techniques to improve response.

Young Ik Cho, Timothy P Johnson, Jonathan B Vangeest (2013)

Surveys involving health care providers are characterized by low and declining response rates (RRs), and researchers have utilized various strategies to increase survey RRs among health professionals. Based on 48 studies with 156 subgroups of within-study conditions, a multilevel meta-regression analysis was conducted to summarize the effects of different strategies employed in surveys of health professionals. An estimated overall survey RR among health professionals was 0.53 with a significant downward trend during the last half century. Of the variables that were examined, mode of data collection, incentives, and number of follow-up attempts were all found to be significantly related to RR. The mail survey mode was more effective in improving RR, compared to the online or web survey mode. Relative to the non-incentive subgroups, subgroups receiving monetary incentives were more likely to respond, while nonmonetary incentive groups were not significantly different from non-incentive groups. When number of follow-ups was considered, the one or two attempts of follow-up were found to be effective in increasing survey RR among health professionals. Having noted challenges associated with surveying health professionals, researchers must make every effort to improve access to their target population by implementing appropriate incentive- and design-based strategies demonstrated to improve participation rates.

0 comments Cited 163 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Sally A. Santen:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8327-8002

santensa@ucmail.uc.edu

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): AEM Educ Train

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): AEM Educ Train

Journal ID (doi): 10.1002/(ISSN)2472-5390

Journal ID (publisher-id): AET2

Title: AEM Education and Training

Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )

ISSN (Electronic): 2472-5390

Publication date (Electronic): 15 September 2023

Publication date Collection: October 2023

Publication date PMC-release: 01 October 2023

Volume: 7

Issue: 5 ( doiID: 10.1002/aet2.v7.5 )

Electronic Location Identifier: e10906

Affiliations

[ ¹ ] George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Washington DC USA

[ ² ] University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio USA

[ ³ ] Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine Richmond Virginia USA

[ ⁴ ] Rush University Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA

Author notes

[*] [* ] Correspondence

Sally A. Santen, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.

Email: santensa@ 123456ucmail.uc.edu

Author information

Kathleen Y. Ogle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7658-0895

Sally A. Santen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8327-8002

Michael Gottlieb https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3276-8375

Anthony R. Artino Jr. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2661-7853

Article

Publisher ID: AET210906 Other ID: AEMET-23-084.R2

DOI: 10.1002/aet2.10906

PMC ID: 10502677

PubMed ID: 37720307

SO-VID: d5ca8c9f-c70b-4d30-b6f1-4cedcf24670c

License:

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

History

Date revision received : 12 August 2023

Date received : 21 April 2023

Date accepted : 14 August 2023

Page count

Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Pages: 5, Words: 3348

Custom metadata

source-schema-version-number 2.0

cover-date October 2023

details-of-publishers-convertor Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.3.3 mode:remove_FC converted:15.09.2023

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.