Dataset Information

Comparing Four Question Formats in Five Languages for On-Line Consumer Surveys.

ABSTRACT: Question formats are critical to the collection of consumer health attitudes, food product characterizations, and perceptions. The information from those surveys provides important insights in the product development process. Four formats based on the same concept have been used for prior studies: Check-All-That-Apply (CATA), Check-All-Statements (CAS), Rate-All-That-Apply (RATA), and Rate-All-Statements (RAS). Data can vary depending on what question format is used in the research, and this can affect the interpretation of the findings and subsequent decisions. This survey protocol compares the four question formats. Using a modified version of the Eating Motivation Survey (EMS) to test consumer eating motivations for five food items, each question format was translated and randomly assigned to respondents (N = 200 per country per format) from Brazil (Portuguese), China (Mandarin Chinese), India (Hindi or English), Spain (Spanish), and the USA (English). The results of this survey should provide more understanding of the differences and similarities in distribution of data for the four scale formats. Also, the translations and findings of this survey can guide marketers, sensory scientists, product developers, dieticians, and nutritionists when designing future consumer studies that will use these question formats.

SUBMITTER: Seninde DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7563457 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing Four Question Formats in Five Languages for On-Line Consumer Surveys.

Seninde Denis Richard DR Chambers Iv Edgar E

Methods and protocols 20200714 3

Question formats are critical to the collection of consumer health attitudes, food product characterizations, and perceptions. The information from those surveys provides important insights in the product development process. Four formats based on the same concept have been used for prior studies: Check-All-That-Apply (CATA), Check-All-Statements (CAS), Rate-All-That-Apply (RATA), and Rate-All-Statements (RAS). Data can vary depending on what question format is used in the research, and this can ...[more]

PMID: 32674527

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough subjective expressions and linguistic fluency have been shown as important factors in processing and interpreting textual facts, analyses of these traits in textual health information for different audiences are lacking. We analyzed the readability and linguistic psychological and emotional characteristics of different textual summary formats of Cochrane systematic reviews.MethodsWe performed a multitrait-multimethod cross-sectional study of Press releases available at Cochrane web site (n = 162) and corresponding Scientific abstracts (n = 158), Cochrane Clinical Answers (n = 35) and Plain language summaries in English (n = 156), French (n = 101), German (n = 41) and Croatian (n = 156). We used SMOG index to assess text readability of all text formats, and natural language processing tools (IBM Watson Tone Analyzer, Stanford NLP Sentiment Analysis and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count) to examine the affective states and subjective information in texts of Scientific abstracts, Plain language summaries and Press releases.ResultsAll text formats had low readability, with SMOG index ranging from a median of 15.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.3-15.9) for Scientific abstracts to 14.7 (95% CI 14.4-15.0) for Plain language summaries. In all text formats, "Sadness" was the most dominantly perceived emotional tone and the style of writing was perceived as "Analytical" and "Tentative". At the psychological level, all text formats exhibited the predominant "Openness" tone, and Press releases scored higher on the scales of "Conscientiousness", "Agreeableness" and "Emotional range". Press releases had significantly higher scores than Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries on the dimensions of "Clout", and "Emotional tone".ConclusionsAlthough the readability of Plain language summaries was higher than that of text formats targeting more expert audiences, the required literacy was much higher than the recommended US 6th grade level. The language of Press releases was generally more engaging than that of Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries, which are written by the authors of systematic reviews. Preparation of textual summaries about health evidence for different audiences should take into account readers' subjective experiences to encourage cognitive processing and reaction to the provided information.

Project description:Study objectivesWe aimed to investigate how different presentation formats influence comprehension and use of comparative performance information (CPI) among consumers.MethodsAn experimental between-subjects and within-subjects design with manipulations of CPI presentation formats. We enrolled both consumers with lower socioeconomic status (SES)/cognitive skills and consumers with higher SES/cognitive skills, recruited through an online access panel. Respondents received fictitious CPI and completed questions about interpretation and information use. Between subjects, we tested (1) displaying an overall performance score (yes/no); (2) displaying a small number of quality indicators (5 vs 9); and (3) displaying different types of evaluative symbols (star ratings, coloured dots and word icons vs numbers and bar graphs). Within subjects, we tested the effect of a reduced number of healthcare providers (5 vs 20). Data were analysed using descriptive analysis, analyses of variance and paired-sampled t tests.ResultsA total of 902 (43%) respondents participated. Displaying an overall performance score and the use of coloured dots and word icons particularly enhanced consumer understanding. Importantly, respondents provided with coloured dots most often correctly selected the top three healthcare providers (84.3%), compared with word icons (76.6% correct), star ratings (70.6% correct), numbers (62.0%) and bars (54.2%) when viewing performance scores of 20 providers. Furthermore, a reduced number of healthcare providers appeared to support consumers, for example, when provided with 20 providers, 69.5% correctly selected the top three, compared with 80.2% with five providers.DiscussionParticular presentation formats enhanced consumer understanding of CPI, most importantly the use of overall performance scores, word icons and coloured dots, and a reduced number of providers displayed. Public report efforts should use these formats to maximise impact on consumers.

Dataset Information

Comparing Four Question Formats in Five Languages for On-Line Consumer Surveys.

Publications

Comparing Four Question Formats in Five Languages for On-Line Consumer Surveys.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets