Skip to main content

The effects of response option order and question order on self-rated health

Quality of Life Research volume 24, pages 1443–1453 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to assess the impact of response option order and question order on the distribution of responses to the self-rated health (SRH) question and the relationship between SRH and other health-related measures.

Methods

In an online panel survey, we implement a 2-by-2 between-subjects factorial experiment, manipulating the following levels of each factor: (1) order of response options (“excellent” to “poor” versus “poor” to “excellent”) and (2) order of SRH item (either preceding or following the administration of domain-specific health items). We use Chi-square difference tests, polychoric correlations, and differences in means and proportions to evaluate the effect of the experimental treatments on SRH responses and the relationship between SRH and other health measures.

Results

Mean SRH is higher (better health) and proportion in “fair” or “poor” health lower when response options are ordered from “excellent” to “poor” and SRH is presented first compared to other experimental treatments. Presenting SRH after domain-specific health items increases its correlation with these items, particularly when response options are ordered “excellent” to “poor.” Among participants with the highest level of current health risks, SRH is worse when it is presented last versus first.

Conclusion

While more research on the presentation of SRH is needed across a range of surveys, we suggest that ordering response options from “poor” to “excellent” might reduce positive clustering. Given the question order effects found here, we suggest presenting SRH before domain-specific health items in order to increase inter-survey comparability, as domain-specific health items will vary across surveys.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Question 2, about alcohol consumption, is excluded from the index of current health risks. This question was included as part of the corpus to prime respondents in the conditions in which SRH is presented last to think of a range of health behaviors, conditions, and limitations, but cannot be used to reliably estimate behavioral risk given that the complex relationship between alcohol consumption and health cannot be assessed without additional data on the number of alcoholic drinks consumed daily [28].

References

  1. Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38(1), 21–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schnittker, J., & Bacak, V. (2014). The increasing predictive validity of self-rated health. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e84933.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Benyamini, Y., Idler, E. L., Leventhal, H., & Leventhal, E. A. (2000). Positive affect and function as influences on self-assessments of health. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55(2), P107–P116.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, E. A., & Leventhal, H. (1999). Self-assessments of health. Research on Aging, 21(3), 477–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, E. A., & Leventhal, H. (2000). Gender differences in processing information for making self-assessments of health. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62(3), 354–364.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, E. A., & Leventhal, H. (2003). Elderly people’s ratings of the importance of health-related factors to their self-assessments of health. Social Science and Medicine, 56(8), 1661–1667.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Canfield, B., Miller, K., Beatty, P., Whitaker, K., Calvillo, A., & Wilson, B. (2003). Adult questions on the health interview survey—results of cognitive testing interviews conducted April–May 2003. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, Cognitive Methods Staff., pp. 1–41.

  8. DeSalvo, K. B., Bloser, N., Reynolds, K., He, J., & Muntner, P. (2006). Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(3), 267–275.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garbarski, D., Schaeffer, N. C., & Dykema, J. (2011). Are interactional behaviors exhibited when the self-reported health question is asked associated with health status? Social Science Research, 40(4), 1025–1036.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Groves, R. M., Fultz, F. N., & Martin, E. (1992). Direct questioning about comprehension in a survey setting. In J. M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 49–61). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Krause, N. M., & Jay, G. M. (1994). What do global self-rated health items measure? Medical Care, 32(9), 930–942.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carp, F. M. (1974). Position effects on interview responses. Journal of Gerontology, 29(5), 581–587.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chan, J. C. (1991). Response-order effects in Likert-type scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(3), 531–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(2), 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions. New Jersey: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Means, B., Nigam, A., Zarrow, M., Loftus, E. F., & Donaldson, M. S. (1989). Autobiographical memory for health-related events. Cognition and Survey Research, 6, 2, DHHS (PHS) 89-1077, 6(2), 1–38.

  18. Keller, S. D., & Ware, J. E. (1996). Questions and answers about SF-36 and SF-12. Medical Outcomes Trust Bulletin, 4(3), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lee, S., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Question context and priming meaning of health: Effect on differences in self-rated health between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. American Journal of Public Health, 104(1), 179–185.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Hopkins, D. J., & King, G. (2010). Improving anchoring vignettes designing surveys to correct interpersonal incomparability. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(2), 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K. A., & Bradburn, N. (1991). Measuring happiness in surveys: A test of the subtraction hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(2), 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwarz, N., Strack, F., & Mai, H.-P. (1991). Assimilation and contrast effects in part-whole question sequences: A conversational logic analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bowling, A., & Windsor, J. (2008). The effects of question order and response-choice on self-rated health status in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(1), 81–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Crossley, T. F., & Kennedy, S. (2002). The reliability of self-assessed health status. Journal of Health Economics, 21(4), 643–658.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee, S., & Grant, D. (2009). The effect of question order on self-rated general health status in a multilingual survey context. American Journal of Epidemiology, 169(12), 1525–1530.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Callegaro, M., & DiSogra, C. (2008). Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 1008–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. National Institute on Alcohol, A., & Alcoholism. (2007). Helping patients who drink too much. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Krosnick, J. A. (2012). Improving question design to maximize reliability and validity. Conference on the Future of Survey Research, Arlington, VA.

  30. Perneger, T., Gayet-Ageron, A., Courvoisier, D., Agoritsas, T., & Cullati, S. (2013). Self-rated health: Analysis of distances and transitions between response options. Quality of Life Research, 22(10), 2761–2768.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Preacher, K. J. (2002). Calculation for the test of the difference between two independent correlation coefficients [computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org.

  32. Holbrook, A. L., Krosnick, J. A., Carson, R. T., & Mitchell, R. C. (2000). Violating conversational conventions disrupts cognitive processing of attitude questions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(5), 465–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee, S., Schwarz, N., & Goldstein, L. S. (2014). Culture-sensitive question order effects of self-rated health between older Hispanic and non-Hispanic adults in the United States. Journal of Aging and Health, 26(5), 860–883.

  34. Bailis, D. S., Segall, A., & Chipperfield, J. G. (2003). Two views of self-rated general health status. Social Science and Medicine, 56(2), 203–217.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Huisman, M., & Deeg, D. J. H. (2010). A commentary on Marja Jylhä’s “What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model” (69:3, 2009, 307–316). Social Science and Medicine, 70(5), 652–654.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jylhä, M. (2009). What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model. Social Science and Medicine, 69(3), 307–316.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jylhä, M. (2010). Self-rated health between psychology and biology. A response to Huisman and Deeg. Social Science and Medicine, 70(5), 655–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., & Conrad, F. G. (2013). “Up means good”: The effect of screen position on evaluative ratings in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(S1), 69–88.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grants to the Center for Demography and Ecology (T32 HD007014) and the Health Disparities Research Scholars training program (T32 HD049302), and from core funding to the Center for Demography and Ecology (R24 HD047873) at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The data used in this study were collected by GfK with funding from Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences (NSF Grant SES-0818839, Jeremy Freese and James Druckman, Principal Investigators). This study was approved by the Social and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2014 meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research in Anaheim, CA. We thank conference participants and the peer reviewers for their insightful comments. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Loyola University Chicago, 1032 West Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL, 60660, USA

    Dana Garbarski

  2. Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Nora Cate Schaeffer

  3. University of Wisconsin Survey Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Nora Cate Schaeffer & Jennifer Dykema

Authors
  1. Dana Garbarski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nora Cate Schaeffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Dykema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dana Garbarski.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Survey questions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garbarski, D., Schaeffer, N.C. & Dykema, J. The effects of response option order and question order on self-rated health. Qual Life Res 24, 1443–1453 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0861-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0861-y

Keywords

  • Self-rated health
  • Response option order
  • Question order
  • Assimilation effects
  • Validity
  • USA