Survey Development for Adolescents Aged 11–16 Years: A Developmental Science Based Guide

Omrani, Atefeh; Wakefield-Scurr, Joanna; Smith, Jenny; Brown, Nicola

doi:10.1007/s40894-018-0089-0

Qualitative Review
Published: 05 July 2018

Survey Development for Adolescents Aged 11–16 Years: A Developmental Science Based Guide

Atefeh Omrani ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4264-722X¹,
Joanna Wakefield-Scurr²,
Jenny Smith³ &
Nicola Brown¹

Adolescent Research Review volume 4, pages 329–340 (2019)Cite this article

982 Accesses
10 Citations
12 Altmetric
Metrics details

Abstract

Methodological knowledge on surveying young adolescents is scarce and researchers often rely on theories and methodological studies based on adult respondents. However, young adolescents are in the process of developing their cognitive, psychological, emotional and social skills, therefore present a unique set of considerations. Question characteristics including; question type and format, question difficulty, wording, ambiguity, the number of response options, and the inclusion of a neutral mid-point, play a pivotal role in the response quality of young adolescents. Failure to address these factors is likely to encourage young adolescents to use satisficing techniques. In this article, we provide a science based guide for developing surveys for use with adolescents aged 11–16 years. The guide considers the characteristics and developmental stages of adolescents as survey responders and incorporates advice on appropriate question characteristics, survey layout and question sequence, approaches to pre-testing surveys and mode of survey administration. The guide provides recommendations for developmentally appropriate survey design to improve response quality in survey research with young adolescents.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

Alm-Roijer, C., Stagmo, M., Uden, G., & Erhardt, L. (2004). Better knowledge improves adherence to lifestyle changes and medication in patients with coronary heart disease. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 3(4), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2004.05.002.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Alwin, D. F. (2007). Margins of error. Wiley series in survey methodology. Hoboken: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470146316.
Book Google Scholar
Arthur, A. M., Smith, M. H., White, A. S., Hawley, L., & Koziol, N. A. (2017). Age-sensitive instrument design for youth: A developmental approach. Retrieved from http://cyfs.unl.edu/resources/downloads/working-papers/MAP-working-paper-2017-1.pdf. Accessed November, 2 2017.
Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2013). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808.
Article Google Scholar
Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006.
Article Google Scholar
Bell, A. (2007). Designing and testing questionnaires for children. Journal of Research in Nursing, 12(5), 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107079616.
Article Google Scholar
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet, 327(8476), 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8.
Article Google Scholar
Borgers, N., de Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and response quality. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Mathodologie Sociologique, 66(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/075910630006600106.
Article Google Scholar
Borgers, N., & Hox, J. J. (2000). Reliability of responses in questionnaire research with children. In The fifth international conference on logic and methodology. Cologne, Germany.
Borgers, N., & Hox, J. J. (2001). Item nonresponse in questionnaire research with children. Journal of Official Statistics, 17(2), 321–335.
Google Scholar
Borgers, N., Hox, J. J., & Sikkel, D. (2003). Response quality in survey research with children and adolescents: The effect of labeled response options and vague quantifiers. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/15.1.83.
Article Google Scholar
Borgers, N., Hox, J. J., & Sikkel, D. (2004). Response effects in surveys on children and adolescents: The effect of number of response options, negative wording, and neutral mid-point. Quality and Quantity, 38(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ququ.0000013236.29205.a6.
Article Google Scholar
Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdi031.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Bowling, A. (2014). Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services (4th edn.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press.
Google Scholar
Boynton, P. M., & Greenhalgh, T. (2004). Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ, 328(7451), 1312–1315. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7451.1312.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions the definitive guide to questionnaire design—for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Google Scholar
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th edn.). Oxford: University Press.
Google Scholar
Calderon, J. L., Morales, L. S., Liu, H., & Hays, R. (2006). Variation in the readability of items within surveys. American Journal of Medical Quality, 21(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860605283572.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000). Im) maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18(6), 741–760.
Article Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960). A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104.
Article Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70(4), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026256.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research, 12(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023254226592.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Colosi, R. (2005). Negatively worded questions cause respondent confusion. In U. B. o. t. Census (pp. 2896–2903). Suitland: ASA Section on Survey Research Methods.
Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445001000101.
Article Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–16). New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
de Leeuw, E., Natacha, B., & Astrid, S. (2004). Pretesting questionnaires for children and adolescents. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 409–429). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Chapter Google Scholar
de Leeuw, E. D. (2011). Improving data quality when surveying children and adolescents: Cognitive and social development and its role in questionnaire construction and pretesting. In Report prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Finland: Research Programs Public Health, Finland.
De Vaus, D. (2014). Surveys in social research. New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Deutskens, E., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Oosterveld, P. (2004). Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: An experimental study. Marketing Letters, 15(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:mark.0000021968.86465.00.
Article Google Scholar
DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th edn.). London: SAGE.
Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A. (2006). Why choice of survey mode makes a difference. Public Health Reports, 121(1), 11–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490612100106.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A., & Smyth, J. D. (2007). Design effects in the transition to web-based surveys. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), S90–S96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.03.008.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone mail and mixed-mode surveys: The Tailored design method (4th edn.). New York: Wiley.
Google Scholar
DuBay, W. H. (2007). Smart language: Readers, readability, and the grading of text. Costa Mesa: Booksurge Publishing.
Google Scholar
Fargas-Malet, M., McSherry, D., Larkin, E., & Robinson, C. (2010). Research with children: Methodological issues and innovative techniques. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x09345412.
Article Google Scholar
Feldman, D. H. (2004). Piaget’s stages: The unfinished symphony of cognitive development. New Ideas in Psychology, 22(3), 175–231.
Article Google Scholar
Ferketich, S. (1991). Focus on psychometrics. Aspects of item analysis. Research in Nursing & Health, 14(2), 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770140211.
Article Google Scholar
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Flesch, R. (1962). The art of plain talk. Revised edition. New York: Harper and Row.
Google Scholar
Fuchs, M. (2005). Children and adolescents as respondents. Experiments on question order, response order, scale effects and the effect of numeric values associated with response options. Journal of Official Statistics, 21(4), 701–725.
Google Scholar
Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp031.
Article Google Scholar
Greig, A., Taylor, J., & MacKay, T. (2013). Doing research with children: A practical guide. Ltd: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402219.
Book Google Scholar
Haeger, H., Lambert, A. D., Kinzie, J., & Gieser, J. (2012). Using cognitive interviews to improve survey instruments. New Orleans: The Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum.
Google Scholar
Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(01)00295-8.
Article Google Scholar
Harter, S. (2012a). Manual for the self-perception profile for adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Google Scholar
Harter, S. (2012b). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Cooksey, R. W. (1984). Procedures for assessing the validities of tests using the known-groups method. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(3), 295–305.
Article Google Scholar
Jakobsson, U., & Westergren, A. (2005). Statistical methods for assessing agreement for ordinal data. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2005.00368.x.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V., & Sitzia, J. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 15(3), 261–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzg031.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R., Rogers, R., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Defense Technical Information Center. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada006655.
Article Google Scholar
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305.
Article Google Scholar
Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. In P. B. L. Lyberg, M. Collins, E. de Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz & D. Trewin (Eds.), Survey measurement and process quality (pp. 141–164). New York: Wiley.
Chapter Google Scholar
Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. In J. D. Wright & P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Handbook of survey research (pp. 263–314). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Google Scholar
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.
Article Google Scholar
Lenzner, T. (2014). Are readability formulas valid tools for assessing survey question difficulty? Sociological Methods and Research, 43(4), 677–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113513436.
Article Google Scholar
Leshem, R. (2016). Brain development, impulsivity, risky decision making, and cognitive control: Integrating cognitive and socioemotional processes during adolescence—an introduction to the special issue. Developmental Neuropsychology, 41(1–2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2016.1187033.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.
Google Scholar
Lissitz, R. W., & Hou, X. (2012). Multiple choice items and constructed response items: Does it matter? Retrieved from http://www.education.umd.edu/MARC/multiplechoiceitemsandconstructedresponseitems.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2016.
Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology, 4(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73.
Article Google Scholar
Marcus, B., Bosnjak, M., Lindner, S., Pilischenko, S., & Schütz, A. (2007). Compensating for low topic interest and long surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 25(3), 372–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439307297606.
Article Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Negative item bias in ratings scales for preadolescent children: A cognitive-developmental phenomenon. Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.22.1.37.
Article Google Scholar
Mavletova, A., & Lynn, P. (2017). Data quality in the understanding society youth self-completion questionnaire. Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research (No. 2017–8).
McCabe, M. P., & Ricciardelli, L. A. (2003). Body image and strategies to lose weight and increase muscle among boys and girls. Health Psychology, 22(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-6133.22.1.39.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.
Google Scholar
Mellor, D., & Moore, K. A. (2003). The questionnaire on teacher interaction: Assessing information transfer in single and multi-teacher environments. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 38(2), 29–35.
Google Scholar
Mellor, D., & Moore, K. A. (2014). The use of Likert scales with children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(3), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst079.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Menold, N., Kaczmirek, L., Lenzner, T., & Neusar, A. (2014). How do respondents attend to verbal labels in rating scales? Field Methods, 26(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x13508270.
Article Google Scholar
Michalos, A. C., Creech, H., Swayze, N., Kahlke, M., Buckler, P., C., & Rempel, K. (2011). Measuring knowledge, attitudes and behaviours concerning sustainable development among tenth grade students in Manitoba. Social Indicators Research, 106(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9809-6.
Article Google Scholar
Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2013). Research design explained (8th edn.). Boston: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Google Scholar
Mondak, J. J., & Davis, B. C. (2001). Asked and answered: knowledge levels when we won’t take “don’t know” for an answer. Political Behavior, 23(3), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015015227594.
Article Google Scholar
Moore, K. A., & Mellor, D. J. (2003). The nature of children’s social interactions at school. School Psychology International, 24(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343030243005.
Article Google Scholar
Moors, G., Kieruj, N. D., & Vermunt, J. K. (2014). The effect of labeling and numbering of response scales on the likelihood of response bias. Sociological Methodology, 44(1), 369–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175013516114.
Article Google Scholar
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129.
Article Google Scholar
Moser, C., & Kalton, G. (1985). Survey methods in social investigation (2nd edn.). Aldershot: Gower.
Google Scholar
Nevo, B. (1985). Face validity revisited. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01065.x.
Article Google Scholar
Norris, A. E., Torres-Thomas, S., & Williams, E. T. (2014). Adapting cognitive interviewing for early adolescent hispanic girls and sensitive topics. Hispanic Health Care International, 12(3), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1891/1540-4153.12.3.111.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Ogan, C., Karakuay, T., & Kurayun, E. (2013). Methodological issues in a survey of children’s online risk-taking and other behaviours in Europe. Journal of Children and Media, 7(1), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2012.739812.
Article Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Google Scholar
Partridge, B. C. (2010). Adolescent psychological development, parenting styles, and pediatric decision making. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 35(5), 518–525.
PubMed Article Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1929). Child’s conception of the world (international library of psychology). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Google Scholar
Pole, C., & Lampard, R. (2013). Practical social investigation. Qualitative and quantitative methods in social research. Harlow: Printice Hall.
Google Scholar
Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh008.
Article Google Scholar
Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number 0f response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00050-5.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Priest, J., Thomas, L., & Bond, S. (1995). Developing and refining a new measurement tool. Nurse Researcher, 2(4), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2.4.69.s8.
Article Google Scholar
Quaigrain, K., & Arhin, A. K. (2017). Using reliability and item analysis to evaluate a teacher-developed test in educational measurement and evaluation. Cogent Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2017.1301013.
Rattray, J., & Jones, M. C. (2007). Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(2), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01573.x.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide (3rd edn.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Reja, U., Manfreda, K. L., Hlebec, V., & Vehovar, V. (2003). Open-ended vs. close-ended questions in web questionnaires. Developments in Applied Statistics, 19, 159–177.
Google Scholar
Reyna, V. F., & Rivers, S. E. (2008). Current theories of risk and rational decision making. Developmental Review, 28(1), 1–11.
PubMed Article Google Scholar
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (3rd edn.). Chichester: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., & Marsh, E. J. (2005). The positive and negative consequences of multiple-choice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 1155–1159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1155.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Rohrmann, B. (2007). Verbal qualifiers for rating scales: Sociolinguistic considerations and psychometric data. University of Melbourne/Australia. Retrieved from http://www.rohrmannresearch.net/pdfs/rohrmann-vqs-report.pdf. Accessed: 15 April, 2016.
Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D., & Anderson, A. B. (2013). Handbook of survey research. New York: Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Saffi, M. A. L., Macedo Junior Jacques de, L. J., Trojahn, M. M., Polanczyk, C. A., & Rabelo-Silva, E. (2013). Validity and reliability of a questionnaire on knowledge of cardiovascular risk factors for use in Brazil. Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da USP, 47(5), 1083–1089. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0080-623420130000500011.
Article Google Scholar
Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1996). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York: Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescent development and the regulation of youth crime. The Future of Childre, 18(2), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0011.
Article Google Scholar
Scott, J. (1997). Children as respondents: Methods for improving data quality. In P. B. L. Lyberg, M. Collins, E. de Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz & D. Trewin (Eds.), Survey measurement and process quality (pp. 331–350). New York: Wiley.
Chapter Google Scholar
Seale, C. (2004). Social research methods: A reader. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The Kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/85.3.257.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Smith, K., & Platt, L. (2013). How do children answer questions about frequencies and quantities? Evidence from a large-scale field test. Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London.
Somerville, L. H. (2013). The teenage brain: Sensitivity to social evaluation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413476512.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Tan, C. L., Hassali, M. A., Saleem, F., Shafie, A. A., Aljadhey, H., & Gan, V. B. (2015). Development, test-retest reliability and validity of the pharmacy value-added services questionnaire (PVASQ). Pharmacy Practice, 13(3), 598. https://doi.org/10.18549/pharmpract.2015.03.598.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 529–554. https://doi.org/10.1086/214483.
Article Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511819322.
Book Google Scholar
Turner, J. (1975). Cognitive development. London: Methue.
Google Scholar
Vaillancourt, P. M. (1973). Stability of children’s survey responses. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(3), 373. https://doi.org/10.1086/268099.
Article Google Scholar
van Hattum, M. J. C., & de Leeuw, E. (1999). A disk by mail survey of pupils in primary schools: Data quality and logistics. Journal of Official Statistics, 15(3), 413–429.
Google Scholar
Vogt, D. S., King, D. W., & King, L. A. (2004). Focus groups in psychological assessment: Enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.231.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Wallace, C. M. (2009). Measuring changes in attitude, skill and knowledge of undergraduate nursing students after receiving an educational intervention in intimate partner violence.
Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(1), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1519/00124278-200502000-00038.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3), 1–13.
Article Google Scholar
Willis, G. G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. In PsycEXTRA dataset. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Google Scholar
Zanolin, M. E., Visentin, M., Trentin, L., Saiani, L., Brugnolli, A., & Grassi, M. (2007). A questionnaire to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes of health care providers on pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 33(6), 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.09.032.
Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Funding

There were no forms of financial support, funding, or involvement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

School of Sport Health and Applied Science, St Mary’s University, Waldegrave Road, Twickenham, TW1 4SX, UK
Atefeh Omrani & Nicola Brown
Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, Spinnaker Building, Cambridge Road, Portsmouth, PO1 2ER, UK
Joanna Wakefield-Scurr
Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Chichester, Bishop Otter Campus, College Lange, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 6PE, UK
Jenny Smith

Authors

Atefeh Omrani
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Joanna Wakefield-Scurr
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Jenny Smith
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Nicola Brown
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AO created the first draft of the article, and JWS, JS and NB provided substantive feedback on subsequent drafts. After several iterations where all authors contributed, all authors approved the final version of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atefeh Omrani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Omrani, A., Wakefield-Scurr, J., Smith, J. et al. Survey Development for Adolescents Aged 11–16 Years: A Developmental Science Based Guide. Adolescent Res Rev 4, 329–340 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-018-0089-0

Download citation

Received: 26 April 2018
Accepted: 02 July 2018
Published: 05 July 2018
Issue Date: December 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-018-0089-0

Keywords

Survey development
Adolescents
Satisficing
Respondent characteristic
Question characteristic