This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Couper, M. P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Usability Evaluation of Computer-Assisted Survey Instruments

University of Michigan, mcouper{at}umich.edu

Computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) has a substantial impact on the way interviewers carry out the task of interviewing. Survey instruments are becoming more complex, necessitating new skills of interviewers. In addition to question wording, the design of CAI instruments is a focus of evaluation and pretesting efforts. This article reports on a variety of research activities related to the usability testing of CAI instruments, focusing both on interviewers (in interviewer-administered surveys) and respondents (in self-administered surveys). The article introduces practices and procedures of usability testing, illustrated with examples from several recent studies in which these methods were applied to the evaluation of computerized survey instruments.

Key Words: computer-assisted interviewing • CATI • CAPI • user-centered design • usability

Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, 384-396 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/089443930001800402


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. J. Jansky and J. C. Huang A Multi-Method Approach to Assess Usability and Acceptability: A Case Study of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS) Workshop Social Science Computer Review, May 1, 2009; 27(2): 262 - 270. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. L. Edwards, M. L. Slattery, M. A. Murtaugh, R. L. Edwards, J. Bryner, M. Pearson, A. Rogers, A. M. Edwards, and L. Tom-Orme Development and Use of Touch-Screen Audio Computer-assisted Self-Interviewing in a Study of American Indians Am. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2007; 165(11): 1336 - 1342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Healey Drop Downs and Scroll Mice: The Effect of Response Option Format and Input Mechanism Employed on Data Quality in Web Surveys Social Science Computer Review, February 1, 2007; 25(1): 111 - 128. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. C. Gravlee, S. N. Zenk, S. Woods, Z. Rowe, and A. J. Schulz Handheld Computers for Direct Observation of the Social and Physical Environment Field Methods, November 1, 2006; 18(4): 382 - 397. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Gerich and R. Lehner Video Computer-Assisted Self-Administered Interviews for Deaf Respondents Field Methods, August 1, 2006; 18(3): 267 - 283. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. P. Couper, R. Tourangeau, F. G. Conrad, and S. D. Crawford What They See Is What We Get: Response Options for Web Surveys Social Science Computer Review, February 1, 2004; 22(1): 111 - 127. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Heerwegh Explaining Response Latencies and Changing Answers Using Client-Side Paradata from a Web Survey Social Science Computer Review, August 1, 2003; 21(3): 360 - 373. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Heerwegh and G. Loosveldt An Evaluation of the Effect of Response Formats on Data Quality in Web Surveys Social Science Computer Review, November 1, 2002; 20(4): 471 - 484. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Banks and H. Laurie From Papi to Capi: The Case of the British Household Panel Survey Social Science Computer Review, November 1, 2000; 18(4): 397 - 406. [Abstract] [PDF]