Learn how the MR industry can re-build respondent relationships and fight disengagement in a time of fierce online competition. Read Rules of Engagement by Kees de Jong, SSI CEO, in Research World.
Read Simon Chadwick's interview on the "Future of Insight." Then log in and join the discussion!
GfK NOP Embraces Research Voice "The most important challenge...is how to meet people in a progressive research atmosphere..." Mike Cooke, Global Director: Online Development. Read more.
jackie lorch
Survey Sampling International
Member
January 21, 2010 / Read/Post Comments
At a meeting this week the Advertising Research Foundation presented some early results from their QeP initiative testing. This initiative proposes a set of 17 spreadsheets for sample providers and research agencies to fill out for research buyers. The ARF explains this is "a facilitation program to help clients and research suppliers engage in a structured conversation to improve online data quality. The process consists of a set of forms and templates that are used to establish critical metrics to help guide online data quality. The process involves goal setting, training, deployment, and evaluation via a collaborative approach between buyers and sellers."
What have people heard about this initiative? What is your reaction? What are your thoughts about the impact of this process becoming the industry standard? Will it help improve the experience for research participants?
Jul 14, 2010
Rules of Engagement
May 7, 2010
Slider Scales in Online Surveys
Mar 30, 2010
Questionnaire Length, Fatigue Effects and Response Quality Revisited
© Copyright 2010 Survey Sampling International. All Rights Reserved
Comments
Having seen the templates, my concerns are twofold:
1) They are extremely cumbersome and will require a lot of software automation by each supplier if they are not to add to the time and cost of surveys
2) I believe that they address primarily panel, just at the time when panel is becoming only one of the sources of online sample. Most of the questions don't relate, for example, to social media sampling or to river.
I am concerned that the sample providers and research companies are either not taking this seriously (and therefore will have a big surprise when clients start asking for it) or are feeling a little 'cowed' by the process and don't dare speak up.
QeP is a worthwhile initiative, but it should not be a source of costly bureaucracy. Time to speak up, folks, and say how you think it could be made more effective and more efficient for the modern sample environment!
There were those who voiced concern at the beginning of the ORQC process that an end result might be a set of "metrics" that procurement departments would use to further commoditize research. It now appears those folks were prescient. It's hard to celebrate such an outcome.
On the other hand, you could argue that we brought this on ourselves by the casual in not downright reckless way in which we embraced a style of research with no clear standards or statistical rationale. I expect that this particular train has left the station and the best we can do now is exercise a good deal more restraint in our claims as new methodologies come on line.
There is a lesson here and we should be sure to learn it.
I agree entirely that this was our doing and that the train has left the station. But it's not the only train that has left, I am afraid. There are others, including the attempt by major companies to railroad all online surveys through one proprietary quality checking system, that (taken together) promise a right royal train WRECK. If only we would have the courage of our convictions and speak up about these types of things rather than meet, plot and grumble in small groups, perhaps we could prevent yet another mistake.