MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225140364 · doi:10.51983/ajms-2022.11.1.3087

Designing a Questionnaire for a Research Paper: A Comprehensive Guide to Design and Develop an Effective Questionnaire

2022· article· en· W4225140364 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Managerial Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDiverse Scientific Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Canada West
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuestionnaireTest (biology)Computer-assisted web interviewingConstruct (python library)Research designFace validityConstruct validityPsychologyComputer scienceApplied psychologyMedical educationMedicinePsychometricsClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A questionnaire is an important instrument in a research study to help the researcher collect relevant data regarding the research topic. It is significant to ensure that the design of the questionnaire is arranged to minimize errors. However, researchers commonly face challenges in designing an effective questionnaire including its content, appearance and usage that leads to inappropriate and biased findings in a study. This paper aims to review the main steps to design a questionnaire introducing the process that starts with defining the information required for a study, then continues with the identification of the type of survey and types of questions, writing questions and building the construct of the questionnaire. It also develops the demand to pre-test the questionnaire and finalizing the questionnaire to conduct the survey.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it