A checklist to assess the quality of survey studies in psychology

Abstract
Study quality is emerging as an essential component of evidence syntheses and allows practitioners and policymakers to make informed decisions based on the quality of the evidence reviewed. Study quality is typically assessed by checklists of pre-determined quality criteria. Few study quality checklists have been systematically evaluated, and none have been developed specifically for survey studies in psychology. The present study addresses this evidence gap by developing the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist, using an expert-consensus method. An international panel of experts in psychology research and quality assessment (N ​= ​53) evaluated the inclusion and importance of candidate quality items and offered commentary. The resulting checklist was used to evaluate a set of survey studies and inter-rater reliability of checklist scores was computed. A preliminary test of criterion validity of checklist scores was conducted using on a sample of survey studies with ‘known differences’ in study quality verified by experts. Experts exhibited high agreement on inclusion and importance ratings of the candidate items. Minor adjustments were made to the candidate items based on experts' feedback. Inter-rater reliability of study quality scores using the checklist was high. Some evidence for criterion validity of scores using the checklist was obtained. Overall, we provide preliminary data to support the Q-SSP checklist as a potential means to evaluate the quality of survey studies in psychology. We recommend a large-scale study using the Q-SSP checklist to assess study quality in studies with known differences in quality verified by experts.
Main Authors
Format
Articles Research article
Published
2020
Series
Subjects
Publication in research information system
Publisher
Elsevier
The permanent address of the publication
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202007275385Käytä tätä linkitykseen.
Review status
Peer reviewed
ISSN
2590-2601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2020.100031
Language
English
Published in
Methods in Psychology
Citation
License
CC BY 4.0Open Access
Funder(s)
TEKES
Additional information about funding
Martin Hagger’s contribution was supported by a Finland Distinguished Professor (FiDiPro) award (1801/31/2105) from Business Finland.
Copyright© 2020 the Author(s)

Share