Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McGloin, J.
Right arrow Articles by Main, D. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McGloin, J.
Right arrow Articles by Main, D. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Matching Anonymous Pre-Posttests Using Subject-Generated Information

Joe McGloin

University of Colorado School of Medicine

Sherry Holcomb

University of Colorado School of Medicine

Deborah S. Main

University of Colorado School of Medicine

Sensitive research issues call for anonymous questionnaires. This makes accurately matching pretests with posttests difficult or impossible. Various subject-generated coding schemes have been developed, but their accuracy has been unknown. This anonymous study, with 745 students, used subject-generated coding to match pretests with posttests. The matching was verified for accuracy with the use of a collateral, anonymous, sticker identification system. The coding system was able to accurately match 75.2% of all the pretest-posttest pairs. An additional 22.1% of the pairs were left unmatched and only 2.7% were matched incorrectly. Subject-generated coding systems can be very effective where confidentiality is important to protect.

Evaluation Review, Vol. 20, No. 6, 724-736 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9602000604
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eval RevHome page
L. A. Yurek, J. Vasey, and D. Sullivan Havens
The Use of Self-Generated Identification Codes in Longitudinal Research
Eval Rev, October 1, 2008; 32(5): 435 - 452.
[Abstract] [PDF]