Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

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

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
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
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Finney, H. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Finney, H. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 207-229 (1981)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8100500204

Improving the Reliability of Retrospective Survey Measures

Results of a Longitudinal Field Survey

Henry C. Finney

University of Vermont

Data from a panel study of the impact of a low-income cooperative on its members are employed to compare the relative advantages of three different methods of measuring change. Although analysis confirmed the often reported unreliability of retrospective compared to true panel measurements, it also showed that "pseudo panel" retrospective approximations of panel measurements are greatly superior to change assessments made by respondents themselves. Finally, the three different types of change measures are compared in actual estimations of the impact of project participation on members. Results of this comparison confirm that, although true longitudinal designs arepreferable, pseudo panel measures of change may sometimes be acceptable and should definitely be preferred to the third, more subjective assessments of change.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
AutismHome page
S. Ozonoff, B. J. Williams, and R. Landa
Parental report of the early development of children with regressive autism: The delays-plus-regression phenotype
Autism, December 1, 2005; 9(5): 461 - 486.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral SciencesHome page
J. A. Neff and A. M. Dassori
Age and Maturing Out of Heavy Drinking among Anglo and Minority Male Drinkers: A Comparison of Cross-Sectional Data and Retrospective Drinking History Techniques
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, May 1, 1998; 20(2): 225 - 240.
[Abstract]


Home page
Eval RevHome page
M. D. Anglin, Y.-I. Hser, and C.-P. Chou
Reliability and Validity of Retrospective Behavioral Self-Report By Narcotics Addicts
Eval Rev, February 1, 1993; 17(1): 91 - 108.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
J. P. Poggio, M. D. Miller, and D. R. Glasnapp
The Adequacy of Retrospective Judgments to Establish Instructional Validity
Educational and Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1987; 47(3): 783 - 793.
[Abstract]


Home page
Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
L. M. Collins, J. W. Graham, W. B. Hansen, and C. A. Johnson
Agreement Between Retrospective Accounts of Substance Use and Earlier Reported Substance Use
Applied Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1985; 9(3): 301 - 309.
[Abstract]