Latence de réponse comme indicateur d'optimisation de questionnaires sur le Web : En répondant aux questions, les répondants exécutent quatre étapes mentales : la compréhension, la recherche d'information, le jugement, et la sélection de réponse. Ceux qui suivent soigneusement toutes les étapes sont appelés optimizers, tandis que ceux qui font moins d'efforts et sautent des étapes sont appelés satisficers. Dans cette étude, nous comparons la latence de réponse des optimizers et des satisficers en répondant à des questions d'évaluation de la personnalité posées sur un site Web. L'utilisation de la régression spline et le contrôle des variables possibles nous fournissent la preuve que les optimizers passent plus de temps que les satisficers en répondant à des questions dans la première section d'un questionnaire. On retrouve l'idée que des traitements cognitifs plus profond exigent plus d'efforts et prennent plus de temps. Nous montrons aussi que, à fure et à mesure qu'une passation progresse, les deux groupes passent moins de temps, jusqu'à ce qu'ils atteignent une vitesse maximale de réponse.
Allsop, D., & Weisberg, H.F. (1988). Measuring change in party identification in an election campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 996-1017.
2.
Bassili, J.N. ( 1993). Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey. Public Opinion Quarterly , 57, 54-61.
3.
Bassili, J.N. ( 1995). On the psychological reality of party identification: Evidence from the accessibility of voting intentions and of partisan feelings . Political Behavior, 17, 339-357.
4.
Bassili, J.N. ( 1996a). The how and why of response latency measurement in surveys . In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (eds.), Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research (pp. 319-346). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
5.
Bassili, J.N. ( 1996b). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637-653.
6.
Bassili, J.N. ( 2000). Editor's introduction: Reflections on response latency measurement in telephone surveys. Political Psychology, 21, 1-6.
7.
Bassili, J.N., & Scott, B.S. ( 1996). Response latency as a signal to question problems in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 390-399.
Draisma, S., & Dijkstra, W. ( 2004). Response latencies and (para)linguistic expressions as indicators of response error. In S. Presser , J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin & E. Singer (eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 131-147). Hoboken, NJ : Wiley.
10.
Edwards, A.L. ( 1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment . New York: Dryden Press.
11.
Fazio, R.H., Powell, M.C., & Herr, P.M. ( 1983). Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one's attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 723-735.
12.
Fazio, R.H., & Williams, C.J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relationships: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 505-514.
13.
Fletcher, J.F. ( 2000). Two-timing: Politics and response latencies in a bilingual survey. Political Psychology, 21, 27-55.
14.
Heerwegh, D. ( 2003). Explaining response latencies and changing answers using client-side paradata from a Web survey. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 360-373.
15.
Heerwegh, D. ( 2004, June 4-5). Uses of client side paradata in Web surveys . Paper presented at the International symposium in honor of Paul Lazarsfeld, Brussels.
16.
Holleman, B.C. ( 2005). Question wording effects and processes of question answering. A different way to measure response latencies. In C. van Dijkum, J. Blasius & C. Durand (eds.), Recent developments and applications in social research methodology [Cd-Rom]. Leverkusen-Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
17.
Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. ( 1999). Accessibility and political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 888-911.
18.
Johnson, M. ( 2004). Timepieces: Components of survey question response latencies . Political Psychology, 25, 679-702.
19.
Krosnick, J.A. ( 1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 5, 213-236.
20.
Krosnick, J.A. ( 1992). The impact of cognitive sophistication and attitude importance on response order effects and question order effects. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (eds.), Context effects in social and psychological research (pp. 203-218). New York: Springer.
21.
Krosnick, J.A. ( 1999). Survey Research. Annual Review of Psychology , 50, 537-567.
22.
Krosnick, J.A., & Alwin, D.F. ( 1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effect in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 201-209.
23.
Krosnick, J.A., Narayan, S., & Smith, W.R. ( 1996). Satisficing in surveys: Initial evidence. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 70, 29-44.
24.
Luce, R.D. ( 1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mayerl, J. ( 2006). Controlling the baseline speed of respondents: An empirical evaluation of data treatment methods of response latencies. In C. van Dijkum, J. Blasius & C. Durand (eds.), Recent developments and applications in social research methodology [Cd-Rom] . Leverkusen-Opladen: Barbara Budrich .
27.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. ( 2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Richman, W.L., Kiesler, S., Wiesband, S., & Drasgow, F. ( 1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews . Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754-775.
29.
Schnipke, D.L., & Scrams, D.J. ( 2002). Exploring issues of examinee behavior: Insights gained from response-time analyses. In C. N. Mills, M. Potenza, J. J. Fremer & W. C. Ward (eds.), Computer-based testing. Building the foundation for future assessments (pp. 237-266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
Smith, P.L. ( 1979). Splines as a useful and convenient statistical tool. The American Statistician, 33, 57-62.
31.
Stocké, V. ( 2002). Die vorhersage von fragenreihenfolgeeffekten durch antwortlatenzen: Eine validierungsstudie. In ZUMA-Nachrichten 50 (pp. 26-53). Mannheim , Germany: Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen.
32.
Stocké, V. ( 2004). Measuring information accessibility and predicting response-effects: The validity of response-certainties and response-latencies. Metodološki zvezki, Advances in Methodology and Statistics, 1, 33-55.
33.
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., & Schwarz, N. ( 1996). Thinking about answers. The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
34.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L., J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Wise, S.L., Bhola, D.S., & Yang, S.T. ( 2006). Taking the time to improve the validity of low-stake tests: The effort-monitoring CBT. Educational Measurements: Issues and Practice, 25, 21-30.
36.
Yan, T., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Fast times and easy questions: The effects of age, experience and question complexity on Web survey response times. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 51-68.
