Using Cognitive Interviewing to Test Youth Survey and Interview Items in Evaluation: A Case Example

Abstract

Background: Cognitive interviewing is a pretesting tool used by evaluators to increase item and response option validity. Cognitive interviewing techniques are used to assess the cognitive processes utilized by participants to respond to items. This approach is particularly appropriate for testing items with children and adolescents who have more limited cognitive capacities than adults, vary in their cognitive development, and have a unique perspective on their life experiences and context. Purpose: This paper presents a case example of cognitive interviewing with youth as part of a national program evaluation, and aims to expand the use of cognitive interviewing as a pretesting tool for both quantitative and qualitative items in evaluation studies involving youth. Setting: Youth participants were located in four regions of the United States: Northeast, Central, Southern, and Western. Interviewers were located at Montclair State University. Intervention: Not applicable. Research design: A cognitive interview measure was designed to include a subset of survey items, interview questions, and verbal probes, to evaluate if these items and questions would be understood as intended by both younger and older youth participants. An iterative design was used with cognitive interviewing testing rounds, analysis, and revisions. Data Collection and Analysis: The cognitive interview was administered by phone to 10 male youth, five from the 10-13-year-old age range and five from the 15-17-year-old age range. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, reviewed, and coded. Survey items and interview questions were revised based on feedback from the participants and consensus agreement among the evaluation team. Item revisions were included in further testing rounds with new participants. Findings: As a result of using cognitive interviewing to pretest survey and interview items with youth, response errors were identified. Participants did not understand some of the items and response options as intended, indicating problems with validity. These findings support the use of cognitive interviewing for testing and modifying survey items adapted for use with youth, as well as qualitative interview items. Additionally, the perspective of the youth participants was valuable for informing decisions to modify items and helping the evaluators learn the participants’ program culture and experiences. Based on the findings and limitations of the study, we give practice recommendations for future studies using cognitive interviewing with a youth sample. Keywords: cognitive interviewing; item validity; response error; verbal probes; pre-testing surveys; qualitative evaluation; interviewing children and adolescents; survey development