Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Sosyal Araştırmaların Niteliğini Değerlendirmede Bütüncül Bir Çerçeve: Toplam Araştırma Hatası

Year 2022, Volume: 22 Issue: 4, 1297 - 1312, 28.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1225916

Abstract

Türkiye’de sosyal araştırma yöntemleri konularına odaklanan çalışmaların sayısı oldukça azdır. Bu çalışma, özellikle Avrupa ülkeleri ve Amerika’da yürütülen araştırmalarda sıklıkla benimsenen ve araştırmacılara zengin bir yöntemsel çerçeve sunan toplam araştırma hatası perspektifi üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Bu yaklaşım ve alt hata bileşenleri detaylı olarak tanıtılarak, literatürden seçilen metodolojik çalışmalar, kullanılan araştırma verisi ve ele alınan hata tipi ile birlikte değerlendirilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın toplam araştırma hatası perspektifini tanıtarak Türkiye’deki sınırlı sayıda yürütülen metodolojik çalışmalara katkıda bulunması beklenmektedir. Ayrıca, bu çalışmayla birlikte sosyal araştırma yöntemleriyle ilgilenen nicel araştırmacıların bu yaklaşım ile çalıştıkları konular arasındaki bağlantıyı kurarak, yeni çalışmalara yön vermesi beklenmektedir.

References

  • Anderson, R., Kasper, J. ve Frankel, M. (1979). Total survey error: Applications to improve health surveys. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Aydaş, İ., Moral, M. ve Tosun, Y. (2022). Türkiye’de seçim anketlerinin toplam anket hatası perspektifinden bir incelemesi. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 51, 87-110. doi: 10.30794/pausbed.1119635Bethlehem, J. (2010). Selection bias in web surveys. International Statistical Review, 78, 161-188. doi:10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00112.x
  • Biemer, P. P. ve Lyberg, L. E. (2003). Introduction to survey quality. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Biemer, P. P. (2010). Total survey error: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 817-848. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq058
  • Coşkun, Y. (2008). Data quality assessment of birth history data in Turkey Demographic and Health Surveys. (Doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Dalenius, T. (1962). Recent advances in sample survey theory and methods. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33, 325-349. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2237516?seq=1
  • Desai, S., Lindberg, L. D., Maddow-Zimet, I. ve Kost, K. (2021). The impact of abortion underreporting on pregnancy data and related research. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 25, 1187-1192. doi:10.1007/s10995-021-03157-9
  • Ellyne, L. ve Saraç, M. (2022, Mayıs). How does sleep affect recall error? A complex sample design adjusted analysis from 2010 American Time Use Survey [Öz]. 77. AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research) konferansında sunulan bildiri, Chicago. Erişim adresi: https://aapor.secure-platform.com/a/solicitations/13/sessiongallery/945/application/5624
  • Groves, R. M., Fowler Jr, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E. ve Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Groves, R. M. ve Lyberg, L. (2010). Total survey error: Past, present, and future. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 849-879. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq065
  • Hansen, M. H., Hurwitz, W. N. ve Pritzker, L. (1953). The accuracy of census results. American Sociological Review, 18, 416-423. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2087557.pdf
  • Heeringa, S. G., West, B. T. ve Berglund, P. A. (2017). Applied survey data analysis. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
  • Heeringa, S. G., Berglund, P. A. ve Khan, A. (2011). Sampling error estimation in design-based analysis of the PSID Data (Rapor No. #11-05). Michigan: National Science Foundation.
  • Hox, J. ve de Leeuw, E. (2002). The influence of interviewers’ attitude and behavior on household survey nonresponse: An international comparison. R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge ve R. J. A. Little (Yay. haz.). Survey nonresponse içinde (s. 103-120). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • İlhan, A. O. ve Deniz, E. (2021). Anket metodolojisinde dört ana hata türüne giriş. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 42, 199-214. doi: 10.30794/pausbed.834271
  • Japec, L. (2006). Quality issues in interview surveys-Some contributions. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 90, 26-42. Erişim adresi: https://journals.openedition.org/bms/654
  • Kalton, G. (1983). Models in the practice of survey sampling. International Statistical Review, 51, 175-188. doi: 10.2307/1402747
  • Keusch, F., Bähr, S., Haas, G. C., Kreuter, F. ve Trappmann, M. (2020). Coverage error in data collection combining mobile surveys with passive measurement using apps: Data from a German national survey. Sociological Methods & Research. Çevrimiçi ön yayın. doi:10.1177/0049124120914924
  • Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Lee, S., Brick, J. M., Brown, E. R. ve Grant, D. (2010). Growing cell‐phone population and noncoverage bias in traditional random digit dial telephone health surveys. Health Services Research, 45, 1121-1139. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01120.x
  • Lesser, V. M. ve Kalsbeek, W. D. (1999). Nonsampling errors in environmental surveys. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 4, 473-488. doi:10.2307/1400503
  • Lyberg, L. (2012). Survey quality. Survey Methodology, 38, 107-130. Erişim adresi: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/12-001-x/12-001-x2012002-eng.pdf?st=csnHfZ--
  • Mohorko, A., de Leeuw, E. D. ve Hox, J. (2013). Internet coverage and coverage bias in Europe: Developments across countries and over time. Journal of Official Statistics, 29, 609-622. doi:10.2478/jos-2013-0042
  • Neuman, L. W. (2004). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Pearson New International Edition.
  • Olson, K. ve Bilgen, İ. (2011). The role of interviewer experience on acquiescence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 99-114. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq067
  • Sakshaug, J. W., Yan, T. ve Tourangeau, R. (2010). Nonresponse error, measurement error, and mode of data collection: Tradeoffs in a multi-mode survey of sensitive and non-sensitive items. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 907-933. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq067
  • Saraç, M. ve Türkyılmaz, S. (2017). An evaluation of interviewer characteristics in TDHS-2013 under consideration of response behavior. Nüfusbilim Dergisi, 39, 67-90. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/nufusbilim/issue/49169/628363
  • Saraç, M. ve Koç, İ. (2022). Do different respondent selection methods produce different survey estimates? A simulation of within-household selection methods for 2013 Turkey DHS. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 51, 273-290. doi: 10.30794/pausbed.1112926
  • Saraç, M. ve Adalı, T. (2019). Interview Result Codes in DHS Surveys in Turkey: An Assessment Between 1993 and 2013. Nüfusbilim Dergisi, 41, 52-67. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/nufusbilim/issue/52256/683698
  • Saraç, M. ve Koç, İ. (2020). Increasing misreporting levels of induced abortion in Turkey: is this due to social desirability bias?. Journal of Biosocial Science, 52, 213-229. doi:10.1017/S0021932019000397
  • Saraç, M. ve Türkyılmaz, S. (2020). Exploring factors to build rapport between interviewer and respondent: Insights from the National Research on Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 23, 284-319. doi:10.18490/sosars.819027
  • Saraç, M. (2021). The contribution of rapport between interviewer and respondent on interview quality from non-sampling error perspective: Evidence from 2014 Research on Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey (Doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Saraç, M. ve Koç, İ. (2021). Sources of nonresponse error in the translation process of survey instruments: the impact of language mismatch and on-the-spot translation on the quality of birth date data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24, 313-325. doi:10.1080/13645579.2020.1785088
  • Schenker, N. ve Raghunathan, T. E. (2007). Combining information from multiple surveys to enhance estimation of measures of health. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 1802-1811. doi:10.1002/sim.2801
  • Smith, T. W. (2011). Refining the total survey error perspective. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23, 464-484. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq052
  • Sun, H., Conrad, F. G. ve Kreuter, F. (2021). The relationship between interviewer-respondent rapport and data quality. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 9, 429-448. doi:10.1093/jssam/smz043
  • Tormos, R. ve Verge, T. (2022). Challenging the gender gap in political interest: A By-Product of Survey Specification Error. Public Opinion Quarterly, 86, 107-133. doi:10.1093/poq/nfab070
  • Tourangeau, R. (2003). Cognitive aspects of survey measurement and mismeasurement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(1), 3-7. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/15.1.3
  • Türkyılmaz, S. ve Ayhan, Ö. (2012). Covariates of unit nonresponse error based on proxy response from household surveys. İstatistik Araştırma Dergisi, 9, 53–64. Erişim adresi: https://journal.tuik.gov.tr/tr/archive/21_2012_09_01_temmuz.pdf
  • Weisberg, H. F. (2005). The total survey error approach, A guide to the new science of survey research. London: University of Chicago Press.
  • West, B. T. ve Olson, K. (2010). How much of interviewer variance is really nonresponse error variance?. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 1004-1026. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq061
  • West, B. T., Kreuter, F. ve Jaenichen, U. (2013). Interviewer effects in face-to-face surveys: A function of sampling, measurement error, or nonresponse?. Journal of Official Statistics, 29, 277-297. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq061
  • West, B. T. ve Blom, A. G. (2017). Explaining interviewer effects: A research synthesis. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 5, 175-211. doi:10.1093/jssam/smw024
Year 2022, Volume: 22 Issue: 4, 1297 - 1312, 28.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1225916

Abstract

References

  • Anderson, R., Kasper, J. ve Frankel, M. (1979). Total survey error: Applications to improve health surveys. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Aydaş, İ., Moral, M. ve Tosun, Y. (2022). Türkiye’de seçim anketlerinin toplam anket hatası perspektifinden bir incelemesi. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 51, 87-110. doi: 10.30794/pausbed.1119635Bethlehem, J. (2010). Selection bias in web surveys. International Statistical Review, 78, 161-188. doi:10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00112.x
  • Biemer, P. P. ve Lyberg, L. E. (2003). Introduction to survey quality. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Biemer, P. P. (2010). Total survey error: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 817-848. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq058
  • Coşkun, Y. (2008). Data quality assessment of birth history data in Turkey Demographic and Health Surveys. (Doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Dalenius, T. (1962). Recent advances in sample survey theory and methods. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33, 325-349. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2237516?seq=1
  • Desai, S., Lindberg, L. D., Maddow-Zimet, I. ve Kost, K. (2021). The impact of abortion underreporting on pregnancy data and related research. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 25, 1187-1192. doi:10.1007/s10995-021-03157-9
  • Ellyne, L. ve Saraç, M. (2022, Mayıs). How does sleep affect recall error? A complex sample design adjusted analysis from 2010 American Time Use Survey [Öz]. 77. AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research) konferansında sunulan bildiri, Chicago. Erişim adresi: https://aapor.secure-platform.com/a/solicitations/13/sessiongallery/945/application/5624
  • Groves, R. M., Fowler Jr, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E. ve Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Groves, R. M. ve Lyberg, L. (2010). Total survey error: Past, present, and future. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 849-879. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq065
  • Hansen, M. H., Hurwitz, W. N. ve Pritzker, L. (1953). The accuracy of census results. American Sociological Review, 18, 416-423. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2087557.pdf
  • Heeringa, S. G., West, B. T. ve Berglund, P. A. (2017). Applied survey data analysis. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
  • Heeringa, S. G., Berglund, P. A. ve Khan, A. (2011). Sampling error estimation in design-based analysis of the PSID Data (Rapor No. #11-05). Michigan: National Science Foundation.
  • Hox, J. ve de Leeuw, E. (2002). The influence of interviewers’ attitude and behavior on household survey nonresponse: An international comparison. R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge ve R. J. A. Little (Yay. haz.). Survey nonresponse içinde (s. 103-120). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • İlhan, A. O. ve Deniz, E. (2021). Anket metodolojisinde dört ana hata türüne giriş. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 42, 199-214. doi: 10.30794/pausbed.834271
  • Japec, L. (2006). Quality issues in interview surveys-Some contributions. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 90, 26-42. Erişim adresi: https://journals.openedition.org/bms/654
  • Kalton, G. (1983). Models in the practice of survey sampling. International Statistical Review, 51, 175-188. doi: 10.2307/1402747
  • Keusch, F., Bähr, S., Haas, G. C., Kreuter, F. ve Trappmann, M. (2020). Coverage error in data collection combining mobile surveys with passive measurement using apps: Data from a German national survey. Sociological Methods & Research. Çevrimiçi ön yayın. doi:10.1177/0049124120914924
  • Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Lee, S., Brick, J. M., Brown, E. R. ve Grant, D. (2010). Growing cell‐phone population and noncoverage bias in traditional random digit dial telephone health surveys. Health Services Research, 45, 1121-1139. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01120.x
  • Lesser, V. M. ve Kalsbeek, W. D. (1999). Nonsampling errors in environmental surveys. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 4, 473-488. doi:10.2307/1400503
  • Lyberg, L. (2012). Survey quality. Survey Methodology, 38, 107-130. Erişim adresi: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/12-001-x/12-001-x2012002-eng.pdf?st=csnHfZ--
  • Mohorko, A., de Leeuw, E. D. ve Hox, J. (2013). Internet coverage and coverage bias in Europe: Developments across countries and over time. Journal of Official Statistics, 29, 609-622. doi:10.2478/jos-2013-0042
  • Neuman, L. W. (2004). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Pearson New International Edition.
  • Olson, K. ve Bilgen, İ. (2011). The role of interviewer experience on acquiescence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 99-114. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq067
  • Sakshaug, J. W., Yan, T. ve Tourangeau, R. (2010). Nonresponse error, measurement error, and mode of data collection: Tradeoffs in a multi-mode survey of sensitive and non-sensitive items. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 907-933. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq067
  • Saraç, M. ve Türkyılmaz, S. (2017). An evaluation of interviewer characteristics in TDHS-2013 under consideration of response behavior. Nüfusbilim Dergisi, 39, 67-90. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/nufusbilim/issue/49169/628363
  • Saraç, M. ve Koç, İ. (2022). Do different respondent selection methods produce different survey estimates? A simulation of within-household selection methods for 2013 Turkey DHS. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 51, 273-290. doi: 10.30794/pausbed.1112926
  • Saraç, M. ve Adalı, T. (2019). Interview Result Codes in DHS Surveys in Turkey: An Assessment Between 1993 and 2013. Nüfusbilim Dergisi, 41, 52-67. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/nufusbilim/issue/52256/683698
  • Saraç, M. ve Koç, İ. (2020). Increasing misreporting levels of induced abortion in Turkey: is this due to social desirability bias?. Journal of Biosocial Science, 52, 213-229. doi:10.1017/S0021932019000397
  • Saraç, M. ve Türkyılmaz, S. (2020). Exploring factors to build rapport between interviewer and respondent: Insights from the National Research on Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 23, 284-319. doi:10.18490/sosars.819027
  • Saraç, M. (2021). The contribution of rapport between interviewer and respondent on interview quality from non-sampling error perspective: Evidence from 2014 Research on Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey (Doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Saraç, M. ve Koç, İ. (2021). Sources of nonresponse error in the translation process of survey instruments: the impact of language mismatch and on-the-spot translation on the quality of birth date data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24, 313-325. doi:10.1080/13645579.2020.1785088
  • Schenker, N. ve Raghunathan, T. E. (2007). Combining information from multiple surveys to enhance estimation of measures of health. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 1802-1811. doi:10.1002/sim.2801
  • Smith, T. W. (2011). Refining the total survey error perspective. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23, 464-484. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq052
  • Sun, H., Conrad, F. G. ve Kreuter, F. (2021). The relationship between interviewer-respondent rapport and data quality. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 9, 429-448. doi:10.1093/jssam/smz043
  • Tormos, R. ve Verge, T. (2022). Challenging the gender gap in political interest: A By-Product of Survey Specification Error. Public Opinion Quarterly, 86, 107-133. doi:10.1093/poq/nfab070
  • Tourangeau, R. (2003). Cognitive aspects of survey measurement and mismeasurement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(1), 3-7. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/15.1.3
  • Türkyılmaz, S. ve Ayhan, Ö. (2012). Covariates of unit nonresponse error based on proxy response from household surveys. İstatistik Araştırma Dergisi, 9, 53–64. Erişim adresi: https://journal.tuik.gov.tr/tr/archive/21_2012_09_01_temmuz.pdf
  • Weisberg, H. F. (2005). The total survey error approach, A guide to the new science of survey research. London: University of Chicago Press.
  • West, B. T. ve Olson, K. (2010). How much of interviewer variance is really nonresponse error variance?. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 1004-1026. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq061
  • West, B. T., Kreuter, F. ve Jaenichen, U. (2013). Interviewer effects in face-to-face surveys: A function of sampling, measurement error, or nonresponse?. Journal of Official Statistics, 29, 277-297. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq061
  • West, B. T. ve Blom, A. G. (2017). Explaining interviewer effects: A research synthesis. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 5, 175-211. doi:10.1093/jssam/smw024
There are 43 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Melike Saraç

Publication Date December 28, 2022
Submission Date May 17, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 22 Issue: 4

Cite

APA Saraç, M. (2022). Sosyal Araştırmaların Niteliğini Değerlendirmede Bütüncül Bir Çerçeve: Toplam Araştırma Hatası. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(4), 1297-1312. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1225916

20489

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.