Evaluación de la investigación con encuestas en artículos publicados en revistas del área de Biblioteconomía y Documentación

Salvador-Oliván, Jose Antonio and Marco-Cuenca, Gonzalo and Arquero-Avilés, Rosario Evaluación de la investigación con encuestas en artículos publicados en revistas del área de Biblioteconomía y Documentación. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 2021, vol. 44, n. 2. [Journal article (Paginated)]


Download (445kB) | Preview

English abstract

Introduction and objective: Survey research is a method frequently used in L ibrary Science. The main objective of this study is to evaluate if the studies carried out in the field of Library Science, that use surveys as a research method, provide complete and detailed information on their design and execution. Methods: Scientific papers published in 2019 in journals in the Library Science area included in the Journal Citation Reports, that used surveys as a quantitative research method, were selected from the Web of Science database. To assess the degree of information coverage, a tool was created consisting of 32 items used in various guides and recommendations. Results and conclusions: most of the scientific papers based on surveys in Library Science present a serious deficiency on the information provided. It is necessary to improve and complete information about the sampling procedure, development and administration of the questionnaire, as well as on the analysis of its results. This information will allow us to evaluate the potential errors made and, consequently, the quality and validity of the conclusions reached.

Spanish abstract

Biblioteconomía y Documentación. El objetivo principal de este estudio es evaluar si los estudios realizados en el ámbito de la Biblioteconomía que utilizan encuestas como método de investigación proporcionan información completa y detallada sobre su diseño y ejecución. Métodos: Se seleccionaron de la base de datos Web of Science los artículos publicados en 2019 en revistas del área de Library Science incluidas en el Journal Citation Reports que empleaban encuestas como método de investigación cuantitativa. Para valorar el grado de cobertura informativa se creó una herramienta formada por 32 elementos utilizados en diversas guías y recomendaciones. Resultados y conclusiones: La mayoría de los artículos basados en encuestas en el área de Biblioteconomía y Documentación presentan una grave deficiencia en la información proporcionada. Es necesario mejorar y completar información sobre el procedimiento de muestreo, desarrollo y administración del cuestionario, así como sobre el análisis de sus resultados. Esta información permitirá valorar los potenciales errores cometidos y, en consecuencia, la calidad y validez de las conclusiones del estudio.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: survey research; Library Science; research quality assessment; research methodology; research techniques and methods
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BZ. None of these, but in this section.
Depositing user: Jose Antonio Salvador-Oliván
Date deposited: 04 May 2021 07:26
Last modified: 04 May 2021 07:26
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/41997


Abrizah, A.; Noorhidawati, A.; Zainab, A. N. (2014). LIS journals categorization in the Journal Citation Report: a stated preference study. Scientometrics, 102 (2), 1083–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1492-3

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). (2015a). The Code of Professional Ethics and Practices (Revised 11/30/2015). Disponible en: https://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/AAPOR-Code-of-Ethics/AAPOR_Code_Accepted_Version_11302015.aspx [Fecha de consulta: 10/03/2020]

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). (2015b). Transparency Initiative Disclosure Elements. Disponible en: https://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/transparency-initiative/Transparency_Initiative_Disclosure_Elements_050115.pdf [Fecha de consulta: 10/03/2020]

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). (2020). Best Practices for Survey Research. Disponible en: https://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Best-Practices.aspx [Fecha de consulta: 10/03/2020]

Baker, R.; Brick, M.; Keeter, S.; Biemer, P.; Kennedy, C.; Kreuter, F.; Mercer, A.; Terhanian, G. (2016). AAPOR report: Evaluating Survey Quality in Today’s Complex Environment. Disponible en: http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/MainSiteFiles/AAPOR_Reassessing_Survey_Methods_Report_Final.pdf [Fecha de consulta: 10/03/2020]

Bennett, C.; Khangura, S.; Brehaut, J. C.; Graham, I. D.; Moher, D.; Potter, B. K.; Grimshaw, J. (2011). Reporting guidelines for survey research: An analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS Medicine, 8 (8), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001069

Bertot, J. C.; Jaeger, P. T. (2008). Survey research and libraries: Not necessarily like in the textbooks. Library Quarterly, 78 (1), 99–105.

Bethlehem, J. (2010). Selection bias in web surveys. International Statistical Review, 78 (2), 161–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00112.x

Biemer, P. (2009). Measurement errors in sample surveys. En: Rao, C. R. (ed). Handbook of Statistics. Sample Surveys: Design, Methods and Applications. Volume 29, Part A, pp. 281–315. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Brick, J. M.; Kalton, G. (1996). Handling missing data in survey research. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 5 (3), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029600500302

Chung, K. C. (2014). Survey response rate, a guide for readers and authors. Journal of Hand Surgery, 39 (3), 421–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.11.007

Clarke, R. I. (2018). How we done it good: Research through design as a legitimate methodology for librarianship. Library and Information Science Research, 40 (3–4), 255–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.09.007

Dale, A. (2006). Quality issues with survey research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 9 (2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600595330

Dillman, D. A.; Smyth, J. D.; Crhistian, L. M. (2007). Internet, Phone, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The tailored design method (4th edition). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Draugalis, J. L. R.; Coons, S. J.; Plaza, C. M. (2008). Best practices for survey research reports: A synopsis for authors and reviewers. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72 (1). https://doi.org/10.5688/aj720111

Eysenbach, G. (2004). Improving the quality of web surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6 (3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34

Gore, S. A.; Nordberg, J. M.; Palmer, L. A.; Piorun, M. E. (2009). Trends in health sciences library and information science research: An analysis of research publications in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association and Journal of the Medical Library Association from 1991 to 2007. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 97 (3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.009

Grimshaw, J. (2014). SURGE (The SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE). En: Moher, D.; Altman, D. G.; Schulz, K. F.; Simera, I.; Wager, E.(eds.). Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User’s Manual, pp. 206–213. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Groves, R. M. (1987). Research on Survey Data Quality. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 51 (Part 2: Supplement: 50th Anniversary Issue), S156–S172.

Groves, R. M.; Fowler, F. J.; Couper, M. P.; Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E.; Roger, T. (2009). Survey Methodology (2nd edition). Hoboken (New Jersey): John Wiley & Sons.

Groves, R. M.; Lyberg, L. (2010). Total survey error: Past, present, and future. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74 (5), 849–879. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq065

Guterbock, T. M.; Marcopulos, B. A. (2020). Survey methods for neuropsychologists: A review of typical methodological pitfalls and suggested solutions. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 34 (1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1590642

Hernon, P.; Schwartz, C. (2000). Survey research. A time for introspection. Library and Information Science Research, 22 (2), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(99)00049-3

Hernon, P.; Schwartz, C. (2009). Reliability and validity. Library and Information Science Research, 31 (2), 73–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.03.001

Huang, M-H; Shaw, W. C.; Lin, C. S. (2019). One category, two communities: subfield differences in “Information Science and Library Science” in Journal Citation Reports. Scientometrics, 119 (2), 1059–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03074-3

Hui, W.; Lui, S. M.; Lau, W. K. (2019). A reporting guideline for IS survey research. Decision Support Systems, 126 (May), 113136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113136

ISO. (2019). ISO 20252:2019 Investigación de mercado, de opinión y social, incluidos los conocimientos y el análisis de datos - Vocabulario y requisitos de servicio. Disponible en: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbsi&AN=edsbsi.30371166&site=eds-live [Fecha de consulta: 24/03/2020]

Janes, J. (2001). Survey research design. Library Hi Tech, 19 (4), 419–421. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006543

Jedinger, A.; Watteler, O.; Förster, A. (2018). Improving the quality of survey data documentation: A total survey error perspective. Data, 3(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/data3040045

Johnson, T.; Owens, L. (2004). Survey response rate reporting in the professional literature. En: 2003 Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 127–133. Alexandria: American Statistical Association.

Kalton, G. (2019). Developments in Survey Research over the Past 60 Years: A Personal Perspective. International Statistical Review, 87 (S1), S10–S30. https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12287

Krosnick, J. A; Presser, S.; Fealing, K. H.; Ruggles, S.; Vannette, D. L. (2015). The Future of Survey Research: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Logan, C.; Parás, P.; Robbins, M.; Zechmeister, E. J. (2020). Improving Data Quality in Face-to-Face Survey Research. Political Science and Politics, 53 (1), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519001161

Marcopulos, B. A.; Guterbock, T. M.; Matusz, E. F. (2020). Survey research in neuropsychology: A systematic review. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 34 (1), 32–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1590643

McNutt, M. (2014). Journals unite for reproducibility. Science, 346 (6210), 679. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1724

Menold, N.; Bluemke, M.; Hubley, A. M. (2018). Validity: Challenges in Conception, Methods, and Interpretation in Survey Research. Methodology, 14 (4), 143–145. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000159

Morgan, S. E.; Carcioppolo, N. (2014). Survey research methodology in health communication. En: Whaley B. B. (ed.). Research Methods in Health Communication. Principles and Apllication; pp. 78–96. New York: Routledge.

Nardi, P. M. (2006). Doing Survey Research. A Guide to Quantitative Methods (Second edition). Boston: Pearson Education.

Oldendick, R. W. (2012). Survey Research Ethics. En: Gideon, L. (ed.). Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Science, pp. 23–35. New York: Springer.

Olsen, F.; Abelsen, B.; Olsen, J. A. (2012). Improving response rate and quality of survey data with a scratch lottery ticket incentive. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-52

Plutzer, E. (2019). Privacy, Sensitive Questions, and Informed Consent. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83 (S1), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz017

Powell, R. R. (1999). Recent trends in research: A methodological essay. Library and Information Science Research, 21 (1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(99)80007-3

Rao, J. N. K.; Fuller, W. A. (2017). Sample survey theory and methods: Past, present, and future directions. Survey Methodology, 43 (2), 145–160.

Rybakov, K. N.; Beckett, R., Dilley, I.; Sheehan, A. H. (2020). Reporting quality of survey research articles published in the pharmacy literature. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.01.005

Shankar, P. R.; Maturen, K. E. (2019). Survey Research Reporting in Radiology Publications: A Review of 2017 to 2018. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 16 (10), 1378–1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2019.07.012

Singer, E. (1993). Informed consent and survey response: A summary of the empirical literature. Journal of Official Statistics, 9 (2), 361–375.

Smith, T. W. (2002). Reporting Survey Nonresponse in Academic Journals. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14 (4), 469–474. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/14.4.469

Starr, S. (2012). Survey research: We can do better. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100 (1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.1.001

Story, D. A.; Tait, A. R. (2019). Survey Research. Anesthesiology, 130 (2), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002989

Totten, V. Y.; Panacek, E. A.; Price, D. (1999). Basics of research (Part 14) Survey Research Methodology: Designing the survey instrument. Air Medical Journal, 18 (1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1067-991X(99)90006-8

Turk, T.; Elhady, M. T.; Rashed, S.; Abdelkhalek, M.; Nasef, S. A.; Khallaf, A. M; Huy, N. T. (2018). Quality of reporting web-based and non-web-based survey studies: What authors, reviewers and consumers should consider. PLoS One, 13 (6), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194239

Ullah, A.; Ameen, K. (2018). Account of methodologies and methods applied in LIS research: A systematic review. Library and Information Science Research, 40 (1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.03.002

Weisberg, H. F. (2018). Total Survey Error. En: Atkeson, L. R.; Michael, A. R. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Polling and Survey Methods; pp. 13–27. New York: Oxford University Press.

Werner, S.; Praxedes, M.; Kim, H. G. (2007). The reporting of nonresponse analyses in survey research. Organizational Research Methods, 10 (2), 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106292892

Wharton, T. (2017). Rigor, Transparency, and Reporting Social Science Research: Why Guidelines Don’t Have to Kill Your Story. Research on Social Work Practice, 27 (4), 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731515622264


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item