Baltimore , Maryland
June 25, 2023
June 25, 2023
June 28, 2023
Educational Research and Methods Division (ERM)
16
10.18260/1-2--42734
https://peer.asee.org/42734
233
Joseph Mirabelli is an Educational Psychology graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a focus in Engineering Education. His interests are centered around mentorship, mental health, and retention in STEM students and faculty
Karin Jensen, Ph.D. (she/her) is an assistant professor in biomedical engineering and engineering education research at the University of Michigan. Her research interests include student mental health and wellness, engineering student career pathways, and engagement of engineering faculty in engineering education research.
Jennifer Cromley is Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research focuses on two broad areas: achievement/retention in STEM and comprehension of illustrated scientific text
Sara Vohra is an undergraduate studying Bioengineering in The Grainger College of Engineering and minoring in Chemistry.
Cognitive, or “think aloud,” interviewing techniques can allow for researchers to improve the development of new measures and provide validity evidence to measured constructs [1]. As a methodology, cognitive interviewing is widely used across many social sciences disciplines [2], including recent implementations in engineering education research studies as a piloting strategy (e.g., [3] [4] [5]). In mixed methods research designs, cognitive interviewing can improve the triangulation of data sources [6] [7]. We present two studies in which cognitive interviewing think aloud methods were used, and in which many of the authors were new to cognitive interviewing as a technique. In one study, one interviewer conducted cognitive interviews with 13 graduate engineering students and in a second study, two interviewers interviewed 13 undergraduate engineering students. Both studies used an iterative process to revise items between interviews and both studies used a field notes technique to modify novel surveys. Differences between these two cases are presented, including advantages and disadvantages of using multiple interviewers for cognitive interviews and commentary about the modality of cognitive interview environments (e.g., in-person vs virtual, how the questions are presented). Lessons learned from this process are presented, including the importance of repeating instructions, guidelines for making question language consistent, the processes of constructing probing questions and implementing field note methodologies, suggestions for identifying and eliminating idiomatic language and phrases which are confusing to non-native English speakers, removing items during the cognitive interviewing iterations, and using cognitive interviews as a member checking technique for mixed methods studies.
References
[1] Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Publications. [2] Desimone, L. M. & Le Floch, K. C., (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, (26)1, 1–22. [3] Choe, N. H. & M. Borrego, M., (2020). Master’s and doctoral engineering students’ interest in industry, academia, and government careers, Journal of Engineering Education, (109)2, 325-346. [4] Canney, N. E., & Bielefeldt, A. R., & Rulifson, G. (2016, June), Exploring interviews as validity evidence for the engineering professional responsibility assessment, Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. [5] Fletcher, T. L., & Strong, A. C., & Jefferson, J. P., & Moten, J., & Park, S. E., & Adams, D. J. (2021, July), Exploring the excellence of HBCU scientists and engineers: The development of an alumni success instrument linking undergraduate experiences to graduate pathways, Paper presented at 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference, Virtual Conference. [6] Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. [7] Ouimet, J.A., Bunnage, J.C., Carini, R.M. et al. Using focus groups, expert advice, and cognitive interviews to establish the validity of a college student survey. Research in Higher Education, (45), 233–250 (2004).
Mirabelli, J. F., & Jensen, K., & Cromley, J., & Vohra, S. R. (2023, June), Conducting the cognitive interview: Sharing experiences and insight from two think-aloud studies Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--42734
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2023 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015