Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Fundamentals of designing high-quality surveys: revisiting neonatal perinatal medicine survey applications

Journal of Perinatology (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Surveys in neonatal perinatal medicine are practical instruments for gathering information about medical practices, and outcomes related to the care of newborns and infants. This includes research for identifying needs, assessing requirements, analyzing the effects of change, creating policies, and developing curriculum initiatives. Surveys also provide useful data for enhancing the provision of healthcare services, assessing medical specialties, and evaluating training programs. However, creating a high-quality survey can be difficult for many practitioners, particularly when deciding how to formulate the right questions, whether to utilize various types of questions and how best to arrange or format the survey tool for effective responses. Problems with design principles have been evident in many surveys submitted for dissemination to the members of the Section of Neonatal Perinatal Medicine (SoNPM). To prevent potential measurement errors and increase the quality of surveys, it is crucial to follow a systematic approach in developing surveys by adhering to the principles of effective survey design. This review article provides a brief summary of survey use within the SoNPM, and offers guidance for creating high-quality surveys, including identifying important factors to consider in survey development and characteristics of well-written and effective questions. We briefly note techniques that optimize survey design for distribution through digital media.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rosenbaum S. Precursors of the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. J R Stat Soc: Ser D (Statistician). 2001;50:457–66.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dillman DA, Christian LM, Smyth JD. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2014.

  3. Halbesleben JR, Whitman MV. Evaluating survey quality in health services research: A decision framework for assessing nonresponse bias. Health Serv Res. 2013;48:913–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nikiforova T, Carter A, Yecies E, Spagnoletti CL. Best Practices for Survey Use in Medical Education: How to Design, Refine, and Administer High-Quality Surveys. South Med J. 2021;114:567–71. https://doi.org/10.14423/smj.0000000000001292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Robinson SB, Leonard KF. Designing quality survey questions. Los Angeles, Calif: Sage; 2019.

  6. Baker SF, Smith BJ, Donohue PK, Gleason CA. Skin Care Management Practices for Premature Infants. J Perinatol. 1999;19:426–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Feltman DM, Du H, Leuthner SR. Survey of neonatologists’ attitudes toward limiting life-sustaining treatments in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol. 2012;32:886–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wei D, Osman C, Dukhovny D, Romley J, Hall M, Chin S, et al. Cost consciousness among physicians in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol. 2016;36:1014–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Placencia FX, Ahmadi Y, McCullough LB. Three decades after Baby Doe: how neonatologists and bioethicists conceptualize the Best Interests Standard. J Perinatol. 2016;36:906–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kane SK, Diane EL. The Amount of Supervision Trainees Receive during Neonatal Resuscitation Is Variable and Often Dependent on Subjective Criteria. J Perinatol. 2018;38:1081–1086.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kurepa D, Perveen S, Lipener Y, Kakkilaya V. The use of less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) in the United States with review of the literature. J Perinatol. 2019;39:426–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hwang JS, Friedlander S, Rehan VK, Zangwill KM. Diagnosis of congenital/perinatal infections by Neonatologists: A national survey. J Perinatol. 2019;39:690–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Manja V, Guyatt G, Lakshminrusimha S, Jack S, Kirpalani H, Zupancic JAF, et al. Factors influencing decision making in neonatology: inhaled nitric oxide in preterm infants. J Perinatol. 2019;39:86–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Horowitz E, Feldman HA, Savich R. Neonatologist salary: Factors, equity and gender. J Perinatol. 2019;39:359–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Horowitz E, Randis TM, Samnaliev M, Savich R. Equity for women in medicine-neonatologists identify issues. J Perinatol. 2020;41:435–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Horowitz E, Samnaliev M, Savich R. Seeking racial and ethnic equity among neonatologists. J Perinatol. 2021;41:422–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Callahan KP, Flibotte J, Skraban C, Wild KT, Joffe S, Munson D, et al. How neonatologists use genetic testing: findings from a national survey. J Perinatol. 2022;42:260–261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sheppard V. 8.2 Understanding the Difference between a Survey and a Questionnaire. Research Methods for the Social Sciences An Introduction. 6 Apr 2020. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/jibcresearchmethods/chapter/8-2-understanding-the-difference-between-a-survey-and-a-questionnaire/.

  19. Survey vs. Questionnaire: What Are the Differences?. Indeed, Indeed Editorial Team. 24 June 2022. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/survey-vs-questionnaire.

  20. Surbhi S. Difference Between Survey and Questionnaire. Key Differences. 2016. Accessed 19 Sep 2023. https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-survey-and-questionnaire.html#ComparisonChart.

  21. NHANES - National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Homepage. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2023 Accessed 19 Sep 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm.

  22. Burns KEA, Duffett M, Kho ME, Meade MO, Adhikari NKJ, Sinuff T, et al. A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. Can Med Assoc J. 2008;179:245–52. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.080372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Daniel J. Sampling essentials: Practical guidelines for making sampling choices. Los Angeles: Sage; 2012.

  24. Ruel EE, Wagner WE, Gillespie BJ. The practice of survey research: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2016.

  25. Arnab R. Survey sampling theory and applications. London: Academic Press; 2017.

  26. Latpate R, Kshirsagar J, Gupta VK, Chandra G. Advanced sampling methods. Singapore: Springer; 2021.

  27. Setia MS. Methodology series module 5: Sampling strategies. Indian J Dermatol. 2016;61:505.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Dhivyadeepa E. Sampling techniques in educational research. Lulu. com; 2015.

  29. Schillewaert N, Langerak F, Duharnel T. Non-probability sampling for WWW surveys: A comparison of methods. Mark Res Soc J. 1998;40:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Artino AR, La Rochelle JS, Dezee KJ, Gehlbach H. Developing questionnaires for Educational Research: AMEE guide no. 87. Med Teach. 2014;36:463–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Passmore C, Dobbie AE, Parchman M, Tysinger J. Guidelines for constructing a survey. Fam Med. 2002 34:281–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Smyth JD, Olson K. The effects of mismatches between survey question stems and response options on data quality and responses. J Surv Stat Methodol. 2018;7:34–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Banchhor M, Singh P. A survey on visual question answering. 2021 2nd Global Conference for Advancement in Technology (GCAT), 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/gcat52182.2021.9587797.

  34. Chien Y-T, Chang C-Y. Exploring the impact of animation-based questionnaire on conducting a web-based educational survey and its association with vividness of respondents’ visual images. Br J Educ Technol. 2012;43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01287.x.

  35. Wu Q, Teney D, Wang P, Shen C, Dick A, van den Hengel A. Visual question answering: A survey of methods and datasets. Comput Vis Image Underst. 2017;163:21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Stevens SS. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 1946;103:677–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sullivan GM, Artino AR Jr. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J Graduate Med Educ. 2013;5:541–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jebb AT, Ng V, Tay L. A review of key Likert Scale Development Advances: 1995–2019. Front Psychol. 2021;12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.637547.

  39. Höhne JK, Krebs D, Kühnel S-M. Measurement properties of completely and end labeled unipolar and bipolar scales in Likert-type questions on income (in)equality. Soc Sci Res. 2021;97:102544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Biemer PP. Measurement error in sample surveys. In: Pfefferman D, Rao CR, editors. Handbook of Statistics 29A, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2009: 281-315, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7161(08)00012-6.

  41. Groves RM. Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.

  42. Glasow PA. Fundamentals of Survey Research Methodology: MITRE. Virginia, USA: Washington C3 Center; 2005.

  43. Olson K. An Examination of Questionnaire Evaluation by Expert Reviewers. Field Methods. 2010;22(4):295–318. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=sociologyfacpub Available from

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rothgeb JM. Pilot test. In: Lavrakas PJ, editor. Encyclopedia of survey research methods (pp. 583–585). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008.

  45. Fowler FJ. Survey Research Methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc., 2009. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230184.

  46. Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, Inc:; 2013.

  47. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.

  48. Jhangiani RS, Chiang IA, Cuttler C, Leighton DC. Research Methods in Psychology, 4th edition. B.C,: Kwantlen Polytechnic University Surrey; 2019.

  49. Krippendorff K. Content analysis an introduction to its methodology. 4th Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2019.

  50. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Health; 2000.

  51. DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT. Scale development: Theory and applications. SAGE Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2022.

  52. Bourke J, Kirby A, Doran J. Survey & Questionnaire Design: Collecting Primary data to answer research questions. Ireland: NuBooks, an imprint of Oak Tree Press; 2016.

  53. Couper MP, Tourangeau R, Conrad FG, Singer E. Evaluating the effectiveness of visual analog scales. Soc Sci Computer Rev. 2006;24(2):227–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305281503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Roster C, Lucianetti L, Albaum G. Exploring Slider vs. Categorical Response Formats in Web-Based Surveys. Canada J Res Pract J Res Pract. 11;2015. Accessed 19 Sep 2023. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/download/509/433.

  55. Tourangeau R, Maitland A, Rivero G, Sun H, Williams D, Yan T. Web surveys by smartphone and tablets. Public Opin Q. 2017;81:896–929. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. La Polla M, Martinelli F, Sgandurra D. A Survey on Security for Mobile Devices. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2013;15:446–71. https://doi.org/10.1109/surv.2012.013012.00028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Khan J, Abbas H, Al-Muhtadi J. Survey on Mobile User’s Data Privacy Threats and Defense Mechanisms. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015;56:376–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Mishra S, Thakur A. A Survey on Mobile Security Issues. SSRN Electronic Journal, Elsevier BV, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372207.

  59. Sandesara M, Bodkhe U, Tanwar S, Alshehri MD, Sharma R, Neagu BC, et al. Design and Experience of Mobile Applications: A Pilot Survey. Mathematics. 2022;10(Jul):2380 https://doi.org/10.3390/math10142380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Department of Pediatrics, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO, USA

    Kadriye O. Lewis & Howard W. Kilbride

  2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Carl Bose

  3. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    David J. Burchfield

Authors
  1. Kadriye O. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Howard W. Kilbride
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carl Bose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David J. Burchfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KOL conceptualized and designed the perspective manuscript, wrote the initial draft, and subsequently revised the manuscript. HWK conceptualized the manuscript, added input regarding the use of surveys within the SoNPM, reviewed and revised the manuscript. CB and DJB reviewed and provided critical revision of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kadriye O. Lewis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lewis, K.O., Kilbride, H.W., Bose, C. et al. Fundamentals of designing high-quality surveys: revisiting neonatal perinatal medicine survey applications. J Perinatol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-023-01801-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-023-01801-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links