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

  1. Salvador-Oliván, José Antonio 1
  2. Marco-Cuenca, Gonzalo 1
  3. Arquero-Avilés, Rosario 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Zaragoza
    info

    Universidad de Zaragoza

    Zaragoza, España

    ROR https://ror.org/012a91z28

  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
Revista española de documentación científica

ISSN: 0210-0614,  1988-4621

Año de publicación: 2021

Volumen: 44

Número: 2

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3989/REDC.2021.2.1774 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista española de documentación científica

Resumen

Introducción y objetivo: La investigación con encuestas es un método utilizado con frecuencia en el área de 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.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 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.
  • 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-Codeof-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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Chung, K. C. (2014). Survey response rate, a guide for readers and authors. Journal of Hand Surgery, 39 (3), 421–422.
  • Dale, A. (2006). Quality issues with survey research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 9 (2), 143–158.
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Hernon, P.; Schwartz, C. (2000). Survey research. A time for introspection. Library and Information Science Research, 22 (2), 117–121.
  • Hernon, P.; Schwartz, C. (2009). Reliability and validity. Library and Information Science Research, 31 (2), 73–74.
  • 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.
  • Hui, W.; Lui, S. M.; Lau, W. K. (2019). A reporting guideline for IS survey research. Decision Support Systems, 126 (May), 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. Madrid: Asociación Española de Normalización.
  • Janes, J. (2001). Survey research design. Library Hi Tech, 19 (4), 419–421.
  • Jedinger, A.; Watteler, O.; Förster, A. (2018). Improving the quality of survey data documentation: A total survey error perspective. Data, 3(4), 1–10.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Marcopulos, B. A.; Guterbock, T. M.; Matusz, E. F. (2020). Survey research in neuropsychology: A systematic review. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 34 (1), 32–55.
  • McNutt, M. (2014). Journals unite for reproducibility. Science, 346 (6210), 679.
  • Menold, N.; Bluemke, M.; Hubley, A. M. (2018). Validity: Challenges in Conception, Methods, and Interpretation in Survey Research. Methodology, 14 (4), 143–145.
  • Morgan, S. E.; Carcioppolo, N. (2014). Survey research methodology in health communication. En: Whaley B. B. (ed.). Research Methods in Health Communication. Principles and Application; 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.
  • Plutzer, E. (2019). Privacy, Sensitive Questions, and Informed Consent. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83 (S1), 169–184.
  • Powell, R. R. (1999). Recent trends in research: A methodological essay. Library and Information Science Research, 21 (1), 91–119.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Starr, S. (2012). Survey research: We can do better. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100 (1), 1–2.
  • Story, D. A.; Tait, A. R. (2019). Survey Research. Anesthesiology, 130 (2), 192–202.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet