Survey response rates in health sciences education research: A 10‐year meta‐analysis

Author:

Wilson Adam B.1ORCID,Brooks William S.2ORCID,Edwards Danielle N.2ORCID,Deaver Jill3ORCID,Surd Jessica A.2,Pirlo Obadiah J.4,Byrd William A.5,Meyer Edgar R.6ORCID,Beresheim Amy1ORCID,Cuskey Stephanie L.7,Tsintolas Jack G.7,Norrell Eric S.7,Fisher Harriet C.7,Skaggs Christopher W.7,Mysak Dmytro7,Levin Samantha R.7,Escutia Rosas Carlos E.7,Cale Andrew S.8ORCID,Karim Md Nazmul9ORCID,Pollock Jenna10,Kakos Nicholas J.11,O'Brien Monica S.11,Lufler Rebecca S.12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology Rush University Chicago Illinois USA

2. Department of Cell, Developmental, and Integrative Biology University of Alabama at Birmingham, Heersink School of Medicine Birmingham Alabama USA

3. Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences Clinical, Academic, & Research Engagement (CARE) Department University of Alabama at Birmingham Libraries Birmingham Alabama USA

4. School of Dentistry University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio San Antonio Texas USA

5. Heersink School of Medicine University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham Alabama USA

6. Department of Advanced Biomedical Education University of Mississippi Medical Center Jackson Mississippi USA

7. Rush Medical College Rush University Chicago Illinois USA

8. Department of Anatomy, Cell Biology, and Physiology Indiana University School of Medicine Indianapolis Indiana USA

9. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia

10. Lewis Gale Medical Center Roanoke Virginia USA

11. Tufts University School of Medicine Boston Massachusetts USA

12. Department of Medical Education Tufts University School of Medicine Boston Massachusetts USA

Abstract

AbstractGrowth in the online survey market may be increasing response burden and possibly jeopardizing higher response rates. This meta‐analysis evaluated survey trends over one decade (2011–2020) to determine: (1) changes in survey publication rates over time, (2) changes in response rates over time, (3) typical response rates within health sciences education research, (4) the factors influencing survey completion levels, and (5) common gaps in survey methods and outcomes reporting. Study I estimated survey publication trends between 2011 and 2020 using articles published in the top three health sciences education research journals. Study II searched the anatomical sciences education literature across six databases and extracted study/survey features and survey response rates. Time plots and a proportional meta‐analysis were performed. Per 2926 research articles, the annual estimated proportion of studies with survey methodologies has remained constant, with no linear trend (p > 0.050) over time (Study I). Study II reported a pooled absolute response rate of 67% (95% CI = 63.9–69.0) across 360 studies (k), totaling 115,526 distributed surveys. Despite response rate oscillations over time, no significant linear trend (p = 0.995) was detected. Neither survey length, incentives, sponsorship, nor population type affected absolute response rates (p ≥ 0.070). Only 35% (120 of 339) of studies utilizing a Likert scale reported evidence of survey validity. Survey response rates and the prevalence of studies with survey methodologies have remained stable with no linear trends over time. We recommend researchers strive for a typical absolute response rate of 67% or higher and clearly document evidence of survey validity for empirical studies.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Embryology,General Medicine,Histology,Anatomy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3