• To understand the step-by-step process involved in developing a self-administered questionnaire
• To identify strategies to improve the styles of questionnaire items and comprehension, and to reduce acquiescent bias
• To promote best practice when establishing the face, content, construct and internal consistency validity of a self-administered questionnaire
Background Using a structured process to develop a self-administered questionnaire provides a robust tool for collecting data that enhances the credibility of the results. Describing this process mitigates any complexity and confusion for the nurse researcher which can be generated by many sources of information that either lack detail or have complex statistical approaches.
Aim To discuss the development of a self-administered questionnaire with a focus on face, content, construct validity and reliability testing.
Discussion Adopting a well-established, sequential, five-step approach ensures that important concepts of questionnaire development are addressed: assessing existing tools and qualitative data, if available; drafting of the questionnaire with consideration for question styles, comprehension, acquiescent bias and face validity; expert panel review to establish content validity and inter-rater reliability; pilot testing to assess construct validity; and exploratory factor analysis to establish reliability testing. This approach results in a robust and credible tool for collecting data.
Conclusion This article provides nurse researchers with a structured process for developing self-administered questionnaires.
Implications for practice Investing time and effort to assess a newly developed questionnaire for validity and reliability and consider question styles, comprehension and acquiescent bias results in an improved and strengthened tool for collecting data. This in turn enhances the quality and credibility of a study’s findings.
Nurse Researcher. 30, 3, 36-45. doi: 10.7748/nr.2022.e1848
Correspondencerebecca.leon@health.nsw.gov.au
Peer reviewThis article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software
Conflict of interestNone declared
PermissionTo reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact permissions@rcni.com
Write for usFor information about writing for RCNi journals, contact writeforus@rcni.com
For author guidelines, go to rcni.com/write-for-nurse-researcher
or
Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more