Self-reports
Carrying out a self-report:
There are many reasons why researchers may choose to collect data through self-report.
When carrying out a self-report, there are a number of decisions to make, such as: whether
to administer questionnaires or conduct interviews; whether to ask open or closed
questions; whether to use rating scales, and if so, what type of rating scale. In addition to
these, the researcher will, as always, need to consider: who their target population is and
how to obtain a representative sample of participants from within the target population;
how to remain within ethical guidelines; how to ensure that the data from their self-report
investigation is valid and reliable. The two main forms of self-report are questionnaires and
interviews. Beyond these, other ways of collecting self-report include asking the people
studied to bring a diary or getting participants to indicate their thoughts out loud or on
paper. Self-report has many strengths, one being, unlike experiments and observations, it
can potentially allow the researcher to access people’s thoughts. Instead of making
inferences about why they behaved in a certain way, the researcher can just ask.
Questionnaires:
Questionnaires are one of two main self-report techniques and have the following features:
Questionnaires are written methods of gaining data.
They may be completed by the participant or may act as a set of questions that a
researcher reads to the participant whose answers are recorded.
The person completing a questionnaire is called a respondent.
These can be paper-based or in an electronic format.
Questionnaires can use various different types of question. If a researcher wishes to gain
quantitative data from a large sample of participants fairly quickly, a questionnaire is
advisable.
Questionnaire advantages:
Large amounts of data, both quantitative and qualitative
Often large sample
Quick
Confidential
Questionnaire disadvantages:
Possible standard response set
Might respond untruthfully – lowers validity
Response rate
May lack ecological validity
Must be careful with wording, not too confusing or vague, social sensitivity
Interviews:
, Interviews are the other of the two main self-report techniques, they can be categorized by
the following features:
The person being interviewed is called an interviewee
Interviews involve direct verbal questioning of the subject by the researcher (e.g.,
over the phone or face to face.
Interviews can vary in how structured they are. The three options are:
o Structured interviews
o Semi-structured interviews
o Unstructured interviews
If a researcher is looking to gather in-depth qualitative data from representatives of a fairly
narrow target population, then interviews are advisable.
Interview advantages:
Different types of structures to suit research aims
Can be a combination of qualitative and quantitative data
Able to read body language, tone, etc.
Build a rapport (relationship) between interviewee and researcher so they might be
more honest
Interview disadvantages:
Often unreliable if semi-structured or unstructured
May lack ecological validity
One at a time therefore time-consuming
Confidentiality
Social desirability bias
Types of interviews:
Structured – the interviewer asks the same questions to each participant in the same
order. Closed questions are often used, with the interviewee picking the answer that
is closest to their own view.
o Strengths – high reliability, standardised and replicable, everyone has the
same experience; easy to analyse and compare results due to quantitative
data.
o Weaknesses – restrictive; may miss out on useful information – can’t stary
from the plan if participants misunderstand or want more info; superficial
which has low ecological validity.
Semi-structured – the interviewer will have a set of pre-prepared questions to ask
and is expected to ask all of them; other questions will be developed during the
interview in response to answers given by the interviewee
o Strengths – more trustworthy for the participants as it is more
conversational; higher ecological validity; still some quantitative data; rich
Carrying out a self-report:
There are many reasons why researchers may choose to collect data through self-report.
When carrying out a self-report, there are a number of decisions to make, such as: whether
to administer questionnaires or conduct interviews; whether to ask open or closed
questions; whether to use rating scales, and if so, what type of rating scale. In addition to
these, the researcher will, as always, need to consider: who their target population is and
how to obtain a representative sample of participants from within the target population;
how to remain within ethical guidelines; how to ensure that the data from their self-report
investigation is valid and reliable. The two main forms of self-report are questionnaires and
interviews. Beyond these, other ways of collecting self-report include asking the people
studied to bring a diary or getting participants to indicate their thoughts out loud or on
paper. Self-report has many strengths, one being, unlike experiments and observations, it
can potentially allow the researcher to access people’s thoughts. Instead of making
inferences about why they behaved in a certain way, the researcher can just ask.
Questionnaires:
Questionnaires are one of two main self-report techniques and have the following features:
Questionnaires are written methods of gaining data.
They may be completed by the participant or may act as a set of questions that a
researcher reads to the participant whose answers are recorded.
The person completing a questionnaire is called a respondent.
These can be paper-based or in an electronic format.
Questionnaires can use various different types of question. If a researcher wishes to gain
quantitative data from a large sample of participants fairly quickly, a questionnaire is
advisable.
Questionnaire advantages:
Large amounts of data, both quantitative and qualitative
Often large sample
Quick
Confidential
Questionnaire disadvantages:
Possible standard response set
Might respond untruthfully – lowers validity
Response rate
May lack ecological validity
Must be careful with wording, not too confusing or vague, social sensitivity
Interviews:
, Interviews are the other of the two main self-report techniques, they can be categorized by
the following features:
The person being interviewed is called an interviewee
Interviews involve direct verbal questioning of the subject by the researcher (e.g.,
over the phone or face to face.
Interviews can vary in how structured they are. The three options are:
o Structured interviews
o Semi-structured interviews
o Unstructured interviews
If a researcher is looking to gather in-depth qualitative data from representatives of a fairly
narrow target population, then interviews are advisable.
Interview advantages:
Different types of structures to suit research aims
Can be a combination of qualitative and quantitative data
Able to read body language, tone, etc.
Build a rapport (relationship) between interviewee and researcher so they might be
more honest
Interview disadvantages:
Often unreliable if semi-structured or unstructured
May lack ecological validity
One at a time therefore time-consuming
Confidentiality
Social desirability bias
Types of interviews:
Structured – the interviewer asks the same questions to each participant in the same
order. Closed questions are often used, with the interviewee picking the answer that
is closest to their own view.
o Strengths – high reliability, standardised and replicable, everyone has the
same experience; easy to analyse and compare results due to quantitative
data.
o Weaknesses – restrictive; may miss out on useful information – can’t stary
from the plan if participants misunderstand or want more info; superficial
which has low ecological validity.
Semi-structured – the interviewer will have a set of pre-prepared questions to ask
and is expected to ask all of them; other questions will be developed during the
interview in response to answers given by the interviewee
o Strengths – more trustworthy for the participants as it is more
conversational; higher ecological validity; still some quantitative data; rich
