KnowledgeBases > Advantages and Drawbacks of Various Data Collection Procedures
| Procedure | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Self-administered questionnaire | Inexpensive. Can be administered quickly if distributed to a group. Well suited for simple and short questionnaires. | No control for misunderstood questions, missing data, or untruthful responses. Not suited for exploration of complex issues. |
| Interviewer-administered questionnaires | Interviewer can probe to ensure question is understood. With good rapport, may obtain useful open-ended comments, including evidence to support response. | Confidentiality is an issue. May require hiring interviewers. Training is needed to establish consistency, nature, and use of probing questions |
| Open-ended interviews | Usually yields richest data, details, new insights. Best if in-depth information is wanted. | Same as above (interviewer-administered questionnaires); also, often difficult to analyze |
| Focus Groups | Useful for gathering ideas and different viewpoints, discovering new insights, & improving question design. | Not suited for generalizations about population being studied. |
| Tests | Provide "hard" data, which administrators and funding agencies often prefer. Relatively easy to administer. Good instruments may be available from vendors. | Available instruments may be unsuitable. Developing and validating new project-specific tests may be expensive and time consuming. Objections may be raised because of test unfairness or bias. |
| Observations | If well executed, best for obtaining data about behavior of individuals and groups | Usually expensive. Needs well-qualified staff. Observation may affect behavior being studied. |
| Documents, records, and student work | Existing material can be used to develop data at a convenient time. | Checklists or rubrics for generating data from the written material must be created. Careful definitions must be established to ensure consistency. |
Source:
Adapted from User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation (p. 44), by F. Stevens, F. Lawrenz, and L. Sharp (n.d.), Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation.



Print this page