This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Freedman, V. A. Articles by Kleban, M. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Freedman, V. A. Articles by Kleban, M. H. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Asking Neutral Versus Leading Questions

Implications for Functional Limitation Measurement

Polisher Research Institute, Madlyn and Leonard Abramson Center for Jewish Life, vfreedman{at}abramsoncenter.org

Hakan Aykan

Polisher Research Institute, Madlyn and Leonard Abramson Center for Jewish Life

Morton H. Kleban

Polisher Research Institute, Madlyn and Leonard Abramson Center for Jewish Life

Objectives: National surveys of older Americans routinely have included functional limitation items using either a leading approach ("how much difficulty do you have...") or a neutral approach ("do you have any difficulty..."). This article evaluates the performance of scales based on these two approaches. Methods: Using responses from 595 randomly selected participants to the 1994 Health and Retirement Study, the authors compared prevalences and evaluated scales based on each approach with respect to the extent of missing data, face validity, reliability, predictive validity, convergent validity, and robustness of odds ratios in predictive models. Results: The authors found that leading questions provided higher estimates of functional limitations than neutral questions, but both approaches yielded scales with similar validity and reliability. However, for both approaches, scales incorporating degree of difficulty had better validity and reliability than those based on counts of tasks. All four approaches yielded substantially similar coefficients in a model predicting disability onset. Discussion: The authors conclude that, because they minimize survey time without compromising validity and reliability, items that explicitly capture degree of difficulty by asking "How much difficulty do you have..." may be the optimal approach for survey designers.

Key Words: reliability • validity • functioning • disability

Journal of Aging and Health, Vol. 15, No. 4, 661-687 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0898264303256250


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Seidel, N. Crilly, F. E. Matthews, C. Jagger, P. J. Clarkson, and C. Brayne Patterns of Functional Loss Among Older People: A Prospective Analysis Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, October 1, 2009; 51(5): 669 - 680. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. C. Cornman and V. A. Freedman Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Mobility Device Use in Late Life J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, January 1, 2008; 63(1): S34 - S41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]