An evaluation of the experience of two research methods

Introduction
The primary goal of the report is to use qualitative and quantitative approaches on the
research topic milk and meat alternatives. Structured questionnaires and semi-structured
interviews are often used in mixed method studies to generate confirmatory results despite
differences in methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The scope would be
limited to interview and questionnaire research techniques, which would then be critically
viewed in terms of how these two methods in practise could be applied in future research
based on their relevance and practicability. Zoom interview is done and the transcripts were
taken, and questionnaire is developed and the survey is taken among the peers. The larger
picture of the report would include an evaluation of the actual experience of using the
interview and questionnaire, as well as a balanced discussion of its advantages and pitfalls.
The objective of research as illustrated by Bairagi and Munot (2019) is to find
solutions to unsolved problems using scientific procedures and to understand various
phenomena scientifically. Consequently, the research method chosen is determined by the
research's discipline, objectives, and expected outcomes (Saunders et al., 2019). Quantitative
questions are closed-ended, and have specific answers to choose among that can be
categorized and numerically analyzed. Qualitative questions are open-ended, that is, the
respondent provides a response in his or her own words. Blaxter et al. (2010a, p. 65) has
simplified the context of research approach as “Quantitative research tends to involve
relatively large-scale and representative sets of data, and is often, presented or perceived as
being about the gathering of facts. Qualitative research, on the other hand, is concerned with
collecting and analysing information in as many forms, chiefly non-numeric, as possible. It
tends to focus on exploring, in as much detail as possible, smaller numbers of instances or
examples which are seen as being interesting or illuminating and aims to achieve depth rather
than breadth.” Furthermore, Zohrabi (2013) states that qualitative research is process oriented
and is concerned with understanding behaviour from actors’ own frames of reference to
produces real rich/deep data whereas quantitative research is outcome oriented and seeks the
facts/causes of social phenomena yielding reliable data.
Interview
Lichtman (2017) has described the interview method as one of the most powerful
tools available for gathering data because it allows interviewees to discuss ideas or issues that
would be challenging to acquire using techniques like observation or questionnaires. To be
more precise, Adams (2010) outlines an interview that has a clear agenda where the
researcher maintains a careful questioning and listening approach. The semi-structured
interview, which lies right in the middle of structured and semi structured interviews, pulls
the best elements from both and forms a unique package to examine uncharted territory while
addressing extremely significant issues.
Wilson (2014) and Cridland et al. (2014) recommends that interviewers using the
semi-structured interview approach first explain the interview's goal and research topic. The
author also reminds of asking some easy, nonthreatening, and relevant warm-up or
introductory questions relevant to the field of investigation and also inquire if the respondent
has any concerns. This helps to establish rapport and build trust, which encourages the
interviewee to answer questions honestly. Although the actual interview indicated the
research's goal, it was unsuccessful in incorporating the author's latter advice. Furthermore,
because some personal questions were asked at the start of the interview, it was clear from
nonverbal cues that the participant was uneasy. Flowers et al. (2021) and Kallio et al. (2016)
affirm that mutual respect is foundational to the researcher-participant relationship, and
therefore, this valuable lesson learned would be applied when conducting interviews in the
future.
According to the interview transcript, the research questions during the interview are
of the descriptive, comparative, and causal categories. Descriptive method is used to
supplement a study that seeks to describe subject. Questions beginning with "How much?",
"Which amount?", "what is," "what are," and so on fall under the category of descriptive
research concerns. For the food experiences, descriptive qualitative research provides a
reasonably simple and strong technique. The most prevalent form of data collecting in
qualitative research is semi-structured with representative people (Sandelowski, 2000).
Informing the participant at the start of the interview that the session would be recorded, and
all data would be held in confidentiality, keeping personal identity anonymous, was not
followed, as suggested by Groves et al. (2009). As stated previously, the interviewee also has
the right to decline or skip any question that does not seem appropriate to answer.
Buckingham and Saunders (2009) put forward the theory of making the interviewee aware of
this entitlement that was found to be not communicated by the interviewer. During the
interview, Holloway and Galvin (2016), Galletta (2013), May (2011) and Turner (2010)
urged that the interviewer needs to be really interested in hearing the interviewee’s
experience, which could be accomplished by employing a variety of strategies such as
maintaining eye contact, using genuine encouraging words like follow-up expressions, short
follow up statements, and instilling the art of stillness/silence when appropriate. In the actual
interview, the majority of the methods stated were observed to be used.
Asking probing questions during a semi-structured interview is the most common way
to explore a research topic in detail from the interviewee (Saunders et al., 2019; Polit & Beck,
2021). The main task in interviewing is to understand the meaning of what the interviewees
say (McNamara, 2009). Usually open-ended questions are asked during interviews in hopes
of obtaining impartial answers, while closed ended questions may force participants to
answer in a particular way (Creswell, 2012). Moreover, the use of open-ended end question
can also add another dimension to the qualitative data gathered from the respondents because
they are asked to describe a situation, which can give an insight into their behaviour and
thought patterns. Both of the tactics were planned prior to the interview and then deployed
effectively to get a clear overview. Nonetheless, in a few instances, double-barreled questions
were asked, causing confusion and making the participant unsure of how to respond, as Clark
et al. (2021) predicted. Likewise, asking simple questions as prescribed by Kothari (2012),
which are easy to understand without any technical jargon, was missed at a certain point of
time.
Despite its versatility and popularity as a data collection tool, semi structured
interviews have major data quality issues such as interviewer bias/interviewer effect, cultural
differences, and reliability/dependability (Denscombe, 2021; Zohrabi 2013). Wilson (2014),
for example, points out that the key findings are not always destined to be repeatable because
they reflect reality at the time they were retrieved, in a particular circumstance that may
change. This assumption proposed by the author could be due to the fact that the
interviewee's opinion and knowledge about the research topic is dynamic and complex in
nature. With respect to the interview, the respondent earlier did not have expertise on the
benefits of plant-based food on health, but due to innate curiosity, the perception and opinion
towards it eventually changed. Speaking about the length of the interview, it lasted around 19
minutes, which could have lasted longer if the skill of summarizing, interpreting, and
confirming responses from the interviewee as advised by Bell and Waters (2018) was taken
into consideration.
Interviews have many advantages, the most significant of which is questioning people
who cannot write their responses. This category also includes illiterate subjects or subjects
who do not write as frequently as they speak. Oral responses from these individuals will
contain much more information than would their written responses. Another advantage of the
interview method is that is actually results in a higher response rate than does the
questionnaire. Many people who would ignore a questionnaire are willing to talk, with an
interviewer who is obviously interested in what they have to say. Another advantage of the
interview technique is that you can plan to ask questions at several levels to get the most
information from the subject. This approach is unique to the interview. The combination of
structured and unstructured questions can provide depth and richness to the data and, at the
same time elicit data that are comparable from one subject to the next.
Hanna (2012) and Deakin and Wakefield (2014) reported the benefits of using
internet technology through which semi-structured interviews can be easily conducted
because of the benefits it offers in location neutrality and sheer convenience to the
interviewee that would indirectly translate to good performance from the respondent. The
interviewee acknowledged the convenience factor before the interview actually started.
On the other hand, collecting data through online research interviews has some
inherent limitations, including those with sound quality, connection speed, and
hardware/computer failure (Biber and Griffin,2013). Similar problems to those described by
the author arose during the interview. Nonetheless, when conducting qualitative research
through synchronous online semi-structured interview, the obstacle of technological glitches
can be overcome by appropriate training of researcher in relation to how to use it, which
eventually untaps the ability to capitalise on their strength fully (Seitz, 2015). In addition,
Janghorban et al. (2014) and Denscombe (2021) demonstrate that whether the semi-structured
interview is done online or in the orthodox manner, it provides flexibility and is more fluid to
tailor the interview flow for the interviewee to develop ideas around topics raised by the
researcher, therefore getting comparatively quality data when contrasted with other tools of
data collection.
Questionnaire
Acharya (2010) says that the quality of the questionnaire influences the studies,
outcomes, general findings, and opportunities for additional research. As a result, developing
questionnaires is the most important component of research and other data gathering tasks.
Kothari (2012) and Vaus (2014) define "questionnaire" as a general term which covers all
data collection methods wherein respondents are expected to complete a set of questions
through a predetermined sequence. Furthermore, using a questionnaire as a research
technique, Denscombe (2021), Karavida et al. (2021) and Ekinci (2015) point out that they
should be able to fulfil three conditions. Firstly, it must serve as a tool to collect data from
participants, inquiring closely about the research topic. Secondly, every participant who
completes the questionnaire receives an exact bunch of questions with proper instructions,
allowing for the prompt collection of responses from a representative sample precedent to
data analyzation. And finally, it should be engaging enough to keep people's interest and
attention while they are answering questions.
According to Dillman et al. (2014), the questionnaire should have a title that clearly
explains the goal, as well as a brief introduction to the research aims and objectives. As per
Vannette and Krosnick (2018), a strong survey start is important to give survey participants a
clear snapshot of the survey's purpose and data confidentality. The summary indeed managed
to meet all of the above criteria for an ideal questionnaire, but it failed to mention the
informed consent clause, which fosters trust and rapport with study participants and
demonstrates the integrity of the research process as illustrated by Kaiser (2009), thereby
allowing participants to feel at ease while sharing their responses. This oversight could be
later corrected in the future.
Participants, on the other hand, acknowledged the vote of thanks, which was included
at the end of the brief overview in conformance with Acharya (2010), thereby further
restating the respondents' contribution towards the questionnaire. However, the introduction
should have included some visually appealing graphics such as the institute logo and details
like the name of the researcher to yield meaningful and engaging results (Jones et al., 2013).
The mistake would be taken into consideration while designing next time.
The heart of the matter, as per Lietz (2010), Boparai et al. (2019), and Gillham
(2008), is really the drafting of questions and the layout of the questionnaire. Furthermore,
the logical order of one after the other in an upside funnel sequence would make the entire
process more comprehensible to the respondent, moving from a general topic to a specific
domain of research topic to be investigated using a questionnaire as a tool (Song et al., 2015).
In the survey Participants must comprehend the question, retrieve relevant information, make
a judgement and outline the answer to a given questionnaire item, and report the answer to
the interviewer in order to answer a survey question All of the previous authors' elements
aligned with the actual design of the sample questionnaire, which was also appreciated by
participants due to its straightforward flow. Although the questions were relevant to the main
research aim, they were not easily understood because of the use of complex vocabulary. This
in turn could degrade the overall quality of the questionnaire. (Blaxter et al.; Krosnick &
Presser, 2010; Lambert, 2019). The earlier discussion on revising the questionnaire can be
developed further here by Carolyn Feher Waltz et al. (2016), which advises on the
importance of reviewing existing literature to assess the content validity of survey
questionnaire purpose through searching for keywords from various databases.
 In addition, while forming questionnaires, the topic areas and variables, as well as
their relationships with the other variables identified through the qualitative research, also
need to be taken into account. (Meadows, 2003; Bairagi & Munot, 2019). However, the
former crucial factor was not included during questionnaire ideation, which in turn could
decrease the efficiency of the entire research. To put it simply, the conventional wisdom for
acquiring consistency would be obtained by modifying an existing questionnaire used in
previous studies rather than starting from scratch.
Questionnaires typically include open-ended, closed-ended, or a combination of the
two types of questions. This enables researchers to collect both qualitative and quantitative
data based on their needs and when compared to other research methods and questionnaire
provides more structure to any research, which can help maximise the success of whatever
the researcher is attempting to investigate and answer. Closed questions such as multiple
choice, list/checklist, and likert scale were included in the questionnaire as they are usually
quicker and easier to answer. (Schuwirth & van der Vleuten, 2003; Nemoto & Beglar, 2014).
Conversely, predetermined responses will not be valid if they are misunderstood by
respondents (Hardy & Ford 2014). This was an issue that participants encountered while
filling out the questionnaire. Furthermore, using open-ended questions in a questionnaire
provided a more complete picture of the respondent's feelings and attitudes, but they were
used sparingly because they are more difficult to analyse than closed-ended questions and
thus complicate group comparisons. (Fink, 2017). With regard to instruction given and the
length of individual questions, Sekaran and Bougie (2016) asserted that the words should be
ideally no longer than 20 words and each question should have unambiguous directions that
must be understood in the way that the researcher intended. In the prepared questionnaire,
this was reasonably accomplished.
Despite the effort put into developing a virtually flawless questionnaire, there are a
few flaws in its execution. To illustrate, the respondents' attitudes were measured using a 5-
point Likert scale with response options containing both numbers and verbal labels, which
missed the accurate mapping of those who wanted to report a moderately positive or negative
attitude that was located in between the midpoint and the far end of the scale (Wu & Leung,
2017). From this, it can be deduced that an optimal scale length containing only verbal labels,
preferably an 11-point scale, as proposed by Leung (2011), may provide a cue to satisfice the
respondents who are low in motivation, thereby increasing the likelihood of gaining more
reliability and reducing measurement error.
 Multiple choice and list/checklist questions, according to Bowling (2014), must
include options that cover the entire range of choices. The list of options ought to be
collectively exclusive and comprehensive, but not so long that it adds to the respondents'
workload when filling out the questionnaire. Besides this, the author stresses the importance
of including the "other (please specify)" category where applicable. All of the stated
recommendations exactly matched with the final outcome of the prepared questionnaire.
Through careful work, evaluating, and record keeping, a survey questionnaire can
provide accurate and relevant data. A reliable and efficient questionnaire should be clear,
entertaining, and short, and it should be easy to complete. The questions should be framed in
such a manner that the respondent knows what the inquiry is trying to get them to
comprehend. If the same question is presented to the responder repeatedly over a short period
of time, a consistent question should produce this very same result each time. A questionnaire
that is fascinating to the respondent is much more likely to be answered by the subject,
resulting in a higher response rate. It is possible to construct a questionnaire in an effective
manner if the preceding criteria are followed.
The written questionnaire has some advantages. For one thing, it is likely to be less
expensive, particularly in terms of the time spent collecting the data. Questionnaires can be
given to large numbers of people simultaneously; they can also be sent by mail. Therefore, it
is possible to cover wide geographic areas and to question large number of people relatively
inexpensively. Another advantage of questionnaires is that subjects are more likely to feel
that they can remain anonymous and thus may be more likely to express controversial
opinions. This is more difficult in an interview, where the opinion must be given directly to
the interviewer. Also, the written question is standard from one subject to the next and is not
susceptible to changes in emphasis as can be case in oral questioning. There is always the
possibility, however, that the written question will be interpreted differently by different
readers, which is one reason for carefully pre-testing questionnaires.
All methods of data collection, including questionnaires, have some theoretical advantages
and disadvantages. Patten (2014) mentions that the major limitation of a questionnaire is that
it does not obtain in-depth information with high chances of low response rate and points out
a few advantages of questionnaires, which are as follows:-
i. Responses to questionnaires are relatively easy to tabulate or score, and the
resulting data is simple to analyse on a large-scale basis.
ii. They are economical and less time consuming.
 iii. Since the questionnaire upholds the anonymity factor of participants, it could be
used to obtain sensitive information such as socio-demographic variables.
Conclusion
When looking for a questionnaire or interview schedule to use in your study or when
developing your own tool, you will have to consider the various kinds of questions that you
can ask to obtain a range of data, and then decide which method is best suited to your
variables. The content of the questions must be considered first, then the amount of structure
in the format.
Considering the parameters of efficiency, reliability, and purpose of investigation, it
could be deduced from the literature review of the latest studies that using a questionnaire
alone (web-based or paper-based) would be the most appropriate data collection instrument
when compared with the interview method on the complex issue of correlating long-term
dietary pattern with its health outcome (Farvid et al., 2019; Cade et al., 2017; Guo et al.,
2017). However, a handful of studies done as of now on a small scale have specifically
devised a two-step protocol whereby a questionnaire would be first used at the preliminary
stage and an interview at its later stage, which would not only further support the accuracy of
findings but also reduce information bias, thereby providing a multi-dimensional perspective
on research topic.
Mixed research approach is today considered to be an appropriate methodological
trend, and it is an approach that has a lot to offer researchers in the fields of health and social
science. The goal of combining techniques is to provide researchers with the chance to get a
more comprehensive grasp of research topics. To put it simply, the information gathered
through the use of a combination of questionnaire and interview might help to overcome and
complement each other's weaknesses. (Salmons, 2015; Denscombe, 2021). Conversely,
Harris and Brown (2010) and Zohrabi (2013) challenge the previous point and explained that
the ostensible benefit of using mixed methods to improve validity is completely invalid
because it would come at the cost of a time-consuming process and a high financial cost of
collecting and analysing the data one after another, reconfirming the strong alignment to a
single method, which is the questionnaire.
 References
Acharya, B. (2010). Questionnaire design.
Adams, E. (2010). The joys and challenges of semi-structured interviewing. Community
Practitioner: The Journal of the Community Practitioners’ & Health Visitors’
Association, 83(7), 18–21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20701187/
Bairagi, V., & Munot, M. V. (2019). Research methodology : a practical and scientific
approach (1st ed., pp. 8–50). Crc Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Bell, J., & Waters, S. (2018). Doing your research project : a guide for first-time
researchers. London Mcgraw Hill Education.
Biber, S. H., & Griffin, A. J. (2013). Internet-Mediated Technologies and Mixed Methods
Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(1), 43–61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812451791
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2010a). How to research (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill
Education. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/shu/detail.action?docID=650302
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2010b). How to research (4th ed., pp. 55–200).
McGraw-Hill Education. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/shu/detail.action?
docID=650302
Boparai, J. K., Singh, S., & Kathuria, P. (2019). How to Design and Validate A
Questionnaire: A Guide. Current Clinical Pharmacology, 13(4), 210–215.
https://doi.org/10.2174/1574884713666180807151328
Bowling, A. (2014). Research methods in health : Investigating health and health services
(4th ed., pp. 275–320). Open University Press.
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/shu/detail.action?docID=1910222
Buckingham, A., & Saunders, P. (2009). The survey methods workbook : from design to
analysis. Polity Press.
Cade, J. E., Burley, V. J., Alwan, Nisreen A, Hutchinson, J., Hancock, N., Morris, M. A.,
Threapleton, D. E., & Greenwood, D. C. (2017). Cohort profile: The UK women’s
cohort study (UKWCS). International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(2), e11–e11.
Carolyn Feher Waltz, Ora Lea Strickland, & Lenz, E. R. (2016). Measurement in Nursing
and Health Research. Springer Publishing Company.
Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L., & Bryman, A. (2021). Social Research Methods 6E. (6th ed.).
Oxford Univ Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, And Mixed Methods
Approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Cridland, E. K., Jones, S. C., Caputi, P., & Magee, C. A. (2014). Qualitative research with
families living with autism spectrum disorder: Recommendations for conducting
semistructured interviews. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability,
40(1), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2014.964191
Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers.
Qualitative Research, 14(5), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126
Denscombe, M. (2021). GOOD RESEARCH GUIDE : research methods for small -scale
social research. (7th ed.). Open University Press.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-
mode surveys : the tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.
Ekinci, Y. (2015). Designing research questionnaires for business and management students.
Sage Publications Ltd.
Farvid, M. S., Chen, W. Y., Rosner, B. A., Tamimi, Rulla M, Willett, W. C., & Heather, E.
A. (2019). Fruit and vegetable consumption and breast cancer incidence: Repeated
measures over 30 years of follow‐up. International Journal of Cancer, 144(7), 1496–
1510.
Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys : a step-by-step guide. Los Angeles London Sage.
Flowers, P., Smith, J. A., & Larkin, M. (2021). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.
Sage Publications.
Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond : From research
design to analysis and publication. New York University Press.
Gillham, B. (2008). Developing a questionnaire (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Grover, R., & Vriens, M. (2006). The Handbook of Marketing Research. SAGE Publications,
Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412973380
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R.
(2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Guo, J., Astrup, A., Lovegrove, J. A., Gijsbers, L., Givens, D. I., & Soedamah-Muthu, S. S.
(2017). Milk and dairy consumption and risk of cardiovascular diseases and all-cause
mortality: Dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. European
Journal of Epidemiology, 32(4), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-017-0243-1
Hanna, P. (2012). Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: a
research note. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 239–242.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111426607
Hardy, B., & Ford, L. R. (2014). It’s Not Me, It’s You. Organizational Research Methods,
17(2), 138–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113520185
Harris, L., & Brown, G. (2010). Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical
problems in aligning data. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 15(1),
Article 1.
Holloway, I., & Galvin, K. (2016). Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare (4th ed.).
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new
generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9(1), 24152.
https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.24152
Jones, T., Baxter, M., & Khanduja, V. (2013). A Quick Guide to Survey Research. The
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 95(1), 5–7. NCBI.
https://doi.org/10.1308/003588413x13511609956372
Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting Respondent Confidentiality in Qualitative Research.
Qualitative Health Research, 19(11), 1632–1641.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309350879
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic
Methodological review: Developing a Framework for a Qualitative semi-structured
Interview Guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
Karavida, V., Tympa, E., Panousis, G., & Psyrropoulos, Z. (2021). Parents’ perception of
their children’s weight status in an urban area of Western Greece. Journal of Family
Medicine and Primary Care, 10(2), 718–729.
Kothari, C. R. (2012). Research methodology : methods and techniques (3rd ed.). New Age
International Pvt Ltd Publishers.
Krosnick, J., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. In Handbook of Survey
Research (pp. 264–310). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Labonté, M-È., Cyr, A., Baril-Gravel, L., Royer, M-M., & Lamarche, B. (2012). Validity and
reproducibility of a web-based, self-administered food frequency questionnaire.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 66(2), 166–173.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2011.163
Lambert, M. (2019). Practical research methods in education : An early researcher’s critical
guide (1st ed.). Routledge.
Leung, S.-O. (2011). A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-,
and 11-Point Likert Scales. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(4), 412–421.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.580697
Lichtman, M. (2017). Qualitative research for the social sciences. Sage Publications, Inc.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544307756
Lietz, P. (2010). Research into Questionnaire Design: A Summary of the Literature.
International Journal of Market Research, 52(2), 249–272.
https://doi.org/10.2501/s147078530920120x
May, T. (2011). Social research : issues, methods and process (4th ed.). Open University
Press.
McNamara, C. (1999). General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews, Authenticity
Consulting,LLC,
http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/intrview.htm
Meadows, K. A. (2003). So you want to do research? 5: Questionnaire design. British
Journal of Community Nursing, 8(12), 562–570.
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2003.8.12.11854
Nemoto, T., & Beglar, D. (2014). Developing Likert-Scale Questionnaires. https://jalt-
publications.org/sites/default/files/pdf-article/jalt2013_001.pdf
Patten, M. L. (2014). Questionnaire research : a practical guide (4th ed.). Pyrczak
Publishing.
Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2021). ESSENTIALS OF NURSING RESEARCH : appraising evidence
for nursing practice. (10th ed.). Wolters Kluwer Medical.
Salmons, J. (2015). Qualitative online interviews : strategies, design, and skills (2nd ed.).
Sage.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students
(8th ed., pp. 434–554). Pearson.
Schuwirth, L. W. T., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2003). Written assessment. BMJ : British
Medical Journal, 326(7390), 643–645.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1125542/
Seitz, S. (2015). Pixilated partnerships, overcoming obstacles in qualitative interviews via
Skype: a research note. Qualitative Research, 16(2), 229–235.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115577011
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: a skill-building approach
(7th ed.). Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom John Wiley & Sons.
Song, Y., Son, Y.-J., & Oh, D. (2015). Methodological Issues in Questionnaire Design.
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 45(3), 323.
https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2015.45.3.323
Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: a practical guide for novice investigators.
The Qualitative Report, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1178
Vannette, D. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2018). The palgrave handbook of survey research (1st
ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54395-6
Vaus, D. D. (2014). Surveys in social research (6th ed.). Routledge, , Cop.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203519196
Wilson, C. (2014). Interview techniques for UX practitioners : a user-centered design
method. Morgan Kaufmann.
Wu, H., & Leung, S.-O. (2017). Can likert scales be treated as interval Scales?-A simulation
study. Journal of Social Service Research, 43(4), 527–532.
Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and
reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 254–262.
https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.2.254-262