In addition to using such control

[rifat28dddd]

If you are asked: "How to check the quality of a product?" (it doesn't matter whether it is food, furniture, appliances or something else), you will probably start remembering: look at the expiration date, evaluate the appearance of the product, check for the presence of accompanying information, etc. There are many ways and for almost any type of product.

But how do you check the quality of the information? Especially if this information is obtained during the research. Take it at its word? Request information about the time and dates of the research? But what will this give you? Another thing is to hear the interview itself, as it was conducted in real time.

For 5 years now, BRIF Research Group has been conducting belarus cell phone number list surveys on tablets (CAPI method), and a distinctive feature of this method of collecting information (in addition to reducing data processing times) is more effective quality control.

methods as telephone/address control, checking the route/instructions for respondent selection, checking data for duplicates, we conduct a full recording of the interview (which, however, affects the cost of the project) or partial (separate hidden questions are written). Now there is no need to waste time trying to call the respondent or find him at the address to get clarification on questions that he may no longer remember (as well as not remember his answers at the time of the survey), it is enough to simply turn on the recording of the required interview and check the points of interest to us.

But don't think that everything is so smooth. Of course, technically, the verification procedure itself does not cause difficulties, but there are pitfalls here too - the human factor. It happens that some unscrupulous interviewers try to "correct" their progress according to the interviews they have done. In their attempts to correct the data, these interviewers show enviable ingenuity, which is also greatly facilitated by the development of technical progress. From our experience, we can say that the most common methods of "corrections" are:

Voice faking by the interviewer (including voice modulation via applications on various devices)
Interviewing the same particularly loyal respondent several times (also occurs with attempts to fake the vote)
Recording the respondent's interview on a dictaphone in order to play the recording back for the next interview
Conspiracy of the respondent
Violation of questionnaire instructions (showing the screen when it is prohibited; leading questions; openly prompting for necessary answers, etc.)