ArticleDisability and health journal2023
Comparing effects of question set order and location within a survey instrument of two commonly used disability question sets among a U.S. population of adults.
Article in Disability and health journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Accessible, not Exploitable: Navigating fraud prevention in disability research.Disability and health journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn nationally representative household surveys conducted in the United States (U.S.), two distinct sets of questions are commonly used to identify persons with disabilities. The six-question sequence (6QS) measures, in a yes/no fashion, limitations in cognition, hearing, independent living, self-care, vision, and walking. The Washington Group Short Set (WG-SS) captures more nuanced yet similar information, although instead of including a measure of independent living asks about communication. To date, research has not estimated, among the same set of survey respondents, variations in disability prevalence using these two sets of questions nor how prevalence estimates vary by question set order and placement of these questions at the beginning or end of a survey. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to examine adjusted differences in disability prevalence among three measures of disability based on the 6QS and the WG-SS question sets, controlling for differences in question set order and placement within a survey.
methodsWe fielded an Internet survey (N = 13,277) in September 2020 that included these questions, but varied question set order and placement among respondents, using four different versions of the survey. We first tested for bivariate differences by survey design between an "any disability" measure as well as between specific types of limitations using Chi square. Finally, we examined pairwise adjusted differences in prevalence estimates.
resultsThe 6QS provided the most consistent prevalence estimates (26%-28%) (p < .05), regardless of survey design. Estimates varied more widely for the WG-SS measures, ranging from 43 to 60% for WG-SS1 and from 10% to 15% for WG-SS2, among survey versions.
conclusionsQuestion set order and placement was not associated with differences in prevalence for the 6QS but was associated with differences in estimates from the WG-SS. Further research is needed to understand the possible survey priming effects that might influence estimates from the WG-SS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.