Audio, video, chat, email, or survey: How much does online interview mode matter?

In the design of qualitative interview studies, researchers are faced with the challenge of choosing between many different methods of interviewing participants. This decision is particularly important when sensitive topics are involved. Even prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, considerations of cost, l...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2022-02, Vol.17 (2), p.e0263876-e0263876
Hauptverfasser: Oates, Maggie, Crichton, Kyle, Cranor, Lorrie, Budwig, Storm, Weston, Erica J L, Bernagozzi, Brigette M, Pagaduan, Julie
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0263876
container_issue 2
container_start_page e0263876
container_title PloS one
container_volume 17
creator Oates, Maggie
Crichton, Kyle
Cranor, Lorrie
Budwig, Storm
Weston, Erica J L
Bernagozzi, Brigette M
Pagaduan, Julie
description In the design of qualitative interview studies, researchers are faced with the challenge of choosing between many different methods of interviewing participants. This decision is particularly important when sensitive topics are involved. Even prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, considerations of cost, logistics, and participant anonymity have increasingly pushed more interviews online. While previous work has anecdotally compared the advantages of different online interview methods, no empirical evaluation has been undertaken. To fill this gap, we conducted 154 interviews with sensitive questions across seven randomly assigned conditions, exploring differences arising from the mode (video, audio, email, instant chat, survey), anonymity level, and scheduling requirements. We surveyed interviewers and interviewees after their interview for perceptions on rapport, anonymity, and honesty. In addition, we completed a mock qualitative analysis, using the resulting codes as a measure of data equivalence. We note several qualitative differences across mode related to rapport, disclosure, and anonymity. However, we found little evidence to suggest that interview data was impacted by mode for outcomes related to interview experience or data equivalence. The most substantial differences were related logistics where we found substantially lower eligibility and completion rates, and higher time and monetary costs for audio and video modes.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0263876
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2631843257</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A694552563</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_dd3edfebc1404611a82729c2d162f9dc</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A694552563</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6076-c141077c90b055de2b4dd9e2cf42138f24fa592b836b332b4eb1f8a14eb6bcf53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1v0zAUhiMEYmPwDxBEmoSG1BZ_xE7CBaiagFWaNPF5azn2SevKiYudFPbv567Z1KBdIF8c2-c5r-3jN0leYjTDNMfv1q73rbSzjWthhginRc4fJce4pGTKCaKPD-ZHybMQ1ggxWnD-NDmiDJeEs_I4-TrvtXGTdGs0xKBWspuk0EhjJ6nzaej9Fq7fpxfuT9r0apVqByF1rTUtpKbtwG8NxJTTkDayi-uPz5MntbQBXgzxJPn5-dOP84vp5dWXxfn8cqo4yvlU4QyjPFclqhBjGkiVaV0CUXVGMC1qktWSlaQqKK8ojVmocF1IHCOvVM3oSfJ6r7uxLoihG0HERuAio4TlkVjsCe3kWmy8aaS_Fk4acbvh_FJI3xllQWhNQddQxVuhjGMsC5KTUhGNOalLraLWh-G0vmpAK2g7L-1IdJxpzUos3VYUBaekwFHgbBDw7ncPoRONCQqslS24_vbeBDNMcBbR03_Qh183UEsZH2Da2sVz1U5UzHmZMUYYp5GaPUDFoaExKlqnNnF_VPB2VBCZDv52S9mHIBbfv_0_e_VrzL45YFcgbbcKzvadcW0Yg9keVN6F4KG-bzJGYuf8u26InfPF4PxY9urwg-6L7qxObwCMn_yE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2631843257</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Audio, video, chat, email, or survey: How much does online interview mode matter?</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Public Library of Science</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Oates, Maggie ; Crichton, Kyle ; Cranor, Lorrie ; Budwig, Storm ; Weston, Erica J L ; Bernagozzi, Brigette M ; Pagaduan, Julie</creator><creatorcontrib>Oates, Maggie ; Crichton, Kyle ; Cranor, Lorrie ; Budwig, Storm ; Weston, Erica J L ; Bernagozzi, Brigette M ; Pagaduan, Julie</creatorcontrib><description>In the design of qualitative interview studies, researchers are faced with the challenge of choosing between many different methods of interviewing participants. This decision is particularly important when sensitive topics are involved. Even prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, considerations of cost, logistics, and participant anonymity have increasingly pushed more interviews online. While previous work has anecdotally compared the advantages of different online interview methods, no empirical evaluation has been undertaken. To fill this gap, we conducted 154 interviews with sensitive questions across seven randomly assigned conditions, exploring differences arising from the mode (video, audio, email, instant chat, survey), anonymity level, and scheduling requirements. We surveyed interviewers and interviewees after their interview for perceptions on rapport, anonymity, and honesty. In addition, we completed a mock qualitative analysis, using the resulting codes as a measure of data equivalence. We note several qualitative differences across mode related to rapport, disclosure, and anonymity. However, we found little evidence to suggest that interview data was impacted by mode for outcomes related to interview experience or data equivalence. The most substantial differences were related logistics where we found substantially lower eligibility and completion rates, and higher time and monetary costs for audio and video modes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263876</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35192659</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Bias ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Communication ; Communications Media ; COVID-19 ; COVID-19 - epidemiology ; Data collection ; Electronic mail ; Empirical analysis ; Equivalence ; Humans ; Instant messaging ; Interviewing ; Interviews ; Logistics ; Marginalized groups ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methods ; Pandemics ; Polls &amp; surveys ; Privacy ; Qualitative analysis ; Qualitative research ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Research methodology ; Researchers ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Social Sciences ; Surveys ; Technology application</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-02, Vol.17 (2), p.e0263876-e0263876</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Oates et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Oates et al 2022 Oates et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6076-c141077c90b055de2b4dd9e2cf42138f24fa592b836b332b4eb1f8a14eb6bcf53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6076-c141077c90b055de2b4dd9e2cf42138f24fa592b836b332b4eb1f8a14eb6bcf53</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2746-0130 ; 0000-0003-2125-0124</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8863281/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8863281/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79343,79344</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35192659$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Oates, Maggie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crichton, Kyle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cranor, Lorrie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Budwig, Storm</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weston, Erica J L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernagozzi, Brigette M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pagaduan, Julie</creatorcontrib><title>Audio, video, chat, email, or survey: How much does online interview mode matter?</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>In the design of qualitative interview studies, researchers are faced with the challenge of choosing between many different methods of interviewing participants. This decision is particularly important when sensitive topics are involved. Even prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, considerations of cost, logistics, and participant anonymity have increasingly pushed more interviews online. While previous work has anecdotally compared the advantages of different online interview methods, no empirical evaluation has been undertaken. To fill this gap, we conducted 154 interviews with sensitive questions across seven randomly assigned conditions, exploring differences arising from the mode (video, audio, email, instant chat, survey), anonymity level, and scheduling requirements. We surveyed interviewers and interviewees after their interview for perceptions on rapport, anonymity, and honesty. In addition, we completed a mock qualitative analysis, using the resulting codes as a measure of data equivalence. We note several qualitative differences across mode related to rapport, disclosure, and anonymity. However, we found little evidence to suggest that interview data was impacted by mode for outcomes related to interview experience or data equivalence. The most substantial differences were related logistics where we found substantially lower eligibility and completion rates, and higher time and monetary costs for audio and video modes.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Communications Media</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>COVID-19 - epidemiology</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Electronic mail</subject><subject>Empirical analysis</subject><subject>Equivalence</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Instant messaging</subject><subject>Interviewing</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Logistics</subject><subject>Marginalized groups</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Pandemics</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Privacy</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>SARS-CoV-2</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Technology application</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1v0zAUhiMEYmPwDxBEmoSG1BZ_xE7CBaiagFWaNPF5azn2SevKiYudFPbv567Z1KBdIF8c2-c5r-3jN0leYjTDNMfv1q73rbSzjWthhginRc4fJce4pGTKCaKPD-ZHybMQ1ggxWnD-NDmiDJeEs_I4-TrvtXGTdGs0xKBWspuk0EhjJ6nzaej9Fq7fpxfuT9r0apVqByF1rTUtpKbtwG8NxJTTkDayi-uPz5MntbQBXgzxJPn5-dOP84vp5dWXxfn8cqo4yvlU4QyjPFclqhBjGkiVaV0CUXVGMC1qktWSlaQqKK8ojVmocF1IHCOvVM3oSfJ6r7uxLoihG0HERuAio4TlkVjsCe3kWmy8aaS_Fk4acbvh_FJI3xllQWhNQddQxVuhjGMsC5KTUhGNOalLraLWh-G0vmpAK2g7L-1IdJxpzUos3VYUBaekwFHgbBDw7ncPoRONCQqslS24_vbeBDNMcBbR03_Qh183UEsZH2Da2sVz1U5UzHmZMUYYp5GaPUDFoaExKlqnNnF_VPB2VBCZDv52S9mHIBbfv_0_e_VrzL45YFcgbbcKzvadcW0Yg9keVN6F4KG-bzJGYuf8u26InfPF4PxY9urwg-6L7qxObwCMn_yE</recordid><startdate>20220222</startdate><enddate>20220222</enddate><creator>Oates, Maggie</creator><creator>Crichton, Kyle</creator><creator>Cranor, Lorrie</creator><creator>Budwig, Storm</creator><creator>Weston, Erica J L</creator><creator>Bernagozzi, Brigette M</creator><creator>Pagaduan, Julie</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>COVID</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2746-0130</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2125-0124</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220222</creationdate><title>Audio, video, chat, email, or survey: How much does online interview mode matter?</title><author>Oates, Maggie ; Crichton, Kyle ; Cranor, Lorrie ; Budwig, Storm ; Weston, Erica J L ; Bernagozzi, Brigette M ; Pagaduan, Julie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6076-c141077c90b055de2b4dd9e2cf42138f24fa592b836b332b4eb1f8a14eb6bcf53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Communications Media</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>COVID-19 - epidemiology</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Electronic mail</topic><topic>Empirical analysis</topic><topic>Equivalence</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Instant messaging</topic><topic>Interviewing</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Logistics</topic><topic>Marginalized groups</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Pandemics</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Privacy</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>SARS-CoV-2</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Technology application</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Oates, Maggie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crichton, Kyle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cranor, Lorrie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Budwig, Storm</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weston, Erica J L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernagozzi, Brigette M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pagaduan, Julie</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Coronavirus Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Oates, Maggie</au><au>Crichton, Kyle</au><au>Cranor, Lorrie</au><au>Budwig, Storm</au><au>Weston, Erica J L</au><au>Bernagozzi, Brigette M</au><au>Pagaduan, Julie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Audio, video, chat, email, or survey: How much does online interview mode matter?</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2022-02-22</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e0263876</spage><epage>e0263876</epage><pages>e0263876-e0263876</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>In the design of qualitative interview studies, researchers are faced with the challenge of choosing between many different methods of interviewing participants. This decision is particularly important when sensitive topics are involved. Even prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, considerations of cost, logistics, and participant anonymity have increasingly pushed more interviews online. While previous work has anecdotally compared the advantages of different online interview methods, no empirical evaluation has been undertaken. To fill this gap, we conducted 154 interviews with sensitive questions across seven randomly assigned conditions, exploring differences arising from the mode (video, audio, email, instant chat, survey), anonymity level, and scheduling requirements. We surveyed interviewers and interviewees after their interview for perceptions on rapport, anonymity, and honesty. In addition, we completed a mock qualitative analysis, using the resulting codes as a measure of data equivalence. We note several qualitative differences across mode related to rapport, disclosure, and anonymity. However, we found little evidence to suggest that interview data was impacted by mode for outcomes related to interview experience or data equivalence. The most substantial differences were related logistics where we found substantially lower eligibility and completion rates, and higher time and monetary costs for audio and video modes.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>35192659</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0263876</doi><tpages>e0263876</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2746-0130</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2125-0124</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2022-02, Vol.17 (2), p.e0263876-e0263876
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2631843257
source Open Access: PubMed Central; MEDLINE; Public Library of Science; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Bias
Biology and Life Sciences
Communication
Communications Media
COVID-19
COVID-19 - epidemiology
Data collection
Electronic mail
Empirical analysis
Equivalence
Humans
Instant messaging
Interviewing
Interviews
Logistics
Marginalized groups
Medicine and Health Sciences
Methods
Pandemics
Polls & surveys
Privacy
Qualitative analysis
Qualitative research
Research and Analysis Methods
Research methodology
Researchers
SARS-CoV-2
Social Sciences
Surveys
Technology application
title Audio, video, chat, email, or survey: How much does online interview mode matter?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T10%3A25%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Audio,%20video,%20chat,%20email,%20or%20survey:%20How%20much%20does%20online%20interview%20mode%20matter?&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Oates,%20Maggie&rft.date=2022-02-22&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e0263876&rft.epage=e0263876&rft.pages=e0263876-e0263876&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0263876&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA694552563%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2631843257&rft_id=info:pmid/35192659&rft_galeid=A694552563&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_dd3edfebc1404611a82729c2d162f9dc&rfr_iscdi=true