Challenges in Conducting a New Longitudinal Study on Children and Young People Well-Being in the European Union

  • Jessica Ozan
  • Gary Pollock
  • Haridhan Goswami
  • Peter Lynn
Chapter
Part of the Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research book series (CHIR, volume 19)

Abstract

Longitudinal studies have a number of challenges in terms of data collection and analysis including sample attrition, panel conditioning, coverage error, time and cost. In addition, variability exists among European nations as to the availability and coverage of sampling frames, laws and regulations that restrict aspects of survey practice, availability and capacity of survey research organisations, cultural and behavioural norms, language(s) spoken, geographical dispersal of the study populations. Furthermore, research involving children and young people requires ethical considerations including how the children and young people can and should be involved in a study with reference to the degree of control and participation that they have.

Keywords

Longitudinal survey Methodology Child and youth well-being 

References

  1. Acquadro, C., Conway, K., Hareendran, A., Aaronson, N., & Issues, E. R. (2008). Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value in Health, 11(3), 509–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer, K. W. (2004). Conducting longitudinal studies. In S. R. Porter (Ed.), Overcoming survey research problem (pp. 75–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Behr, D., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W., & Braun, M. (2012a). Asking probing questions in web surveys: Which factors have an impact on the quality of responses? Social Science Computer Review, 30(4), 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behr, D., Braun, M., Kaczmirek, L., & Bandilla, W. (2012b). Item comparability in cross-national surveys: Results from asking probing questions in cross-national web surveys about attitudes towards civil disobedience. Quality and Quantity, 48(1), 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Arieh, A. (2005). Where are the children? Children’s role in measuring and monitoring their well-being. Social Indicators Research, 74, 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Arieh, A. (2006). Is the study of the ‘state of our children’ changing? Revisiting after five years. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(7), 799–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben-Arieh, A. (2008). The child indicators movement: Past, present and future. Child Indicators Research, 1, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blair, J., & Piccinino, L. (2005). The development and testing of instruments for cross-cultural and multi-cultural surveys. In J. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & J. Harkness (Eds.), Methodological aspects in cross-national research. http://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/forschung/publikationen/zeitschriften/zuma_nachrichten_spezial/znspezial11.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.Google Scholar
  9. Borgers, N., de Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and response quality. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 66(1), 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradshaw, J. (2011). The well-being of children in the United Kingdom. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braun, M., Behr, D., & Kaczmirek, L. (2012). Assessing cross-national equivalence of measures of xenophobia: Evidence from probing in web surveys. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buck, N., Ermisch, J. F., & Jenkins, S. P. (1995). Choosing a longitudinal survey design: The issues. Essex: ESRC Research Centre on Micro-Social Change.Google Scholar
  14. Casas, F. (2011). Subjective social indicators and child and adolescent well-being. Child Indicators Research, 4, 555–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Children’s World. (2012). International survey of children’s well-being. http://childrensworlds.org/home. Accessed 7 Nov 2012.Google Scholar
  16. Coliver, A., and the SPARCLE Group. (2006). Study protocol: SPARCLE – A multi-centre European study of the relationship of environment to participation and quality of life in children with cerebral palsy. BMC Public Health, 6.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-6-105.
  17. Dolan, P., et al. (2015). Youth as researcher training manual. Galway: UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre.Google Scholar
  18. Eckman, S., Kreuter, F., Kirchner, A., Jackle, A., Tourangeau, R., & Presser, S. (2014). Assessing the mechanisms of misreporting to filter questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78, 721–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). The FRA register. http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/rights-child/child-participation-in-research. Accessed 5 Nov 2017.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, P. (2016). Does repeated measurement improve income data quality? (ISER Working Paper Series, 2016–11). Colchester: University of Essex.Google Scholar
  21. Fitzgerald, R., Widdop, S., Gray, M., & Collins, D. (2009). Testing for equivalence using cross-national cognitive interviewing (Centre for Comparative Social Surveys Working Paper Series, Paper no. 01). https://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/125132/CCSS-Working-Paper-No-01.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.
  22. Goswami, H., Fox, C., & Pollock, G. (2016). The current evidence base and future needs in improving children’s well-being across Europe: Is there a case for a comparative longitudinal survey? Child Indicators Research, 9(2), 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halman, L. (2001). The European values study: A third wave. Source book of the 1999/2000 European values study surveys. Tilburg: EVS, WORC, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  24. Harkness, J. A. (2008). Comparative survey research: Goals and challenges. In E. D. De Leeux, J. J. Hox, & D. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J. H. P., & Harkness, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). Methodological aspects in cross-national research. Mannheim: ZUMA.Google Scholar
  26. Hart, R. (1992). Children’s participation from tokenism to citizenship. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Available on http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/childrens_participation.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2017.Google Scholar
  27. Jelicic, H., Gibb, J., La Valle, I., & Payne, L. (2013). Involved by right, the voice of the child in the child protection conferences. London: National Children Bureau.Google Scholar
  28. Jowell, R., Hedges, B., Lynn, P., Farrant, G., & Heath, A. (1993). Failure of the 1992 British polls. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(2), 238–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, S., McClain, C., Webster, N., & Han, S. (2016). Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: Focus on life satisfaction, self-rated health, and subjective life expectancy in survey instruments. Quality of Life Research, 25(10), 2497–2510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lyford Jones, H. (2010). Putting children at the centre, a practical guide to child participation. London: International Save the Children Alliance.Google Scholar
  31. Lynn, P. (2003). Developing quality standards for cross-national survey research: Five approaches. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(4), 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lynn, P. (2004). The use of substitution in surveys. The Survey Statistician, 49, 14–16.Google Scholar
  33. Lynn, P. (2008). The problem of non-response. In E. D. de Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey research methods (pp. 35–55). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Lynn, P. (2009). Methods for longitudinal surveys. In P. Lynn (Ed.), Methodology of longitudinal surveys (pp. 1–19). West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lynn, P. (2012). Longitudinal survey methods for the household finances and consumption survey. Report prepared for the European Central Bank. http://www.ecb.europa.eu/home/pdf/research/hfcn/Lynn_LongitudinalSurveyMethodsfor_HFCS.pdf?5fd3b6872274bd59923ea90cc2ce0896. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.
  36. Lynn, P., Gabler, S., Häder, S., & Laaksonen, S. (2007). Methods for achieving equivalence of samples in cross-national surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 23(1), 107–124.Google Scholar
  37. Menard, S. (1991). Longitudinal research. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  38. Morrow, V., & Boyden, J. (2014). Ethics on researching children’s well-being. In A. Ben Ariech et al. (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. OECD. (2010). Translation and adaptation guidelines for PISA 2012. Budapest: OECD.Google Scholar
  40. O’Shea, R., Bryson, C., & Jowell, R. (n.d.). Comparative attitudinal research in Europe. London: European Social Survey Directorate, National Centre for Social Research. http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/index.php?option=com_docmanandtask=doc_viewandgid=1andItemid=595. Accessed 26 Nov 2012.
  41. Park, A., & Jowell, R. (1996). Consistencies and differences in a cross-national survey. The international social survey programme. London: SCPR.Google Scholar
  42. Prout, A., & James, A. (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. London: UK Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rees, G., Bradshaw, J., Goswami, H., & Keung, H. (2010). Understanding children’s well-being: A national survey of young people’s well-being. London: The Children’s Society.Google Scholar
  44. Rees, G., Goswami, H., Pople, L., Bradshaw, J., Keung, A., & Main, G. (2012). The good childhood report 2012: A review of our children’s well-being. London: The Children’s Society.Google Scholar
  45. Ruspini, E. (2002). Introduction to longitudinal research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Schwarz, N. (2003). Culture sensitive context effects: A challenge for cross-sectional surveys. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Shaw, C., Brady, L., & Davey, C. (2011). Guidelines for research with children and young people. London: National Children’s Bureau.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, P., Lynn, P., & Elliot, D. (2009). Sample design for longitudinal surveys. In P. Lynn (Ed.), Methodology of longitudinal surveys (pp. 21–34). West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, T. W. (2003). Developing comparable questions in cross-national surveys. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  50. Stafford, A., & Smith, C. (2009). Practical guidance on consulting, conducting research and working in participative ways with children and young people experiencing domestic abuse. Edinburgh: Education Analytical Services, The Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/284756/0086482.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2012.Google Scholar
  51. Stoop, I., Jowell, R., & Mohler, P. (2002). The European social survey: One survey in two dozen countries. Paper presented at the international conference on improving surveys, Copenhagen, 25–28 August.Google Scholar
  52. Tanzer, N. K. (2005). Developing tests for use in multiple languages and cultures: A plea for simultaneous development. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. UNCRC. (1989, November 20). UN general assembly, convention on the rights of the child (United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 1577). https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf?_ga=2.37879971.1401274608.1513353419-54837490.1489657220. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Ozan
    • 1
  • Gary Pollock
    • 1
  • Haridhan Goswami
    • 1
  • Peter Lynn
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SociologyManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK
  2. 2.Institute for Social and Economic ResearchUniversity of EssexColchesterUK

Personalised recommendations