5
Sources
933
Studies
52143
Questions
490
Persons
| Title | Description |
|---|---|
| LISS panel > Tonic immobility in response to trauma: Prevalence and consequences > Wave 2 - Part 2 |
In September 2012, a questionnaire on traumatic experiences was |
| Title | Description |
|---|---|
| Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies > Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 2002-2003 |
Three wave survey on voters' opinions: |
| > Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies > Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 2002-2003 |
Three wave survey on voters' opinions: |
| Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies > Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 2002-2003 |
Three wave survey on voters' opinions: |
| > Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies > Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 2002-2003 |
Three wave survey on voters' opinions: |
| Title | Description |
|---|---|
| Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies > Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1994 |
Two wave survey on voters' opinions: before and after the Dutch parliamentary elections of May 3, 1994. Pre-election wave: reading of newspapers, tv-newscast exposure / most important national problems / party identification and membership / evaluation of government policy on economy, employment and respondents personal finances / perception of main parties' standpoints on various political issues: euthanasia, crime, income differences, nuclear plants, ethnic minorities, R's own viewpoints regarding these matters / voting at last municipal elections /feasibility of multi-party system / sympathy rating of parties and leading politicians / coalition preference / party identification of parents / most essential goals in life / the inflow of asylum-seekers / the meaning of life / the life of Brian / Post-election wave: exposure to election campaigns, participation in it / voting behaviour, time of vote decision, voting stability / image of political parties regarding their ability to solve specific problems: crime, employment, pollution, welfare-fraud, financing deficit, pensioners' incomes / importance ranking of these problems / voting for European parliament / perception of main parties' standpoints on the unification of Europe, R's own standpoints in this matter / who will be the best prime minister / familiarity with politicians / best &, worst qualities of leading politicians / left-right rating of political parties / meaning of the concepts of left and right / sense of political efficacy / image of politicians and the political system / civic competence / relation between citizens and politicians / importance of the city council ( gemeenteraad ), provincial states ( provinciale staten ), national and European parliament to R's personal life / importance ranking of various political and personal issues / political participation / who are most entitled to a job / attitude to foreigners / racism / positive discrimination / chance that R will ever vote for other political parties / role of religion in public life, pillarization. Background variables: basic characteristics/ residence/ household characteristics/ occupation/employment/ income/capital assets/ education/ social class/ politics/ religion/ readership, mass media, and 'cultural' exposure/ organizational membership. |
| > Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies > Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1994 |
Two wave survey on voters' opinions: before and after the Dutch parliamentary elections of May 3, 1994. Pre-election wave: reading of newspapers, tv-newscast exposure / most important national problems / party identification and membership / evaluation of government policy on economy, employment and respondents personal finances / perception of main parties' standpoints on various political issues: euthanasia, crime, income differences, nuclear plants, ethnic minorities, R's own viewpoints regarding these matters / voting at last municipal elections /feasibility of multi-party system / sympathy rating of parties and leading politicians / coalition preference / party identification of parents / most essential goals in life / the inflow of asylum-seekers / the meaning of life / the life of Brian / Post-election wave: exposure to election campaigns, participation in it / voting behaviour, time of vote decision, voting stability / image of political parties regarding their ability to solve specific problems: crime, employment, pollution, welfare-fraud, financing deficit, pensioners' incomes / importance ranking of these problems / voting for European parliament / perception of main parties' standpoints on the unification of Europe, R's own standpoints in this matter / who will be the best prime minister / familiarity with politicians / best &, worst qualities of leading politicians / left-right rating of political parties / meaning of the concepts of left and right / sense of political efficacy / image of politicians and the political system / civic competence / relation between citizens and politicians / importance of the city council ( gemeenteraad ), provincial states ( provinciale staten ), national and European parliament to R's personal life / importance ranking of various political and personal issues / political participation / who are most entitled to a job / attitude to foreigners / racism / positive discrimination / chance that R will ever vote for other political parties / role of religion in public life, pillarization. Background variables: basic characteristics/ residence/ household characteristics/ occupation/employment/ income/capital assets/ education/ social class/ politics/ religion/ readership, mass media, and 'cultural' exposure/ organizational membership. |
| Title | Description |
|---|---|
| Validating the Dutch SF-6D and EQ-5D Using Pairwise Comparisons and Best-Worst Scaling |
In April 2011, the LISS panel completed two questionnaires about the valuation of health. The questionnaires serve to validate the Dutch SF-6D and EQ-5D (classifications for describing health) and to understand the valuation of health in the Netherlands. For this purpose, the SF-6D questionnaire uses discrete choice experiments (pairwise comparisons). The EQ-5D is a shorter and simpler instrument than the SF-6D. Therefore, the EQ-5D questionnaire also examines the best way of posing the questions. For this purpose, pairwise comparisons and best-worst scaling are used (the evaluation of three health states simultaneously). |
| Validating the Dutch SF-6D and EQ-5D Using Pairwise Comparisons and Best-Worst Scaling > EQ-5D |
In April 2011, the LISS panel completed the EQ-5D questionnaire. The questionnaire serves to validate the Dutch EQ-5D (classification for describing health) and to understand the valuation of health in the Netherlands. The questionnaire also examines the best way of posing the questions. For this purpose, pairwise comparisons and best-worst scaling are used (the evaluation of three health states simultaneously). Respondents were first presented a number of example questions, so that they could practice with the setup and layout of the multiple choice questions. This was followed by 12 multiple choice questions. For each decision-making situation, respondents were asked to imagine they only had a few years left to live. For every question three options were given, indicating in what health condition the respondents could spend the last years of their life. Respondents then indicated which option they preferred. Depending on the group to which the respondent belonged, (some) questions consisted of pairwise comparisons, each question then comprised a part A and part B. In part A, a choice was offered between options A and B. These options offered an equal life expectancy but different health conditions: a better, equal of worse score on the 5 health aspects of “problems with walking”, “problems with washing or dressing”, “problems with daily activities”, “pain or discomfort” and “anxiety or depression”. In part B, exactly the same options were displayed as in part A, but here the choice was between option B, to live longer in poorer health, and C, to live shorter in perfect health. Also depending on the group to which the respondent belonged, (some) questions consisted of evaluations of the three health conditions simultaneously (best-worst scale distribution). The groups were as follows: Group 1: 12 pairwise comparisons (questions eo11a019-eo11a042), followed by evaluation. Group 2: 12 best-worst questions (questions eo11a043-eo11a066), followed by evaluation. Group 3: 6 pairwise comparisons (questions eo11a067-eo11a078), followed by evaluation, and 6 best-worst questions (questions eo11a084-eo11a095), followed by evaluation. The remaining life expectancies and health conditions differed per question and per version (note that option C always represented perfect health, but with a shorter life expectancy than options A and B). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the eight versions. The health aspects were displayed on the screen in random order (this order was maintained throughout the rest of the questionnaire). Colors were used for the scores on health aspects. The colors depended on the group to which the respondent belonged: Group 1: light purple=good health, dark purple=poor health. Group 2: light purple=poor health, dark purple=good health. This was done to check in how far the colors contribute to the relatively large weight of the poor health conditions. The variables for the version, the question, the scores on the 5 health aspects, and the remaining life expectancies were captured. |
| Validating the Dutch SF-6D and EQ-5D Using Pairwise Comparisons and Best-Worst Scaling > SF-6D |
In April 2011, the LISS panel completed the SF-6D questionnaire. The questionnaire serves to validate the Dutch SF-6D (classification for describing health) and to understand the valuation of health in the Netherlands.Respondents were first presented a number of example questions, so that they could practice with the setup and layout of the multiple choice questions. This was followed by the 14 actual multiple choice questions (pairwise comparisons), consisting of part A and part B. For each decision-making situation, respondents were asked to imagine they only had a few years left to live. For every question three options were given, indicating in what health condition the respondents could spend the last years of their life. Respondents then indicated which option they preferred. Part A of every question offered a choice between option A and B, these had an equal remaining life expectancy, but under different health conditions: a better, equal or worse score on the 6 health aspects of “bodily functioning”, “physical and/or emotional constraints”, “social activities”, “pain”, “depressed and glum”, and “energetic”. In part B of each question, exactly the same options were shown as in part A, but the choice offered was between option B, to live longer in worse health, or C, to live shorter in perfect health.The remaining life expectancies and health conditions differed per question, as well as per version (note that option C always meant a perfect health condition, but a shorter life expectancy that options A and B). Respondents were assigned to one of the eight versions. The health aspects were displayed on screen in random order (this order was maintained throughout the rest of the questionnaire). Color schemes were used for the scores on health aspects. The colors were dependent on the group to which the respondent belonged: Group 1: the traffic light colors of red-orange-green, unless colorblind and opted for the purple colors. Group 2: the purple colors (from light to dark), unless colorblind and opted for the traffic light colors. With the traffic light colors, red represented poor, orange represented average, and green represented good health. With the purple colors, the lighter variants represented poor health and the darker variants good health. This was done to see to what extent the colors contribute to the comparatively large weight of the poor health conditions.The variables for the version, the question, the scores on the 6 health aspects and the remaining life expectancies were captured. |
