View in EDS

Behavioral Validity in Factorial Survey Experiments: Comparison of Factorial Survey Experiments and Field Experiments Concerning Recruitment of Disadvantaged Groups

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Behavioral Validity in Factorial Survey Experiments: Comparison of Factorial Survey Experiments and Field Experiments Concerning Recruitment of Disadvantaged Groups
Language: English
Authors: Cecilie Krogh (ORCID 0000-0002-9728-9669)
Source: Field Methods. 2026 38(2):154-169.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Experiments, Surveys, Social Science Research, Validity, Recruitment, Personnel Selection, Physical Disabilities, Assistive Technology, Research Methodology, Foreign Countries, Attitudes toward Disabilities, Behavior, Comparative Analysis
Geographic Terms: Denmark
DOI: 10.1177/1525822X251329109
ISSN: 1525-822X
1552-3969
Abstract: The increased use of experiments in social research yields more discussions and knowledge about the design and utility of the methods. Based on previous research and two empirical studies that apply a factorial survey experiment (FSE) and a field experiment, both aiming at detecting employers' recruitment behavior toward wheelchair users, I discuss the behavioral validity of an FSE and research ethics in both experiments. The results of the two experiments are highly comparable and indicate a high behavioral validity of the FSE in studies of recruitment behavior. While field experiments tend to enjoy precedence in the social sciences, they also involve serious ethical considerations. An FSE, on the other hand, is criticized for having a low behavioral validity but complies better with research ethics than field experiments. This study contributes with a nuanced understanding of the behavioral validity of an FSE in studies concerning hiring behavior.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1502860
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1502860
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Behavioral Validity in Factorial Survey Experiments: Comparison of Factorial Survey Experiments and Field Experiments Concerning Recruitment of Disadvantaged Groups
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cecilie+Krogh%22">Cecilie Krogh</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9728-9669">0000-0002-9728-9669</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Field+Methods%22"><i>Field Methods</i></searchLink>. 2026 38(2):154-169.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experiments%22">Experiments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Surveys%22">Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Science+Research%22">Social Science Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Validity%22">Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recruitment%22">Recruitment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personnel+Selection%22">Personnel Selection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Disabilities%22">Physical Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Assistive+Technology%22">Assistive Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes+toward+Disabilities%22">Attitudes toward Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior%22">Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Denmark%22">Denmark</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/1525822X251329109
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1525-822X<br />1552-3969
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The increased use of experiments in social research yields more discussions and knowledge about the design and utility of the methods. Based on previous research and two empirical studies that apply a factorial survey experiment (FSE) and a field experiment, both aiming at detecting employers' recruitment behavior toward wheelchair users, I discuss the behavioral validity of an FSE and research ethics in both experiments. The results of the two experiments are highly comparable and indicate a high behavioral validity of the FSE in studies of recruitment behavior. While field experiments tend to enjoy precedence in the social sciences, they also involve serious ethical considerations. An FSE, on the other hand, is criticized for having a low behavioral validity but complies better with research ethics than field experiments. This study contributes with a nuanced understanding of the behavioral validity of an FSE in studies concerning hiring behavior.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1502860
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1502860
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/1525822X251329109
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 154
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Experiments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Science Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recruitment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personnel Selection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Assistive Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes toward Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Denmark
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Behavioral Validity in Factorial Survey Experiments: Comparison of Factorial Survey Experiments and Field Experiments Concerning Recruitment of Disadvantaged Groups
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cecilie Krogh
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1525-822X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1552-3969
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Field Methods
              Type: main
ResultId 1