<?xml version="1.0"?><rdf:RDF xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:edm="http://www.europeana.eu/schemas/edm/" xmlns:wgs84_pos="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:rdaGr2="http://rdvocab.info/ElementsGr2" xmlns:oai="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:ore="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/" xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"><edm:WebResource rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-DLPSINBK/1bad4b92-6023-44b1-98ce-7c688a9776f0/PDF"><dcterms:extent>438 KB</dcterms:extent></edm:WebResource><edm:WebResource rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-DLPSINBK/570121ef-6771-4e8c-9af2-f72671b5ff6a/TEXT"><dcterms:extent>41 KB</dcterms:extent></edm:WebResource><edm:TimeSpan rdf:about="1965-2025"><edm:begin xml:lang="en">1965</edm:begin><edm:end xml:lang="en">2025</edm:end></edm:TimeSpan><edm:ProvidedCHO rdf:about="URN:NBN:SI:doc-DLPSINBK"><dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:spr-ETPSIC7M" /><dcterms:issued>2011</dcterms:issued><dc:creator>Cerar, Teja</dc:creator><dc:creator>Hlebec, Valentina</dc:creator><dc:creator>Konavec, Nina</dc:creator><dc:format xml:lang="sl">številka:2</dc:format><dc:format xml:lang="sl">letnik:48</dc:format><dc:format xml:lang="sl">str. 393-410, 529</dc:format><dc:identifier>ISSN:0040-3598</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>COBISSID:3195848</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-DLPSINBK</dc:identifier><dc:language>sl</dc:language><dc:publisher xml:lang="sl">Fakulteta za sociologijo, politične vede in novinarstvo v Ljubljani</dc:publisher><dcterms:isPartOf xml:lang="sl">Teorija in praksa</dcterms:isPartOf><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">ankete</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Cognitive science</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">Ekspertni sistemi</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Expert systems</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Friedman test</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">Kognitivna znanost</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">Kvalitativna metoda</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Qualitative method</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Qualitative methods</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Questionnaires</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Survey questionnaires</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Surveys</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">Vprašalniki</dc:subject><dc:subject rdf:resource="http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q839486" /><dcterms:temporal rdf:resource="1965-2025" /><dc:title xml:lang="sl">Uporaba ekspertnih shem za kvalitativno testiranje anketnih vprašalnikov|</dc:title><dc:description xml:lang="sl">Expert appraisal is one of the most often used qualitative methods for pre-testing survey questionnaires. This method is often applied ambiguously and imprecisely in the early phases of questionnaire development. Expert coding systems should reduce the subjective and ambiguous application of expert appraisal, although little empirical evidence is available to support this claim. In this paper we compare and evaluate the precision of two expert coding systems in several experiments. It emerges that only one criterion distinguishes between the coding systems. As coding systems focus on different issues, both should be used simultaneously to maximise the results ofan expert appraisal</dc:description><dc:description xml:lang="sl">V članku obravnavamo ekspertno evalvacijo, ki je ena od pogosteje uporabljanih kvalitativnih metod za testiranje anketnih vprašalnikov. Pogosto se uporablja samoumevno in nekritično v začetnih korakih oblikovanja anketnega vprašalnika. Uporaba ekspertnih shem naj bi zmanjšala subjektivnost in nekonsistentnost pri ugotavljanju pomanjkljivosti v anketnem vprašalniku z ekspertno evalvacijo, vendar empiričnih dokazov za to še ni. V prispevku empirično ovrednotimo uporabo dveh ekspertnih shem v več eksperimentih. Izkaže se, da je ena od shem po enem kriteriju kakovosti bolj primerna za uporabo pri ekspertni evalvaciji. Ker imata shemi drugačno zasnovo in deloma odkrijeta druge vrste pomanjkljivosti, priporočamo sočasno uporabo obeh shem</dc:description><dc:description xml:lang="sl">Švedska shema check list</dc:description><edm:type>TEXT</edm:type><dc:type xml:lang="sl">znanstveno časopisje</dc:type><dc:type xml:lang="en">journals</dc:type><dc:type rdf:resource="http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q361785" /></edm:ProvidedCHO><ore:Aggregation rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-DLPSINBK"><edm:aggregatedCHO rdf:resource="URN:NBN:SI:doc-DLPSINBK" /><edm:isShownBy rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-DLPSINBK/1bad4b92-6023-44b1-98ce-7c688a9776f0/PDF" /><edm:rights rdf:resource="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" /><edm:provider>Slovenian National E-content Aggregator</edm:provider><edm:intermediateProvider xml:lang="en">National and University Library of Slovenia</edm:intermediateProvider><edm:dataProvider xml:lang="sl">Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede</edm:dataProvider><edm:object rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/streamdb/URN:NBN:SI:doc-DLPSINBK/maxi/edm" /><edm:isShownAt rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-DLPSINBK" /></ore:Aggregation></rdf:RDF>