Question 1

Will agentic interviewing give me comparable depth to human moderation?

Accepted Answer

Agentic interviewing (using an AI interviewer) can deliver a good level of depth on structured topics, but it usually doesn't match the nuanced probing of a skilled human moderator. AI-driven agents are very consistent and can ask follow-up questions based on answers, but they might miss subtle emotional cues or opportunities for empathy and improvisation that humans catch. For example, a virtual agent will diligently cover all scripted questions and even some dynamic prompts, yet it might not notice when a respondent hesitates or needs gentle encouragement to elaborate. In practice, many organizations treat AI interviewing as a complement — using it to cover the basics or scale up the number of interviews — while relying on human moderators for deeper exploration and sensitive topics where personal rapport is key.

Question 2

Does a larger clinical trial always guarantee more reliable results?

Accepted Answer

Increasing a clinical trial's size generally improves statistical reliability, but it doesn't automatically guarantee better results without good design and execution. A large sample can reduce random errors and give more power to detect true effects - that's why researchers say "bigger is better" for confidence. However, if a trial is poorly controlled or asks the wrong questions, simply adding more participants won't fix biases or design flaws; it might just amplify flawed data. There are also diminishing returns: going from 50 to 500 patients helps a lot, but 5,000 vs 3,000 may not change conclusions much if the effect is already clear. In short, size is one factor in reliability, but the quality of trial protocol, patient selection, and data handling are equally critical to trust the results.

Question 3

How are adaptive surveys changing the way respondents experience research?

Accepted Answer

Adaptive surveys dynamically change question flow based on each person's answers, making the respondent experience more personalized and engaging. People notice that the survey asks relevant questions and skips what doesn't apply to them, which reduces frustration and boredom. In practice, this might mean if someone says they don't use social media, the survey won't force them through a bunch of social-media questions--instead it pivots to topics that matter for that participant. By tailoring itself in real time (often using smart logic or AI), an adaptive survey can feel more like a conversation than a one-size-fits-all form. This personalized approach keeps respondents interested longer and often leads to higher completion rates. The end result is that participants feel heard and respected, since the survey adapts to their situation, and researchers get better quality data because people stay engaged and answer thoughtfully.

Question 4

Which decisions benefit most from shop-alongs or in-store observation?

Accepted Answer

Shop-alongs and in-store observation are most useful for decisions that hinge on real-world shopper behavior — especially things like store layout, shelf placement, packaging design, and point-of-sale marketing. For example, if a product is underperforming, observing shoppers in the aisle can reveal whether the item is hard to find, poorly merchandised, or losing attention to a competitor's display — insights that surveys or sales data alone might miss. These methods excel at uncovering the "why" behind shopping choices, informing decisions on everything from signage and store navigation to assortment mix and in-store promotions. In short, any decision aimed at improving the in-store customer experience or shopper journey benefits from the firsthand perspective that shop-alongs provide.

Question 5

Is probability sampling always necessary for survey-based business decisions?

Accepted Answer

Probability sampling (selecting respondents randomly from the target population) is not always necessary for business decisions, even though it provides the most statistically robust results. Many business surveys rely on non-probability samples (like online panels or customer lists) and still produce useful insights quickly and cost-effectively. Whether you need a true random sample depends on the stakes and required precision: if you're making a high-risk decision or must generalize findings to an entire market with known confidence levels, a probability sample (with its lower risk of bias) is advisable. However, for exploratory research or routine decisions where some uncertainty is acceptable, a well-structured non-probability sample often suffices. The key is understanding the trade-off: probability sampling provides stronger validity and clear margins of error, but in many practical business situations, fast and directionally correct feedback from a convenient sample is a worthwhile compromise.

Demanda Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento de Marketing

What is Demanda Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento de Marketing?

Recognition

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

Will agentic interviewing give me comparable depth to human moderation?

Does a larger clinical trial always guarantee more reliable results?

How are adaptive surveys changing the way respondents experience research?

Which decisions benefit most from shop-alongs or in-store observation?

Is probability sampling always necessary for survey-based business decisions?