IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v170y2007i3p647-670.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fitting disposition codes to mobile phone surveys: experiences from studies in Finland, Slovenia and the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Mario Callegaro
  • Charlotte Steeh
  • Trent D. Buskirk
  • Vasja Vehovar
  • Vesa Kuusela
  • Linda Piekarski

Abstract

Summary. Using mobile phones to conduct survey interviews has gathered momentum recently. However, using mobile telephones in surveys poses many new challenges. One important challenge involves properly classifying final case dispositions to understand response rates and non‐response error and to implement responsive survey designs. Both purposes demand accurate assessments of the outcomes of individual call attempts. By looking at actual practices across three countries, we suggest how the disposition codes of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, which have been developed for telephone surveys, can be modified to fit mobile phones. Adding an international dimension to these standard definitions will improve survey methods by making systematic comparisons across different contexts possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Mario Callegaro & Charlotte Steeh & Trent D. Buskirk & Vasja Vehovar & Vesa Kuusela & Linda Piekarski, 2007. "Fitting disposition codes to mobile phone surveys: experiences from studies in Finland, Slovenia and the USA," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 170(3), pages 647-670, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:170:y:2007:i:3:p:647-670
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2006.00461.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2006.00461.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2006.00461.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert M. Groves & Steven G. Heeringa, 2006. "Responsive design for household surveys: tools for actively controlling survey errors and costs," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(3), pages 439-457, July.
    2. Lynn, Peter & Martin, Jean & Beerten, Roeland & Laiho, Johanna, 2001. "Recommended standard final outcome categories and standard definitions of response rate for social surveys," ISER Working Paper Series 2001-23, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tomaž Kolar & Iztok Kolar, 2008. "What Respondents Really Expect From Researchers," Evaluation Review, , vol. 32(4), pages 363-391, August.
    2. Lynn, Peter & Kaminska, Olena, 2011. "The impact of mobile phones on survey measurement error," ISER Working Paper Series 2011-07, Institute for Social and Economic Research.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. G. Blom, Annelies, 2008. "Measuring nonresponse cross-nationally," ISER Working Paper Series 2008-41, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    2. Lynn, Peter & Jäckle, Annette & G. Blom, Annelies, 2008. "Understanding cross-national differences in unit non-response: the role of contact data," ISER Working Paper Series 2008-01, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    3. Early Kirstin & Mankoff Jennifer & Fienberg Stephen E., 2017. "Dynamic Question Ordering in Online Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 625-657, September.
    4. Chun Asaph Young & Schouten Barry & Wagner James, 2017. "JOS Special Issue on Responsive and Adaptive Survey Design: Looking Back to See Forward – Editorial: In Memory of Professor Stephen E. Fienberg, 1942–2016," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 571-577, September.
    5. Reza C. Daniels, 2012. "A Framework for Investigating Micro Data Quality, with Application to South African Labour Market Household Surveys," SALDRU Working Papers 90, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
    6. Reist, Benjamin M. & Rodhouse, Joseph B. & Ball, Shane T. & Young, Linda J., 2019. "Subsampling of Nonrespondents in the 2017 Census of Agriculture," NASS Research Reports 322826, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    7. Lewis Taylor, 2017. "Univariate Tests for Phase Capacity: Tools for Identifying When to Modify a Survey’s Data Collection Protocol," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 601-624, September.
    8. Jiayun Jin & Caroline Vandenplas & Geert Loosveldt, 2019. "The Evaluation of Statistical Process Control Methods to Monitor Interview Duration During Survey Data Collection," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, June.
    9. Andy Peytchev, 2013. "Consequences of Survey Nonresponse," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 88-111, January.
    10. Roger Tourangeau & J. Michael Brick & Sharon Lohr & Jane Li, 2017. "Adaptive and responsive survey designs: a review and assessment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(1), pages 203-223, January.
    11. repec:iab:iabfda:201307(en is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Roberts Caroline & Herzing Jessica M.E. & Vandenplas Caroline, 2020. "A Validation of R-Indicators as a Measure of the Risk of Bias using Data from a Nonresponse Follow-Up Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 675-701, September.
    13. Böhme, Marcus & Stöhr, Tobias, 2012. "Guidelines for the use of household interview duration analysis in CAPI survey management," Kiel Working Papers 1779, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    14. Tineke Fokkema & Andrej Kveder & Nicole Hiekel & Tom Emery & Aart C. Liefbroer, 2016. "Generations and Gender Programme Wave 1 data collection," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 34(18), pages 499-524.
    15. Durrant Gabriele B. & Maslovskaya Olga & Smith Peter W. F., 2017. "Using Prior Wave Information and Paradata: Can They Help to Predict Response Outcomes and Call Sequence Length in a Longitudinal Study?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 801-833, September.
    16. Raphael Nishimura & James Wagner & Michael Elliott, 2016. "Alternative Indicators for the Risk of Non-response Bias: A Simulation Study," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 84(1), pages 43-62, April.
    17. Holly Matulewicz & Eric Grau & Arif Mamun & Gina Livermore, "undated". "Promoting Readiness of Minors in Supplemental Security Income (PROMISE): PROMISE 60-Month Sampling and Survey Plan," Mathematica Policy Research Reports be402161c12e402392af9182e, Mathematica Policy Research.
    18. Sofie Marien & Marc Hooghe & Ellen Quintelier, 2010. "Inequalities in Non‐institutionalised Forms of Political Participation: A Multi‐level Analysis of 25 countries," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(1), pages 187-213, February.
    19. Lipps Oliver & Voorpostel Marieke, 2020. "Can Interviewer Evaluations Predict Short-Term and Long-Term Participation in Telephone Panels?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(1), pages 117-136, March.
    20. Willems, Jurgen, 2015. "Individual perceptions on the participant and societal functionality of non-formal education for youth: Explaining differences across countries based on the human development index," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 11-20.
    21. van Berkel Kees & van der Doef Suzanne & Schouten Barry, 2020. "Implementing Adaptive Survey Design With an Application to the Dutch Health Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 609-629, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:170:y:2007:i:3:p:647-670. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.