IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v176y2023ics0965856423002185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Survey-based measurement of the adoption of grocery delivery services: A commentary

Author

Listed:
  • Van Hove, Leo

Abstract

This note tries to identify best practices in the use of consumer surveys as a tool to quantify the uptake of grocery delivery services. The prime motivation is an article by Wang et al. (2021), who examine how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the use of such services in the United States. I argue that Wang et al. risk underestimating both new adoption and continuance intention because they model these decisions as individual-level choices. In particular, Wang et al.’s sample likely comprises a substantial share of respondents who are not the primary grocery shopper of their household. When confronted with a survey question that inquires whether they themselves have had groceries delivered, these respondents may well answer ‘no’ – even in situations where the household did, in fact, make use of such a service. In other words, there is a danger of false negatives. I also point out that there are other recent papers which suffer from the same methodological issue, and I indicate ways to avoid it.

Suggested Citation

  • Van Hove, Leo, 2023. "Survey-based measurement of the adoption of grocery delivery services: A commentary," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:176:y:2023:i:c:s0965856423002185
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2023.103798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856423002185
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103798?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:transa:v:176:y:2023:i:c:s0965856423002185. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.