IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v31y2015i1p1-30n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Face-to-Face or Sequential Mixed-Mode Surveys Among Non-Western Minorities in the Netherlands: The Effect of Different Survey Designs on the Possibility of Nonresponse Bias

Author

Listed:
  • Kappelhof Johannes W.S.

    (The Netherlands institute for Social Research/SCP, The Hague, P.O. Box 16164, The Netherlands)

Abstract

This article compares the quality of response samples based on a single mode CAPI survey design with the quality of response samples based on a sequential mixed-mode (CAWI-CATICAPI) survey design among four non-Western minority ethnic groups in the Netherlands. The quality is assessed with respect to the representativity of the response samples and the estimated potential for nonresponse bias in survey estimates based on auxiliary variables and the response rate. This article also investigates if these designs systematically enhance response rates differently among various sociodemographic subgroups based on auxiliary variables. Also, costs and cost-related issues particular to this sequential mixed-mode design are discussed. The results show that sequential mixed mode surveys among non-Western ethnic minorities in the Netherlands lead to less representative response samples and show more potential for nonresponse bias in survey estimates. Furthermore, the designs lead to systematic differences in response rates among various sociodemographic subgroups, such as older age groups. Both designs also cause some of the same sociodemographic subgroups to be systematically underrepresented among all non-Western ethnic minority groups. Finally, the results show that in this instance the cost savings did not outweigh the reduction in quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Kappelhof Johannes W.S., 2015. "Face-to-Face or Sequential Mixed-Mode Surveys Among Non-Western Minorities in the Netherlands: The Effect of Different Survey Designs on the Possibility of Nonresponse Bias," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 31(1), pages 1-30, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:31:y:2015:i:1:p:1-30:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/jos-2015-0001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2015-0001
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jos-2015-0001?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. Barry Schouten & Jelke Bethlehem & Koen Beullens & Øyvin Kleven & Geert Loosveldt & Annemieke Luiten & Katja Rutar & Natalie Shlomo & Chris Skinner, 2012. "Evaluating, Comparing, Monitoring, and Improving Representativeness of Survey Response Through R-Indicators and Partial R-Indicators," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 80(3), pages 382-399, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Li-Chun Zhang & Ib Thomsen & Øyvin Kleven, 2013. "On the Use of Auxiliary and Paradata for Dealing With Non-sampling Errors in Household Surveys," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 81(2), pages 270-288, August.
    3. Bettina Müller & Laura Castiglioni, 2020. "Do Temporary Dropouts Improve the Composition of Panel Data? An Analysis of “Gap Interviews†in the German Family Panel pairfam," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(1), pages 193-215, February.
    4. Vandenplas Caroline & Loosveldt Geert & Beullens Koen, 2017. "Fieldwork Monitoring for the European Social Survey: An illustration with Belgium and the Czech Republic in Round 7," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 659-686, September.
    5. Ouwehand Pim & Schouten Barry, 2014. "Measuring Representativeness of Short-Term Business Statistics," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 30(4), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Kaminska Olena & Lynn Peter, 2017. "The Implications of Alternative Allocation Criteria in Adaptive Design for Panel Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 781-799, September.
    7. Paiva Thais & Reiter Jerome P., 2017. "Stop or Continue Data Collection: A Nonignorable Missing Data Approach for Continuous Variables," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 579-599, September.
    8. Barry Schouten & Natalie Shlomo, 2017. "Selecting Adaptive Survey Design Strata with Partial R-indicators," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 85(1), pages 143-163, April.
    9. Pérez-Duarte, Sébastien & Bańkowska, Katarzyna & Osiewicz, Małgorzata, 2015. "Measuring non-response bias in a cross-country enterprise survey," Statistics Paper Series 12, European Central Bank.
    10. Friedel Sabine & Birkenbach Tim, 2020. "Evolution of the Initially Recruited SHARE Panel Sample Over the First Six Waves," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 507-527, September.
    11. Silvia Biffignandi & Alessandro Zeli, 2022. "Building panels from archives: the longitudinal representativity," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 80(1), pages 121-138, April.
    12. Thais Paiva & Jerry Reiter, 2014. "Using Imputation Techniques To Evaluate Stopping Rules In Adaptive Survey Design," Working Papers 14-40, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    13. Jamie C. Moore & Peter W. F. Smith & Gabriele B. Durrant, 2018. "Correlates of record linkage and estimating risks of non‐linkage biases in business data sets," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(4), pages 1211-1230, October.

    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:vrs:offsta:v:31:y:2015:i:1:p:1-30:n:1. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.